Energy and Speed of Light

[search]

Hum I am still waiting for your answers regarding which theory you support but having in consideration the reviews about your shaver/trimmer I am a bit concerned...<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Pros: Lightweight. Stylish. Inexpensive.<br />Cons: Noisy. Challenge to use attachments.<br /><br />Pros: Two gaurds for different trimming lengths, decent battery life, good price<br />Cons: Poor storage, no replacement parts, poor performing razor<br /><br />Pros: CHEAP, works well, small, easy to use<br />Cons: long charge time, tends to get bogged down<br /><br />Pros: Narrows the job down by trimming. Sort of.<br />Cons: It broke after 3 uses and leaves hairs ragged and uneven.<br /><br />Pros: Inexpensive<br />Cons: Cheap Construction<br /><br />Pros: nose trimmer works well<br />Cons: awkward to use, poor cutting power, poor adjustments, fell apart and died<br /><br />Pros: Cheap<br />Cons: Doesn't work<br /><br />Pros: small, lightweight, and inexpensive<br />Cons: durability factor<br /><br />Pros: Cheap, works quite well.<br />Cons: Storage base is worthless, not good instructions.<br /><br />Pros: small, works well, inexpensive<br />Cons: little attachments that will get lost<br /><br />Pros: Fairly inexpensive<br />Cons: Not very sophisticated<br /><br />Pros: Inexpensive, 8 length settings, nose/ear hair trimmer, cordless<br />Cons: Snags hairs frequently, breaks easily when changing guards and trimmers<br /><br />Pros: Able to travel with ease<br />Cons: Needs to charged overnight<br /><br />Pros: Works well and does just about everything.<br />Cons: The plastic "hair length" guides break very quickly and easily.<br /><br />Pros: Eight cutting heights with two attachments, nose trimmer<br />Cons: low power<br /><br />Pros: Works well<br />Cons: Plastic trim guides are flimsy and break. No place to get replacements.<br /><br />Pros: Has a lot of attachments<br />Cons: Is a piece of garbage<br /><br />Pros: price is nice, small and compact, good company to work with if there are problems<br />Cons: p

 

[bonzelite]

^^^LOL!! that's funny as hell!<br /><br />the particle is the electron, btw. that's it. protons and neutrons are composed of the basic particle. only one. not 15 or 30. <br /><br />i shaved it down with my Remington. <br /><br />

 

[search]

And which theory is that?<br /><br />Glad to see that you have sense of humour...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

sure anytime <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />i've stopped taking space science & astronomy threads very seriously because most of it belongs in Phenomena. and you're a good sport about my alternative views. that is very refreshing and makes it more fun <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> you're ok by me. <br /><br />the theory is that an atom is "actually" or "really" a chargeless particle.

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">the theory is that an atom is "actually" or "really" a chargeless particle.</font><br /><br />Is that your theory or is there someone else behind it. Is there a name for this theory? What are the fundamental concepts of the theory?

 

[docm]

Electron as quark? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />Problem is the masses & charges;<br /><br />electron: 0.510998918 MeV/c^2<br /><br />quark: 1.5 MeV/c^2 (up quark) to 171400 MeV/c^2 (top quark) <br /><br />Electrons also have a whole unit electric charge of -1 while quarks can range from +2/3 or -1/3.<br /><br />Plus several dozen other differences in properties.<br /><br />All well documented. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[search]

Maybe we should call it the Electroquarkon...<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

it's expansion theory, ie, forces of nature occur at their root due to expansion of matter. such as gravity. gravity is acceleration of a surface. well, there's this guy:<br />http://www.geocities.com/nickemarkov/ExpansionAndGravitation.html<br />he's but only one version of it. the idea has been around since the 1930s.<br /><br />and there's a guy on here with the "one simple principle" who has vid links and posts about it. and there's another guy saying about the same thing in a book called the final theory. all variants of the idea are about the same, with some differences.

 

[search]

Well this theory goes a bit towards MOND but in the end by other means says the same all theories are saying: The Universe is expanding. It does not adress the quantum aspects but so does not GR. Quantum mechanics and string however attempt to do that.<br /><br /> Why deny what is still yet to be found and not listen to what all have to say and find the path in between.<br /><br />By the way I do not think Markov is saying that the Electron is the elementary particle...he simply does not adress the quantum aspect of matter.

 

[bonzelite]

why deny that the strong force is an ad hoc idea that has no explanation in science, nor meaning other than to save the antiquated atomic model? <br /><br />as well, why rule out that the universe may very well not be expanding?

 

[search]

Strong Force may not be yet very well explained but so isn't gravity in any case some are giving a good try:<br />The Nobel Prize in Physics 2004<br /><br />Hubble did brought something about expansion...

 

[bonzelite]

so we sort of agree on something?!

 

[search]

We can always agree on something...I do understand your points regarding all the unknown cases of physics but I do not understand the pure denial without support. Even though there is so many holes and loops holes in most theories I do not slam them left and right just to please myself. I rather get myself informed and understand more about it.

 

[bonzelite]

i am supporting it. there is no denial of anything but the fact that the strong force, among more, is a made-up fantasy to make the contradictory model of the atom seem viable. <br /><br />you've already been informed and searched for the accepted models as examples. what more is there to search about accepted theory? that information is widely available and accepted. it's taught since day one. everyone knows all about it already. <br /><br />the bohr model and it's updated quantum mechanical model for the atom posit the nucleus as being a scientifically impossible entity, composed of neutrons and positively "charged" protons. and this is not possible in reality. <br /><br />therefore, it is open-season to slam the myopic yet literally <i>worshipped</i> premise of the atom remaining stable when, really, it should fly apart violently immediately. <br /><br />and the "force" that makes this all possible is <i>made up --it does not exist as a real thing.</i> therefore, the accepted model is flawed and needs serious revision. and it starts with doing away with like-repels-like particles residing in extremely cramped quarters within an atomic nucleus. <br /><br />not only is the idea flawed, it's entirley stupid. so a blind acceptance of a "strong force" is just never questioned --yet has no explanation in our physics and is never described as to what it is or how it works. it simply "exists" because popular science has made it this way --yet is never accountable for what it is or why. <br /><br />the atomic model of today is <i>non-scientific and unexplained and theoretically impossible.</i><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[why06]

is magnrtism the process of matter turning in to energy. People don't understand madnetism very well..... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

you mean magnetism.

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>moreover, E=mc^2 describes no such conversion anywhere and does not mean that it occurs. energy already = matter; it does not require a conversion from energy to matter. nor matter to energy. they are the same thing. you might as well say it is a matter-to-matter change of face or guise. or state, if you will. energy is not a byproduct of matter, but is exactly matter. there is no conversion. otherwise, energy is undefined in our physics and has no specific meaning.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />gems are normally found in heaps of worthless dirt and this one is no different<br /><br />it fully justifies bonzelite's presence on these boards and even if you don't see it that way at least he makes you restate your own views of what the 'correct' physics are (maybe rare few might realize there are some holes in their cherished official teachings) and those few amongst us here who's minds are not set in cement might even ponder over some of his strange views and sometimes may even profit from it, heretic as it may seem to some<br /><br />energy is always energy of something, that is, energy is not something that can exist somehow on its own appart from matter or outside of it but is always part of it<br /><br />we can say that matter has energy or is itself energy but energy as such - as something appart from matter - doesn't exist and so, as bonzelite says, you can't have conversion of matter into energy and consequently conversion of energy into matter<br /><br />when we talk about conversion of matter to energy, we typically mean conversion into some 'energetic' particles such as into photons or other particles that carry away the 'energy' by virtue of having momentum<br /><br />in many cases the issue is not quite clear as in force bound particle relationship where we tend to think of binding energy as not being part of the participating particles but existing as energy itself in space among the particles... (which may then <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xmo1]

My belief is that E=MC^2 is saying that if you drive something to a maximum speed that the atomic bonds which hold things together will no longer bond. Therefore you have entropy. Energy to matter or matter to energy is just flipping around the time of the event saying what happens after entropy, which goes to context.<br /><br />I'd appreciate you thought on this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

E=mc^2 is not an entropy equation. it is a momentum of light equation.