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 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: F
My proposal: Energy is the quality of matter............and so he will not discuss it further(that means will not verify the maths)


Now I'm going to take off my "crackpot" hat, and put on my "ignoramus" hat; both fit very well. smile

Please can someone explain to me why the maths in this bit would/would not work?


There never was nothing.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Think about it Bill S ... quality of matter???? and what units shall I put on the quality of matter.

And what does less quality matter look like ... what does less quality matter actually mean?

It's an old idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_quality)

Quote:

Many scientists and analytic philosophers say they are not, and therefore consider some qualitative phenomena like, for instance, spirituality, and astrology to be unquantifiable, unanalysable by scientific methods, and therefore ungrounded in physical reality. The notion of energy quality therefore has a tendency to be linked with phenomena many scientists consider unquantifiable, or at least incommunicable, and are consequently dismissed out of hand.


See it's unanalysable by scientific methods that's why finiter can just fob off answers, sorry I agree it simply isn't science and i dismiss it out of hand.

Any calculations you do will be based on some random scale of quality.

What finiter is doing is systematically adding qualities to eveything so you can't directly measure anything therefor he can't be proved wrong.

He is getting so wide now he has wiped out QM, nuclear theory and now chemistry. I can't measure or analyze anything because it's basis always comes back to some random matter quality meaning.

He hasn't worked out thats whats happening because he does not understand how all science fields connect but thats why I have given up on this. In the end literally everything will have its basis built around some quality and what you are doing is not science.

There is nothing novel or new about this, Finiter may have innocently stumbled on an idea or he may have seen other versions of it only he could tell you.

Last edited by Orac; 11/29/11 03:43 PM.

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: O
Think about it Bill S ... quality of matter???? and what units shall I put on the quality of matter.

And what does less quality matter look like ... what does less quality matter actually mean?


Perhaps "quality" was not the best word to use; because you can talk of the quality of something or a quality of something, and the implication is quite different.

Let's try "feature". We can then say: mass is a feature of matter, and have no problem with the units of mass.

Similarly, we might say: energy is a feature of matter, and have no problem with the units of energy. Does this make a difference?

I should be clear that I am not trying to defend or counter Finiter's theory, I am just trying to understand the factors involved in both sides of the discussion.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill

Similarly, we might say: energy is a feature of matter, and have no problem with the units of energy. Does this make a difference?


But energy is not a "feature" of matter at all?

Kinetic energy is a feature of movement, And potentential energy is a feature of distortion of spacetime (or if you don't like GR its a feature of gravitational seperation)

Photons of light are not matter and they most definitely have energy for example.

So by trying to make energy a "feature" you are indeed making a random quality and your original statement was perfectly correct and I did not misunderstand or misinterpret it .... my answer was correct.

if you want to make something a "feature" of matter first show me an observation that shows it to be so other than that it is indeed a randomly chosen quality because we certainly haven't needed it in an science so far.

Last edited by Orac; 11/30/11 01:15 AM.

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
But energy is not a "feature" of matter at all?

Photons of light are not matter and they most definitely have energy for example.

I propose that energy is just one of 'the' qualities of the fundamental particles of matter, the other qualities being mass and volume. Surely such a proposal will have its implications in all areas of physics. One is that photons are made up of matter. I have worked out and verified nearly all aspects (as far as I can). Otherwise I would not have claimed it is a new theory.

Every thing made up of matter remains moving ; this is an observational evidence in favour of my proposal (but you may be explaining it another way). Photons consists of matter particles (you explain it in another way). And energy is not arbitrary; I have clearly stated that the natural energy of any body is mc^2/2 (Is this arbitrary?). What happens when energy gets transferred between bodies made up of fundamental particles is also an integral part of my theory; it creates potential states like 'charge' and 'heat'(again you may having other existing explanations for these).

Whether it is needed in science or not is not relevant here. Whether every observation can be explained based on this alternate concept is the only relevant factor. Science never says, "You should not propose anything new". Indeed it is an integral part of science; you propose something new, later it is verified, and if found correct, accepted.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
As discussed been done a thousand times before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_quality) read the introduction section.

Most definitely not science and leads nowhere and is altogether pointless ... not wasting time to discuss it was explaining where it all leads to Bill S.

Knock yourselves out.

Last edited by Orac; 11/30/11 06:09 AM.

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.

Now I'm going to take off my "crackpot" hat, and put on my "ignoramus" hat; both fit very well. smile

A hat always covers something! 'Trying to be ignorant' is good; you will always be asking questions, and that is the very essence of science; you will not be considered part of the establishment, and so you can always cry out "the emperor is naked".

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
As discussed been done a thousand times before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_quality) read the introduction section.

Most definitely not science and leads nowhere and is altogether pointless ... not wasting time to discuss it was explaining where it all leads to Bill S.

I would again say 'be logical in your reply'. You have to read the 'cite you referred' again. It deals with an entirely different aspect, whether all qualities can be quantified or not. Please refer the folowing quote:

"The notion of energy quality therefore has a tendency to be linked with phenomena many scientists consider unquantifiable, or at least incommunicable, and are consequently dismissed out of hand."

It is only to differentiate between what is 'quantifiable' and what is 'not quantifiable', the 'energy quality' term is dismissed. This means only that energy can be quantified, and nothing more. I said energy is the quality of matter in the sense that it is measurable property of matter. And I have given the proposed quantity possessed by a fundamental particle.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter
I said energy is the quality of matter in the sense that it is measurable property of matter.


Then like any scientist give me an experimental way to measure this energy in the matter please?

Last edited by Orac; 11/30/11 08:55 AM.

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
Then like any scientist give me an experimental way to measure this energy in the matter please?

I am just an outsider interested in physics; I am not a scientist. However, I have come up with a new hypothesis which I call a 'theory'.

My proposal is that the fundamental particle of matter should move at the speed of light in perfect vacuum, and the energy possessed by it is kinetic energy, and also that light is streams of such particles. So the natural energy of the fundamental particle or any body is equal to mc^2/2. Already there exist experiments required for proving this.

You can measure the finite speed of light. That indeed is the most vital experimental proof. To get the mass of the fundamental particle, you can use the experimentally determined values of the mass of neutron and the plank's constant, and deduce it from my 'proposed models of electromagnetic radiation and neutron'.

To confirm that the natural energy of an electron when formed is equal to mc^2/2, where 'm' is its mass, please refer to the mathematical proof explained earlier in this thread. It states that because energy is a quantifiable property of matter, the electrostatic energy used when two electrons touch each other is half of their total natural energy.

The internal energy of any atom can be exactly calculated using my model. However, the measurement of external energy is complicated. Even then, by measuring the lattice distance, it is possible to arrive at the energy possessed by atoms.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I have a theory that there are little green martian men that live in the nucleus, they are called "martian grabicles" because they like to grab things energy, themselves anything really.

All science theory can be explained by "martian grabicle" theory as they either grab or release things. We have never seen "martian grabicles" but I am sure they are there and that is my theory.

"Martian grabicle" theory is far more powerful than finiter theory because I am sure we can expand it to explain all manner of thing.

So "Martian Grabicle theory" trumps finiter theory and is about as useful and scientific.


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
...trumps finiter theory and is about as useful and scientific.

Very good! Just give me a mathematical proof! (You are so clever that you just avoided answering my arguments)

Orac, till this time, my answers have been to the point (the point you have asked to clarify). But till this time, you ignored all my 'uncomfortable' arguments that you cannot just deny. My last post was clearly to the point. 'As usual', you evaded that just because you have no counter arguments (I suppose).

From the subjects that you bring up for discussion in this forum, the image that any reader may get is that 'you are acquainted with the intricacies of modern physics'. I also have the same opinion about you. But, what I cannot understand is that you prefer not to answer to the point, you just beat about the bush, make some hue and cry, and just depart. Why?

I have given a mathematical statement for you to verify. You behaved as if you never saw it. Do you fear that my theory may get some legitimacy just because you verified a mathematical proof that I gave? Why should you just run away from that?

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: O
All science theory can be explained by "martian grabicle" theory


Originally Posted By: F
Very good! Just give me a mathematical proof!


You'll have to put a lot more into your theory if you are looking for acceptance into the hallowed halls of crack(pot)ademia.


There never was nothing.
Page 2 of 2 1 2

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 UsokÂþ»­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