A New Foundation of Physics

volantis · Feb 20, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Science doesn't understand the inner most working of stars and QM, as yet can't explain it. These elements, under such extreme pressure produce their own Electrostatic fields that act as a repeller to the massive graviational forces trying to crush them. This is all fine fine for ordinary stars, pretty understood, then we move to neutron stars, and that QED isn't able, in the models, to withstand that gravitational pressure, and should by all intents collapse under its own weight. ...if you can give that answer, you will sell me on this model. please throw all the math you can at me, or links to such. and i would be sold. <hr /></blockquote> This is a worthy challenge and one that I would like to take on. But I am not an astrophysicist, nor do I have access to good quality neutron star data. If you could get me known quantities of various neutron stars I will see what I can do. Data such as mass, polar rotation rate, polar rotation offset rate or angle, magnetic field strength, radio frequencies, and diameter for several stars would be helpful. I have Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's, "Gravitation" to give me ideas on present thinking about neutron star mechanics. My initial thoughts are that the strong force law for the neutron, or a variant of it, could be used to determine the threshold at which the gravitational force of the star rips apart the force holding the Aether fabric together. I suspect that a massive object could rip the surrounding Aether away from the rest of the fabric of space-time, resulting in a collapse that spills all the angular momentum of the dense visible matter back into the sea of dark matter. The surrounding Aether would quickly knit itself back together resulting in an Aether shock wave (gravitational and magnetic waves) that ripples throughout the fabric of space-time. According to this hypothesis, a black hole is an implosion event that lasts for a rel

unlearningthemistakes · Feb 20, 2006

What does this discussion have to do with space.com ah, I see. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> pain is inevitablesuffering is optional </div>

kmarinas86 · Feb 20, 2006

I present to you the Amazing! Volantis!

ag30476 · Feb 20, 2006

Now that's funny!

nova_explored · Feb 21, 2006

Fusion - Physics of a Fundamental Energy Source How Fusion Reactions Work THE NUCLEAR PHYSICS OF FUSION Fusion of light (low-mass) elements releases energy, as does fission of heavy (high-mass) elements. Binding Energy per Nucleon as a Function of Nuclear Mass Full binding energy figure not loaded. Discussion: The relation E = mc2 states the equivalence of mass and energy. In a fusion reaction, some reactant mass energy is converted to kinetic energy of the products. Binding energy is the energy equivalent of the mass difference between a whole nucleus and its individual constituent protons and neutrons. For energy release in fusion or fission, the products need to have a higher binding energy per nucleon (proton or neutron) than the reactants. As the graph above shows, fusion only releases energy for light elements and fission only releases energy for heavy elements. The actual fusion reaction occurs when two nuclei approach within about 1.0E-15 m, so that the attraction, via the residual strong interaction between the nuclei, overcomes the electrical repulsion between the protons. Such close encounters only occur when nuclei collide with sufficient kinetic energy. Only at high temperatures do enough energetic particles exist for there to be many fusion reactions. Binding Energies (Low-Mass Elements Only) Light element binding energy figure not loaded. Reaction Energy Ef = k*(mi-mf)*c2 This equation follows from Einstein's E = m*c2. The change in energy Ef of the system is proportional to the mass difference (mi-mf) between the reactants and the products. In the equation above, * Ef = Energy per reaction * mi = total initial (reactant) mass * mf = total final (product) mass * The conversion factor k equals 1 in SI units, or 931.466 MeV/c2 in "natural units" where E is in MeV and m is in atomic mass units, u. Useful Nuclear Masses (The <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Feb 21, 2006

notice the change in energy of the system *ef*. its equivalent. the energy release is a shared value between mass of individual particles. the subsequent by-product of this release equals the binding energy of the new element formed. plugging the information into the equations you see that the only difference is the type of energy, one is bound, the other is free to utilize in a purer form.the plus side is, we seemingly get more of this output energy, unfortunately it is mostly of the destructive kind. the common isotope of helium (an alpha particle) - deuterium and tritium, yields helium (he4) and a free neutron (like you are talking about) and the payback energy wise is 450:1. pretty good. the neutron carrying 4/5ths of the energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Feb 21, 2006

This reaction liberates an amount of energy more than a million times greater than one gets from a typical chemical reaction. Such a large amount of energy is released in fusion reactions because when two light nuclei fuse, the sum of the masses of the product nuclei is less than the sum of the masses of the initial fusing nuclei. Once again, Einstein's equation, E=mc2, explains that the mass that is lost it converted into energy carried away by the fusion products. --from the ABC's of Nuclear Science http://www.lbl.gov/abc/index.html these are basic websites without much math, but in order to keep things practical here for everyone to understand, it is a good stepping stone with concrete answers based on scientific observation. plus, they are legitimate and connected to those who study in the field. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Feb 21, 2006

Introduction to neutron stars M. Coleman Miller Associate Professor of Astronomy, University of Maryland Welcome to my neutron star page! I need to emphasize that the stuff I have here represents my opinions, and errors aren't the fault of those patient pedagogues who tried to cram this information into my head. I'll try to indicate when there is a dispute in the community, but I won't always be successful, so don't use only this page to study for your candidacy exams! For those with serious interest in neutron stars and other compact objects, an excellent reference is "Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars", by Stuart Shapiro and Saul Teukolsky (1983, John Wiley and Sons). For those who want a quick intro to selected cool things about neutron stars and black holes, check out a poster I made for a science fair at the University of Chicago. If you'd like more detail about quasi-periodic oscillations in particular, I wrote a pedagogical review based on my summer school lectures in Dubna, Russia, in August 2004. Here are the Postscript and PDF documents. Here are the topics in this page: * The basics * Neutron star formation * Neutron star internal structure * Neutron star thermal and spin evolution * Isolated neutron stars (including pulsars) * Accreting neutron stars (e.g., X-ray bursters) * Classical gamma-ray bursts * Soft gamma-ray repeaters Getting started on neutron stars Neutron stars are the collapsed cores of some massive stars. They pack roughly the mass of our Sun into a region the size of a city. Here's a comparison with Chicago: At these incredibly high densities, you could cram all of humanity into a volume the size of a sugar cube. Naturally, the people thus crammed wouldn't survive in their current form, and neither does the matter that forms the neutron star. This matter, which starts out in the origina <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Feb 21, 2006

nova: just a note on posting references: 1) Citing is a must...which you did, no harm there. 2) You shouldn't post the whole work. 3) You can post small relevant quotes (a paragraph here and there) and refer people to the link for the full text. Why is #2 important? So the author gets acknowledged for the full work by the readers going to that address. Sorta like making people buy the journal or magazine an article is in, instead of posting the whole thing online which, even if properly cited, is in breach of copyright. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nova_explored · Feb 21, 2006

saiph, absolutely, forgot about that, thanks. should it be removed? p.s. i couldn't post the graphs, but the websites listed link you to them, volantis. How do I do that anyway? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Feb 22, 2006

Just go back and edit it. Keep a few of the relevant paragraphs like the intro, and maybe one that begins the math about a neutron star. Then, just delete the rest, and leave a link up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nova_explored · Feb 22, 2006

thanks saiph. volantis, i can supply more links to detailed models of neutron stars if you like. but haven't heard from you, so wondering if you are still here. Too bad, you could benefit from it. i don't know what you are getting from research of wheeler and maxwell, among others, but their theories should include the conservation of energy- which is exactly why the neutrino was postualted in the first place in 1930 by W.Pauli (coincidentally, the only man to understand, and write out, mathematically, both einstein's GR and SR). A pheonamenal paper i actually own, understanding though, is another thing entirely... anyway, the neutrino was postulated as the remaining energy source given off in fusion. Up to then there was only the electron and subsequent gamma radiation, and it left a great deal of energy unaccounted for. The community was going up in arms, the whole standard model of physics as we know it was being threatened. I think, volantis, this is where you were saying our model was in the same state today. and that isn't true. The neutrino actually solved it, restoring the law of the conservation of energy- which states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but change forms, and remain equivocal throughout the process. Our physical universe is in balance. (QM models don't afford the same comfort). If it weren't in balance, then most assuredly we would not be here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

drwayne · Feb 22, 2006

The neutrino was also needed to conserve the vector quantity of momentum. The first neutrino detection was actually done near a nuclear reactor - fission also produces neutrinos, or in this case anti-neutrinos, if my sick mind isn't more senile than usual this morning. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

detriech69 · Feb 22, 2006

Does a skeptic for these forums get compensated by defending accepted physics at all costs? It seems that every time a new idea is put forth, the skeptics circle around the poor ,defensless person and attack and pick apart anything not accepted by the "church of 'accepted' scientific thought". I've read a lot of fringe physics stuff, some of it by Millenium Twain, aka yoni BlueStar. This person (or persons) has at least 12 yahoo groups related to spirituality, doomsday predictions, and physics. His/her models of the proton, neutron and electron are intiguing, but since I'm not a scientist, I wouldn't know what is right or wrong if it bit me in the butt. But dark matter being all pervasive and uniform according to yesterday's Milky Way vs. Andromeda weigh-in article raises doubts in my mind that dark matter is not matter at all, but the very aether science concluded (not unanimously) did not exist. Why would it behave like a uniform soup with identical density everywhere it's "influence " is detected if it weren't a natural medium all energy flow goes through? Assumptions upon assumptions. That is what a lot of our science beliefs are built upon. Quit acting like it's a religion and someone has said your "god" doesn't exist! Explain simply to all of us exactly how and why Gravity works if you have it all figured out, please. Noone has yet done that to everyone's satisfaction and it seems to be a major force in our universe! So please step down from your "high horse" and let some folks with imagination and open minds have their fun. Phenomenon are unexplained. So is much of the underpinnings of our cosmos. If this weren't a forum with free expression of ideas and opinions, you might call it the Nazi Protectors of Physics message board or some other site folks go to to get brow beaten for the fun of it. Please drive through......

telfrow · Feb 22, 2006

you might call it the Nazi Protectors of Physics There's no need for that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

yevaud · Feb 22, 2006

Past history, for starters. There are some at SDC who frequently and repeatedly invade, hijack and otherwise try to divert specific science threads. This is why phenomena exists - as a place where something way out of the mainstream can be hashed out. On occasion, some of us *do* debate those people, and that's another part of the past history. Call it half trying to debate them and half trying to show them where they went wrong. Far be it to blame us if they won't accept the fact, or for us trying in the first place. The second and more important is that this is a science message board. Not a Scientology board, not a BEM board, not a political board. Science. And we get more than a few people who come here to find about about real science, not the wacky idea du jour. Now what kind of service would we be doing if we just accepted that every other person coming here to learn science is instead confronted by someone who begins with the "NASA is a big conspiracy / all of science is wrong" stuff? Think they'd be learning anything? Or just being converted into yet another science conspiracy theorist? And for what it's worth, where is the "skeptic" aspect of this? We're the ones who try to inform them what established science says about something. If that's vehemently not accepted by them, why is it suddenly *our* fault? After all, *they're* the ones who came to a real science board to postulate nonsense (in many cases it is exactly that). That's all, really. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

ag30476 · Feb 22, 2006

> Does a skeptic for these forums get compensated by /> defending accepted physics at all costs? I wish! /> So please step down from your "high horse" and let /> some folks with imagination and open minds have /> their fun. Debunking is fun too. /> If this weren't a forum with free expression of ideas /> and opinions, you might call it the Nazi Protectors of /> Physics message board or some other site folks go to /> to get brow beaten for the fun of it. Precisely, it's a free forum - which means rationality, truth, and the Amercian way have to be defended. If you want to post wackiness and and not be mocked or attacked, then post in a Nazi Forum or Wacky Ideas and by that I mean a moderate forum where the ideas you want to discuss are discussed ad naseum and skeptics are banned or at least kept to a limited area in the forum - there are such you know.

nova_explored · Feb 22, 2006

i don't think, in this case, its a matter of debunking a theory. But more, as yevaud said, pointing out the glaring mistakes so others are not lead astray. in this case with the aether model, you have misguided information being presented. it says nothing on the beliefs of the model itself, just the bias behind it. if that makes sense. i'm intrigued by it, or any other new theory, but like it was said, this is a science forum, so you have to be prepared to back your presentations. For me, that fosters a healthy community, and you can only come away better off in the end. but personal attacks are unfortunate. even though they existed on both sides in this thread. i guess this thread is dead too. to bad. aether is a very real theory, good for exploration. i hate how it usually comes down to an all or nothing scenario as well, because i'm no expert either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Feb 22, 2006

The neutrino was also needed to conserve the vector quantity of momentum. i just saw a documentary on the neutrino, ironically, which talked about its origins. strange how it coincided with this thread. physicists needed it to have mass otherwise there would be pandomonium in the community. luckily they discovered it otherwise the three forms of the neutrino couldn't carry energy and attract other particles in order to change form- traveling at light speed (massless) it has no internal clock, no internal clock, no sense of change can occur, which is why the photon goes unchecked under any and all conditions. at C, there is no passage of time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Feb 22, 2006

deitrich: Another way of looking at it: People with "fringe" science (I'm not trying to be derogatory, so please, don't take offense, anyone) are welcome to come and present their ideas. In doing so they are opposing the viewpoints of "mainstream" science. They're trying to tell mainstreamers where they went wrong. Are we to just roll over and say nothing? Or should we debate the issue, discuss it, bring out the evidence, explain the reasoning, and try to come to a conclusion? The biggest complaint agianst the "fringe" crowd usually revolves around poor debating skills. The fringe group tends to bring up logical fallacies, and selective evidence to support their ideas. For instance, jatslo posted 10 links to articles he searched for saying nasa is a military entity. Only one of those actually confirmed that, the rest were either articles where nasa was contracting with the military (which is seperate from being military) or was just listed on the same page (company did projects for both, teenager hacks military and nasa computers)... Or in the Electric Sun theories, they claim (or have claimed) the sun has a 10 billion volt surface potential...but refused to acknowledge the consequences (relativistic solar winds for instance). Or they claim that sunspots are holes in the sun (which is discredited by observation, there's gas there, just as dense, but cooler than the surrounding regions). It's when one side refuses to accept, or even address such contrary evidence (quite often it's ignored), or when they apply logical fallacies during the debate, that the major complaints arise. I've chatted about many fringe topics with people, to better understand their ideas, and help them understand why mainstream groups don't think it's correct. As for the vague nature of dark matter (and other cutting edge physics) part of the problem is we don't have an answer. Some people propose a unifo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

zenonmars · Feb 22, 2006

Hi, all. detriech69 wrote: "Does a skeptic for these forums get compensated by defending accepted physics at all costs? It seems that every time a new idea is put forth, the skeptics circle around the poor ,defensless person and attack and pick apart anything not accepted by the "church of 'accepted' scientific thought". Interesting that you used the word "church". The zeal with which the skeptics flock to these "fringe" topics always amazes me, especially considering how much they appear to hate such material. First they mock and belittle, then side-step the issues with red-herrings. Finally they demand that the thread get moved from SpaceScience to Phenomenon. Good enough for them? Nope. They then say things like (ag30476)"If you want to post wackiness and and not be mocked or attacked, then post in a Nazi Forum or Wacky Ideas and by that I mean a moderate forum where the ideas you want to discuss are discussed ad naseum and skeptics are banned or at least kept to a limited area in the forum - there are such you know." Lolol...really, ag? Such a place exists on SDC? Point me the way! Hehehe.....where "skeptics are banned"? Nope, You can call em "skeptics". I prefer to call em "professional disinformation artists". They stand poised to deter any casual readers (most SDC members, btw) from ever even considering the possibility of the fringe ideas that threaten to upset the apple cart of "accepted scientific thought". Perhaps the phrase "get compensated" isn't as wacky as it sounds. Yevaud said: "There are some at SDC who frequently and repeatedly invade, hijack and otherwise try to divert specific science threads." Yep. So why did you all "invade" colesakick's thread, Yevaud? "This is why phenomena exists - as a place where something way out of the mainstream can be hashed out. On occasion,"... ( <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

zenonmars · Feb 22, 2006

A gift for you all: <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> http://www.aetherometry.com/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

ag30476 · Feb 22, 2006

> Lolol...really, ag? Such a place exists on SDC? Point /> me the way! Hehehe.....where "skeptics are /> banned"? On SDC? No. On the Internet? Yes. That was clear from what I said. /> Really, Yevaud? Which half does this line fall into? /> (ag30476) "Very true! Recent studies show /> Americans are getting fatter along with the Earth and /> the stars. Proof positive of the BLATHER Physics /> Model." It falls into the "it amuses ag30476" to say so side of the line. But you are you saying that my humorous (or not) interjection is a breach of etiquette here at SDC? Oh my goodness...I apologize profusely. I should have said: "The original post was a bunch of crap from a crank and that anyone who even considers it seriously for more than a few seconds is gullible, stupid, ignorant or just plain crazy." There, was that better?

nova_explored · Feb 22, 2006

now that's a good link. thanks zen. cool. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Feb 22, 2006

No, actually I enjoyed it. You do have some verbal accuity. Am I forbidden to post in threads? In Phenomena? What a concept. Listen, I had not participated in a single thread of Colesakick, until she suddenly began to appear in various threads of the science fora, and posting what was strictly Phenomena topics. Worse, whe knew she was doing it, as she even began a thread in ATA, and began it by stating that she knew she shouldn't be doing it, and that the topic began in Phenomena. So there is a problem in my entering "her" territory in return, and engaging her? Ah. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

A New Foundation of Physics

volantis

Guest

unlearningthemistakes

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

ag30476

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

drwayne

Guest

detriech69

Guest

telfrow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

ag30476

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

Saiph

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

ag30476

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page