Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 17 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 16 17
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Based on my view, the fundamental particle of matter moves at the speed 'c'. So any body made up of such particles will always be moving; however, part of the energy remains as internal energy, and so no body attains the speed of light. To keep a body at rest, force has to be applied. But the body will resist this, and this will create a potential state in the body. So it is impossible to keep a body at rest. As pointed out earlier, the bodies at rest on earth are moving at a very high speed along with the galaxy-cluster.

.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
The problem is there is a specific test for SR anybody can do and it has been done countless ways

The observed fact is that measured time changes with gravity and speed. My explanation is that 'gravity slows down the clock, and not the time'. As mentioned earlier, I propose that G depends on speed. As G increases with speed, gravity increases and the clock slows down. So the effect of both the gravity and speed on measured time are the same.(So GR and Sr are not needed to explain the slowing of clock).

Again, if G increases with speed, then the increase in relative mass observed will be due to the increase in G (Here also SR is not needed). If bodies are made up of particles moving at speed 'c', then the speed limit will be 'c' for all bodies (SR is not needed to explain that).

Thus the so-called right predictions of SR/GR can be explained in an alternate way, and not only that, the alternate explanation removes the metaphysical concept of space-time.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter
Originally Posted By: Orac
The problem is there is a specific test for SR anybody can do and it has been done countless ways

The observed fact is that measured time changes with gravity and speed. My explanation is that 'gravity slows down the clock, and not the time'. As mentioned earlier, I propose that G depends on speed. As G increases with speed, gravity increases and the clock slows down. So the effect of both the gravity and speed on measured time are the same.(So GR and Sr are not needed to explain the slowing of clock).

Again, if G increases with speed, then the increase in relative mass observed will be due to the increase in G (Here also SR is not needed). If bodies are made up of particles moving at speed 'c', then the speed limit will be 'c' for all bodies (SR is not needed to explain that).

Thus the so-called right predictions of SR/GR can be explained in an alternate way, and not only that, the alternate explanation removes the metaphysical concept of space-time.



Huh the atomic clocks we are talking about and in this case a quantum clock (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/ordinary-relativity/)

They are not something that can be slowed down like a mechanical clock ... these are quantum oscillations.

So the oscillations are slowing down ... umm thats extremely difficult in the quantum world.

See the funny thing is GR and QM time are different we were talking about this in a different thread.

Read the paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0016v2.pdf

Simple experiment ... now where do you want to go from here.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
These days we measure time shift of lifting something as little as a foot (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/ordinary-relativity/) and expect that to be up by probably ten fold by the end of next year.

I loved that experiment. Heck I loved the one back in the 60s when HP brought out their commercial Cesium Beam Atomic Clock, the first commercial atomic clock. As a publicity stunt they set up 2 of the clocks and compared them very carefully. They they bought an air line ticket around the world for one of them. When it got back they compared them again, and they showed once again that Einstein was right. It was great.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
The beauty of this in the future to me will be schools and uni's will have the stuff and can show students rather than some abstract concept.

Seeing stuff in action does make it more personal and believable than relying on what someone says happens.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
....now where do you want to go from here

Remember, the quantum effects of gravity is still not understood. I will use that wormhole (loop hole) to wriggle through. The oscillations of the atomic clock are at the atomic level, and it is the atoms that constitute any body. So any change in the gravity will affect the oscillations, especially if G changes as proposed by me.

I propose that in masses like Earth, Moon, Sun, etc., the attractive and repulsive forces remain balanced, and it is this that makes them stable. The attractive forces include the electromagnetic attraction and gravitational attraction. The repulsive force includes electromagnetic repulsion and the repulsive pseudo force due to vibratory, oscillatory and translational motion of the atoms. So any change in the G will cause changes in the vibrations of atoms.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Finiter, I may have missed something, somewhere; if so, please point me to it; if not, can you say a bit about your proposed cahnges of "G". How does it change, what is the mechanism, what are the observable effects?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Incorrect I gave you the paper to read

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0016v2.pdf

An entangled particle and I can show you other QM results it is uneffected by gravity as you would expect. It was expected QM could not retain its wave coherence if it was affected by such things.

This is what caused Hawkings such problem with black holes QM doesn't see the gravity in them like everything else does.

Your wiggle room has been evapourated last year and it's what propmpt Hawkings to give up on theory of everything.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Finiter
I propose that energy is the quality of matter and so no body can remain at rest…….When a mass like Earth is at rest the measured value of G would be zero.


Would I be right in thinking you are saying that energy is an intrinsic property of matter which causes everything to be in constant motion?

If that is the case, when you talk of the Earth being at rest you must propose that some external forces are being applied to it to stop its inherent motion?

Apart from saying that a body appears, in or from your F of R, to be at rest relative to other bodies, how do you define “being at rest”?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Finiter, I may have missed something, somewhere; if so, please point me to it; if not, can you say a bit about your proposed cahnges of "G". How does it change, what is the mechanism, what are the observable effects?

I will explain from the start. I propose that matter has a fundamental particle that always moves at the speed 'c' (energy is a fundamental quality of matter). Forces are created due to the reaction to the energy. So the total energy and total force are equal to mc^2/2. Kinetic energy creates Gravity, potential energy creates Electrostatic force and the motion of particles having potential energy creates Magnetic force. These three are the only real forces (forces having fields).

When fundamental particles integrate, the energy and force are transferred to the particle that is formed. In the case of electrons/positrons, half the energy is kinetic and half potential(charge), and so half of the force is gravity and half electrostatic. When electrons move, magnetic force is created at the expense of electrostatic force. Atoms, and other large scale structures are made up of electron-positron pairs, and so gravity and electromagnetic force are separately conserved.

At the level of electrons, gravity is very strong (the strong nuclear force is actually gravity at the level of electrons/positrons). The weak gravity that we experience is the residual or spill-over of that strong force (residual after the formation of masses of atoms). Thus gravity is due to motion; the speed and available force decides the gravitational constant. The present G is the G of earth, ie, the G for the speed of earth (30Km/s). I have actually derived the present G theoretically from my model (it requires a lot of explanation, though calculations are very easy).

Thus, the universal constant G that is used at present is a relative value valid for earth only. From this we can calculate the G for unit speed and that will be valid for all masses in the universe at present. As the universe expands the G for unit speed increases, and masses tend to become more dense.

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

An entangled particle and I can show you other QM results it is uneffected by gravity as you would expect. It was expected QM could not retain its wave coherence if it was affected by such things.

This is what caused Hawkings such problem with black holes QM doesn't see the gravity in them like everything else does.

Your wiggle room has been evapourated last year and it's what propmpt Hawkings to give up on theory of everything.

The problem is that G is taken as a universal constant. All experiments that are conducted on earth are conducted under constant G (nearly constant; the speed of earth varies slightly and so we never get an exact value for G). I think, in quantum mechanics, gravity is a force like the electrostatic force, and not a 'curvature of space' as visualized by GR; and, all the theoretical calculations in QM take G as a universal constant.

Anyway, I think, the singularity inside a black hole and the wormholes that leads to other universes are just fiction. They should evaporate; there are a lot of loopholes in the present QM/GR, and I think, the whole of QM/SR/GR will eventually evaporate.

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Would I be right in thinking you are saying that energy is an intrinsic property of matter which causes everything to be in constant motion?

If that is the case, when you talk of the Earth being at rest you must propose that some external forces are being applied to it to stop its inherent motion?

Apart from saying that a body appears, in or from your F of R, to be at rest relative to other bodies, how do you define “being at rest”?

Yes.
Yes, but no external force (however large it may be)can stop Earth.
The space is absolute. Since all the bodies are moving, it is impossible to observe a body at rest. That is our inability caused by the laws of physics. However, if the measured value of G is zero, then you can say that you are at rest (an indirect observation). All the moving bodies together constitute the universe, but the universe is not moving. The universe itself, like all other masses in it, tend to be nearly spherical; the centre of the universe is thus a point of reference (a point at rest) for all bodies, but the centre remains out of our view.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter

The problem is that G is taken as a universal constant. All experiments that are conducted on earth are conducted under constant G (nearly constant; the speed of earth varies slightly and so we never get an exact value for G). I think, in quantum mechanics, gravity is a force like the electrostatic force, and not a 'curvature of space' as visualized by GR; and, all the theoretical calculations in QM take G as a universal constant.

Anyway, I think, the singularity inside a black hole and the wormholes that leads to other universes are just fiction. They should evaporate; there are a lot of loopholes in the present QM/GR, and I think, the whole of QM/SR/GR will eventually evaporate.


QM doesn't have anything to say about GR and gravitational constants at all. In alot of implementations you can put GR neatly inside QM but esentially things in the Quantum behaviour world are essentially outside the physical world thats why they can have effects instantaneously over incredible distance, erase time events and be totally uneffected by even the strongest gravity or real world forces.

I will give you no chance of QM disappearing I am afraid you are dreaming if you think it will. Under you wildest parts of your theory how are you going to get some of the spooky actions at distance effects of QM. These sorts of effects are real and measurable and implementations like your physical world have no chance of explaining them.

As I said look a QM bosenova explosion if you want to see how real QM is. It can tear your flimsy matter apart in ways your real world physics can't even begin to describe.

You may not like QM it is an inconvient truth you can join Einstein and Hawkings who don't like the thing but good luck disproving it .... I think we call that the turkey with its head in the sand approach.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
...they can have effects instantaneously over incredible distance, erase time events and be totally uneffected by even the strongest gravity or real world forces.
As I said look a QM bosenova explosion if you want to see how real QM is. It can tear your flimsy matter apart in ways your real world physics can't even begin to describe.

As someone has said, 'any claim regarding experimental verification of any aspect of the QM theory has at least one loop hole'. Whether it is spooky action at a distance, or erasing time events or bosenova explosion, there exists some loopholes. The interactions (by way of using forces) at the level of particles and atoms is still unknown. We have only some statistical information; the QM thrives on our lack of knowledge.

My suggestions (it may be right or wrong) that
'a body has a certain amount of force (like energy)'
'for every interaction the body has to contribute half the required force'
'electrostatic force also depends on mass'
'the available electrostatic force can be used for attraction and repulsion in any ratio'
are part of an attempt to interpret the interactions at all levels.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Hidden variables as proposed by EPR has been tested and tested and todate no one has ever shown a way to beat bells-inequality infact almost all physicists say it can't be violated because of the mathematical proof.

Infact if you think its wrong there is quantum randi challenge with a nobel prize, fame and fortune for anyone who can prove it wrong (http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168)

The only explaination left that can't be excluded is the entire universe is pre-ordained or superdetermined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism). Bascially we can't fault QM because the universe knows what we are going to test ahead of time and conspires to make our QM test correct. That one of coarse can never be challenged or tested but then most have a name for that it's called religion ... GOD makes it so. Of coarse QM allows GOD to exist in a less busy way anyhow he can simply direct traffic so to speak :-)

What I find funny with people like you Finiter you would rather believe the almost ridiculous than accept QM because what it casts doubt around the physicallity of your world.

Last edited by Orac; 09/12/11 03:24 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Superdeterminism, and the fact that it seems to rule out free will, is something I struggled with when developing the idea of a truly infinite cosmos. The reasoning went something like this:

In infinity (which includes the concept of eternity) there can be no change, because there is no passage of (or through) time.

The statement that in eternity everything that can happen will happen, an infinite number of times is misleading. It would seem better to say that in eternity everything that can happen is happening, now. However, even that is not quite right, because “happening” implies progression. The best I could find was: everything that can happen IS.

If the Universe we perceive is a restricted view of this cosmos, free will would seem to be ruled out, because we are living in a changeless infinity in which everything just IS.

One question remains. Why is everything as it is? It has to be possible that it is as it is, to some extent, because of the things we perceive ourselves as doing in our illusion of time.

At present, that seems more like philosophy than science, but if QM is providing us with a window into the infinite, it might bring about a unification of the two.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Finiter
All the moving bodies together constitute the universe, but the universe is not moving. The universe itself, like all other masses in it, tend to be nearly spherical; the centre of the universe is thus a point of reference (a point at rest) for all bodies, but the centre


There seems to be some contradiction here. All bodies are always in motion. The centre of the universe is not in motion. If there is a body at the centre of the universe, it must be stationary. Ergo, not all bodies are in constant motion.

This central body is stationary relative to what? Certainly not to all the other bodies in the universe, they are all in relative motion. This must imply that space is a static frame of reference. Is that your view?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
I have just gone through the quantum randi challenge that you have referred to. It is based on the assumption that photons are field quanta, and not objects. In my opinion, light is fundamental particles of matter in motion, not just waves; a quantum of light is a three dimensional object containing a certain number of fundamental particles.

In fact, I do not believe in any theory including QM (In my opinion, the explanations based on QM are ridiculous). I only believe that there is a possibility that QM is wrong (it is just a belief; a belief may turn out to be either wrong or right)

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Your playing with symantecs here.

Spin or any other property that can be encoded with quantum data exhibits the same property.

Or are you denying we can encode spin etc into phtons?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

There seems to be some contradiction here. All bodies are always in motion. The centre of the universe is not in motion. If there is a body at the centre of the universe, it must be stationary. Ergo, not all bodies are in constant motion.

This central body is stationary relative to what? Certainly not to all the other bodies in the universe, they are all in relative motion. This must imply that space is a static frame of reference. Is that your view?

Thank you very much (for that question)! In fact, I have been doing theoretical 'search' (the word 'research' should be reserved for those who receive funds for their search)for an ultimate theory in physics for the past many years, and I claim that I have arrived at the ultimate theory (just a claim). Whatever I have mentioned are part of that theory. So, when you ask a very logical question regarding my theory, I am happy.

In my model the centre of the universe is blank. If there were a mass (body) at the centre, then by Gauss theorem, there would be no net gravitational force on that since it would be surrounded uniformly on all sides by other masses. Consequently the mass at the centre would not exert any force on the rest, and so the force available to it will remain unused. That means the universe will be able to interact with other universes. In my model, the universe is the final product of the integration of matter particles; it has no field, and so is an isolated system, which cannot interact with other universes if any.

Yes. The space is a static frame of reference.

Page 6 of 17 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5