A New Foundation of Physics

Page 7 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yevaud

Guest
Son of a gun. Sorry, wrong link-to-post - that was intended for Zen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
volantis, <br />in your white paper under quantification of matter, what do you mean the mass of the subatomic particle is not seperable from its angular momentum? i'm so freakin confused.<br /><br />angular momentum is a verification of velocity x's mass. its the trajectory and its force.<br /><br />how do we assume angular momentum with only mass. mass can have a rest state of zero velocity and thus zero angular momentum and tell us nothing of its properties. i'm so lost. <br /><br />i hope this doesn't come across as ridicule or anything of the like, but just trying to grasp your model- how does changing matter, mass, to dimension change our perception of the known universe we observe and our QM models we theorize? how does the dark matter help unify a complete field theory? just trying to get a more complete picture.<br /><br />i understand it in as much as quantifying the origins of matter, but does it rely on a multi-dimensional universe to do this? In order to achieve a constant?<br /><br />right now every leading theory is unable to produce that constant, that our physical universe certainly has attributed to it. Einstein may have fluctuated his GR theory because it was elusive, but he knew it had to exist. so the math may have been wrong but principal was right. without it we have nothing to keep a balance in the universe and everything would collapse due to either to little energy in the form of mass, or too much.<br /><br />some would speculate that the universe is indeed unbalanced and geometrically unstable and nonuniform. <br /><br />who knows. it just seems that there is a process at work that is uniform throughout the universe. That there are constants at work, quantifiable, well repeated and consistent throughout the universe as a whole. that there is a balance.<br /><br />i guess that is the reason we are here, discussing this.<br />but i hope the last bit of tandem doesn't muddle the questions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

volantis

Guest
Hi Nova,<br /><br />I've been away from the forum. I thought the topic had died.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>in your white paper under quantification of matter, what do you mean the mass of the subatomic particle is not seperable from its angular momentum? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Mass within visible matter is inseparable from angular momentum. As the APM shows, stable subatomic particles exist as a string of mass moving a velocity within a quantum Aether unit. There is no way to reach into a quantum of matter and separate the mass from the length and frequency dimensions. In other words, matter (primary angular momentum) comes as a package and mass is just one part of that package.<br /><br />We are used to thinking that there is some kind of substance called mass. But then we are told that mass is a measure of matter. Well, which is it? Is mass a substance or a measurment? It can't be both.<br /><br />What the APM does is clearly define mass as a dimension. It also clearly defines matter as primary angular momentum, which is composed of mass, surface, and frequency. Further, the primary angular momentum can only exist as visible matter (contain charge) if it is encapsulated in a quantum Aether unit.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>angular momentum is a verification of velocity x's mass. its the trajectory and its force. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You are discussing two-body angular momentum. I am discussing a new concept, which I call primary angular momentum. The evidence for the existence of primary angular momentum is the Planck constant, which is, in fact, the quantum angular momentum of the electron. According to Max Planck, it is the quantum of action. The only particle the quantum of action, derived as h (Planck's constant), could refer to is the electron. And as shown in the paper, the mass of the electron factors perfectly from Planck's constant after the quantum length and quantu
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
<font color="yellow">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)... <br /></font><br /><br />NASA is affiliated with the military, has been literally the militray, and has been since it's inception. in essence, it is an extension of the military. this is absolute fact. subcontracting under the auspices of the military does not make NASA any less militarily motivated. your attempt to discredit jatslo is a debate technique that is hollow and erroneous. the calm, cool, and collected nice buddy tone you assume is absolutely a passive aggressive front that is very transparent.<br />
 
J

jatslo

Guest
Saiph, formally known as ricimer says: "... <font color="gold">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.</font> ..."<br /><br /> What are you going on about, Saiph? Stating that "Mainstream Science" is real in your world is the same as me stating that "Fire Breathing Dragons" fly over my house every day. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />No definitions were found for Mainstream Science.<br /><br />Suggestions:<br />- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.<br />- Search the Web for documents that contain "Mainstream Science"<br /><br />"... <font color="gold">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?</font> ..."<br /><br />Well, if you are going to keep pretending that there is such a thing as "Mainstream Science", then you better get your *Debating* shoes on, because I am not going to stand idle and let you preach the gospel as a SDC minion so often does. Exiling people to the dreaded *PHENOMENA* thread is not going to win you any rewards, that is for sure.<br /><br />"... <font color="gold">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.</font> ..."<br /><br />Oh, really? I am not necessarily a great debater like TheShadow, but I have a high degree of confidence that I can make you look pretty gosh darn silly, if you continue down this path. The *fringe* crowd? What are you going on about? There is a diverse population of people in the world, far more than you can assemble for your cause, and each and every single one of them have just as much
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
the only thing i really know about angular momentum, planck's constant is the photoelectric effect where a photon knocks an electron off an atom, or is the energy required to do such, due to its proportion of energy to frequency and vibration. However, the only thing i know for sure is this process is a transference of energy from one system to another, the atom has to have this equivocal transference to preserve vector quantity (as yevaud pointed out). again, conservation of energy at work at planck's length. <br /><br />the atom can then use this energy to attract another electron, and in turn give off smaller particles or gamma radiation depending on the amount of transference. and the whole process happens so fast in dense systems like stars. which is not to be confused with fusion. ha ha, now my brain has melted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
whoops, forgot to add this. i see where you are attributing this supposed absorbtion of the photon to dark matter in attempts to explain its wave/particle duality. i think.<br /><br />however, in many simulations, if an atom is stripped of too many electrons, the which can become free electrons that... wait for it, wait for it...store a great quantity of energy due to the conservation of energy (because the atom cannot maintain it, the atom gives the energy to the electron- it becomes bound with the energy), but stripped of too many and we get chemical reactions and beta decay (radioactivity as the atom goes to a lower state giving off radiation until it finds its equilibrium.) <br /><br />on the other side, the free electron will just gain momentum/velocity by bouncing off other atoms, using their angular momentum by means of the vector quantity, given by the equation L=mvr. this only happens in dense systems like stars, which is theorized why the heavier elements can maintain themselves and not rapidly decay, giving the wonderful means by which the inner forces by means of QED can repel gravity and pressure and balance the neutron star- the black hole. but again, as i posted the data on the neutron star shows, this is only a theory. for all intents and purposes, Iron elements may be the higest atomic weight maintainable without decay (instability).<br /><br />okay i'm done. <br /><br />but point being, until we know the wave/particle story better its hard to say where dark matter would begin and where it would end, if it exists. because so far, all this energy remains balanced and the conservation of energy in tact without the need of dark matter.<br /><br />i thought dark matter only applied to the question of the forces on great scales between galaxies, their 'supposed' velocities, and the idea that the present physical matter of the universe doesn't account for the balance. <br /><br />(note on angular momentum vector using L= mvr; m= mass, v=velocity, r= radius <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
Bonze: I brought up the nasa discussion only to illuminate some of the issues people see in such discussions, not to hash it out here.<br /><br />If you wish to debate it with me, feel free, but in another thread.<br /><br /><br />Jatslo: What did I do to tick you off? The use of the word mainstream? I used it, because that's what I, and others, who are labeled "skeptics" in this thread, are often reffered to as.<br /><br />For what I consider mainstream: Classical mechanics and E&M (i.e. consequences of maxwells equations), quantum mechanics, relativity and other theories as they are taught to university level science majors and graduate students.<br /><br />Mainstream science is the collection of model accepted by the majority of the scientific population (note: Those models are not necessarily correct, but most are highly effective).<br /><br />You seem to think I'm trying to silence people around here who have opinions different than mine. That is <i>not</i> the case. I've asked only that people take it to the correct area (usually to a new and seperate thread). When I participate I do insist people address the issues at hand, and not use logical fallacies (or try to point them out as part of my side of the issue).<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> every single one of them have just as much a right to post in these threads as do you.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>...and where do you see me trying to deny people the ability to post here? which, btw, is a privelege, as this is a privately run forum, but thats a technicality. I understand, and agree, with your point that people with differing viewpoints belong here just as much as I do.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />One of which you referred to as propaganda, so what is to say about the other 20-million links on the subject matter that refer to NASA as a military entity, are they all propaganda, as well? I think not! NASA is the medium between black</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
<i>Mass within visible matter is inseparable from angular momentum. As the APM shows, stable subatomic particles exist as a string of mass moving a velocity within a quantum Aether unit. There is no way to reach into a quantum of matter and separate the mass from the length and frequency dimensions.</i><br /><br />i agree. but what is the definition of a quantum aether unit. frequency and length (if by this u mean velocity) are attributes of mass.<br /><br />but careful, mass being defined as a dimension is tricky. Particles have zero point dimensions. also known as 'point particles.' does APM define surface of these, or are they different altogether?<br /><br />what does it mean when, <i>the mass of the electron factors perfectly from Planck's constant after the quantum length and quantum frequency are factored out.</i><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Bonze: I brought up the nasa discussion only to illuminate some of the issues people see in such discussions, not to hash it out here. <br /><br />If you wish to debate it with me, feel free, but in another thread. <br /></font><br /><br />right <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />.
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
i'll give it the benefit of the doubt and look forward to reading a complete theory somewhere in the future.<br /><br />but if you want to get an idea of how QM models incorporate geometry of point particles, charges, spins, and the forces, Graham Green's "String Theory", is a great book. He presents it as only a theory but there is some remarkable discoveries that have taken place because of the work done on it. And of course those discoveries lead to even more questions.<br /><br />for my part, its hard to get an idea of what aether is, what space is, because we don't even know what we are looking for to begin with. <br /><br />redshift, localized graviational fields, clusters, C, dark matter- we don't know what we are looking for, we don't know the question. Ipso facto- if space has properties, even wrapped up in multi-dimensional space, and the universe is the way it is...what's the question? <br /><br />should the universe be behaving differently? Are we wrong in the proponent of redshift? If we are wrong does it mean space is expanding and the galaxies are not moving according to newtonian and einsteinian (not sure if thats a word, heard it used though) physics? if space has properties, does it change anything in our models? Does it unify the forces? No. Unfortunately, it doesn't. there's still no unified theory, and there should be. otherwise QM could, in no way, give rise to a stable physical universe.<br />so we still don't know the question. <br /><br />the standard model explains the physical universe. QED explains the subatomic one. The bridge between is the problem. if you give the graviational force to the subatomic level as particles, well thats one way. if you give it to space and give space properties, thats another. so is the question, what is gravity? is it, what is space?<br /><br /> were looking for answers, but instead we keep finding more questions. <br /><br />they are so close to finding it. so so close.<br /><br />i'm sure you're tire <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

volantis

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>what is the definition of a quantum aether unit<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The quantum Aether unit is a quantum rotating magnetic field. The quantum Aether is exactly equal to Coulomb's constant times 16pi^2. <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> frequency and length (if by this u mean velocity) are attributes of mass<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Did you mean to say length and frequency are attributes of *matter*? Mass and matter are not the same thing.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Particles have zero point dimensions. also known as 'point particles.' <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Point particles are a phenomenon of mathematics, not observed reality. Particles are assumed to be point particles, otherwise the math wouldn't work. That is hardly an observation of matter, it is a guess based upon a theory.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>what does it mean when, the mass of the electron factors perfectly from Planck's constant after the quantum length and quantum frequency are factored out. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />h = m.e * w.C^2 * F.q<br /><br />or <br /><br />h = m.e * w.C * c<br /><br />where h is Planck's constant, m.e is the mass of the electron, w.C is the Compton wavelength, c is the speed of light, and F.q is c/w.C.
 
S

Saiph

Guest
frequency and length are properties of mass, under the "de Broglie wavelength" equations. Mass is a property of matter (but you're right, they're aren't technically the same thing).<br /><br />Electrons could be point particles. No experiment has been able to discern a radius for them. All they have achieved is a maximum possible radius. I.e. they detected no radius for the electron, to a certain accuracy. IF there is a radius, it's smaller than that. Electron electric fields also IIRC behave exactly like point sources from all current measuremetns (unlike protons, which deviate slightly, indicating an actual radius).<br /><br />If you're quantum aether unit is only culombs constant (that being epsilon?) times 16*pi^2....it isn't anything else other than a proportionality constant for electric forces, scaled to a different unit system.<br /><br />It has the same overall units (since 16*pi^2 is unitless) and so is the same thing. It's like saying 1 meter is 100 cm or 3.28 feet. It's still distance, it won't tell me anything else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
what is the signficance of the factor? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
Ummm... space?<br /><br />What do <b>you</b> have to do with space.com?
 
D

detriech69

Guest
same thing everyone here does? Quest for knowledge, I suppose. Bouncing ideas off of open-minded individuals and sorting through other people's attitudes.<br />People sure get defensive when you pick on a strong belief of their's, don't they? Physics, religion, politics all equally debateable subjects.....
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
The velocity necessary to escape a neutron stars gravity is 1/2 that of the speed of light. It's rotational spin can be from 30secs to 6/100 of a second (Tying in with the inability to seperate mass from frequency and velocity.)<br /><br />This lead to the theory of the black hole. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole<br /><br />But still, using GR and QM, we aren't dealing with infinite structure in mass. Point being, it doesn't bode well for the need of space having properties to define the physical universe. Space gets its properties in theories <i>because</i> of intense gravitational forces. Whereas an aether suggests a 'soup' of energy or the like sitting within the fabric of space. This causes problems explaining black holes. Because they are jettisoning matter equivalent to their mass, again, a balance in nature is occuring.<br /><br />To me an aether, or space itself having properties requires an interaction at intense points in the universe like a black hole or super massive black hole, because space itself is being turned back on itself. so...we get tears in the fabric of space-time, we get parallel universes, again, all in theory, and we have an infinite system, trying to balance energy and mass. Thats tough. Thats really tough. and most likely unexplainable.<br /><br />So i tend to stick to classical theory or the Standard Model until we better understand space. <br /><br />here is a picture of such an emission:<br />"The jet emitted by the galaxy M87 in this image is thought to be caused by a supermassive black hole at the galaxy's centre" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
well this debate has lead me to rekindle a need to familiarize myself with QM again. I'm glad for it. I'm really enjoying it. Have i mentioned how great wikipedia.com is...? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />What a great site. Now i need to see about Graham Greene's newest book about the universe at large. I've been putting that off because of its size, but I think i'm ready to sit up for a good read. <br /><br />well, if we continue on this thread, or in others, i hope it is for the same goal, a need to learn about our universe. i look forward to it. especially in threads similar to these.<br /><br />alright, i'm done.<br /><br />cool picture though, huh? Actual image captured by hubble telescope. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
i think i first heard about superfluid models around the time string theory was gaining popularity. Certainly ties in with the inner core of a neutron star, and possibly every other star's inner core. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
whats with this anti-wikipedia thing in your link???<br /><br />wikipedia, corrupt? what?? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts