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 9 of 12 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 12
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I am not sure I am following completely and I am not trying to troll here so bear with me and I am strictly trying to understand your physics without making any judgement.

It sounds from the above we have some sort of conservation of stuff that is created is that matter (atoms), energy or a bit of both?

Is the universe infinite or finite in the statement "everything was created the first time it never goes away"?

Your Bohr atom have a preset created elementary charge, is there any way you can create fractional charges in your atom?

Can matter and energy exchange and does E=MC2 hold?

Last question so QM is mistake or wrong to you?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:

I am not sure I am following completely and I am not trying to troll here so bear with me and I am strictly trying to understand your physics without making any judgement.


in that case I will try to give my best opinion's on the question's.

Quote:

It sounds from the above we have some sort of conservation of stuff that is created is that matter (atoms), energy or a bit of both?


atoms ( atoms have both mass and energy )

Quote:

Is the universe infinite or finite in the statement "everything was created the first time it never goes away"?


infinite ( nothing ever goes away )
even when atoms are split and release their energy
their energy and matter remains.

Quote:

Your Bohr atom have a preset created elementary charge, is there any way you can create fractional charges in your atom?


I prefer to think of the bohr atom model as a construction set
to be used to configure any model atom you could ever imagine.
and the bohr atom can also be used to represent any solar system.

just input the charges the way you want to configure the atom
and let the atom stabilize itself or transform into another atom.

using computer programming of course.

Quote:

Can matter and energy exchange and does E=MC2 hold?


matter is constantly converting into energy by the sun.
the light from that conversion shines on the earth.
plants convert that energy into matter( mass ).

its an exchange

Quote:

does E=MC2 hold?


the speed of natural light holds.
but it can be changed.
light can be slowed down by passing light
through a transparent medium.

and it can be speeded up by passing light through a
light accelerating medium such as cessium.

so since c can be manipulated then c^2 would be a big
difference in the result of the formula.
so the formula couldnt be correct , it is almost correct.

perhaps E=MLS^2

LS being the speed at which light is traveling in the experiment.

Quote:

Last question so QM is mistake or wrong to you?


I will have to wait until I'm finished with the program I'm making
that will not drop values due to a formulas specific elements and layout.

for now I can safely say that the intentions may be right
but the foundation is weak because of the math involved.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
and it can be speeded up by passing light through a
light accelerating medium such as cessium.


I assume that 'cessium' is a typo and you mean the element cesium. But how does this work? I have heard of light traveling slower through any medium other than a vacuum, but I have not heard of it speeding up. Can you explain this?

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
sry , your right it is cesium.

but as a gas or vapor.

a smooth light pulse is passed through a small chamber with cesium gas inside it , let me find an article.

it was back in 2000 I think at princeton, new jersey.

heres some of the articles.

Quote:
Dr. Lijun Wang at the NEC research institute in Princeton seems to have given us a glimpse of multi-dimensional reality. When Wang recently transmitted a pulse of light towards a chamber filled with specially treated cesium gas, and recorded its travel through the chamber at an accelerated speed of up to 300 times the speed of light, he proved the possibility of time travel.

Before the pulse fully entered the chamber, Wang reported that it appeared at the same instant at a point 60 feet across the laboratory. In effect, it existed in two places at the same time. Thus Wang not only proved that objects can move at speeds exceeding the earlier prescribed limit of 186,000 miles per second, but he proved Einstein's theory that time slows when objects travel at a speed approaching (and exceeding) the speed of light. The implications of this are mind-boggling. Wang's work hints that time travel is quite possible.


http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&...280&bih=616

this tells me that a time capable air vehicle could appear in front or beside you heading at an angle that should cause the craft to impact with the ground , the craft then slips behind a tree line , you brace for the impact but nothing happens , not even sound.

so in effect you have a vehicle that can re negotiate its position instantaneously to avoid the impact.

but that would all be dream land stuff , not that I have seen anything like that.

LOL






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Re superluminal photon pulses.

From Dec 14th, 2000:

http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/FTL/About%20Lijun%20Wang%92s%20experiment%20-%20tut.pdf

"Wang published a document on the issue, in which he ruled out superluminal signalling but the discussion as to whether it will be possible to send information faster than light is still ongoing." ***

"(IV) Conclusion.
When Dr. Lijun Wang’s experiment was first released to the media, it was sensationalised
with headlines such as “Eureka! Scientists break the speed of light”. The papers spoke of
how Wang and his team had broken the speed of light, proved Einstein “wrong” and showed
that there were inconsistencies in his theory of Relativity. This created a wrong impression of
what Wang was actually doing.
All aspects of the “Gain Assisted Superluminality” experiment can be explained by existing
laws of physics. No laws of physics were broken and no new laws were created. Even Wang
himself says that the experiment is not “at odds” with Relativity [2]. The prospect of
projecting light superluminally using anomalous dispersion had been with us well before
Wang embarked on this project."

*** As far as I know, information has never been transmitted superluminally.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/18/neutrinos-still-faster-than-light

cern

sent through the ground from Cern near Geneva to the Gran Sasso lab in Italy 450 miles (720km) away seemed to travel faster than light.

Quote:
Around 20 neutrino events have been measured at the Gran Sasso lab in the fine-tuned version of the experiment in the past few weeks, each one precisely associated with a pulse leaving Cern. The scientists concluded from the new measurements that the neutrinos still appeared to be arriving earlier than they should.


neutrino's are not massless , yet they seem to be able to
travel faster than c.

of course c is the speed of light , not the speed of mass.

I wonder if the mass of the neutrino's increased as they approached c.

and how much time dilation occurred.

I wonder why they keep using the word appeared.

haven't they fully tested the clocks they use , I would think that the clocks would be fully tested and calibrated by now.

the article is a year old.

I would think that they have ran light speed test from point a to point b by now to determine if things are really happening or seeming to appear to happen.

why dont they just come right out and admit it?

all this seeming and appears makes me wonder if the world should allow them to continue with the experiments if they dont know what they're doing.














3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Paul,

There have been several articles like this of late.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html

<"Enough already. Five different teams of physicists have now independently verified that elusive subatomic particles called neutrinos do not travel faster than light. New results, announced today in Japan, contradict those announced last September by a 170-member crew working with the OPERA particle detector in Italy's subterranean Gran Sasso National Laboratory. The OPERA team made headlines after they suggested neutrinos traveled 0.002% faster than light, thus violating Einstein's theory of special relativity. The OPERA results were debunked months ago, however. So instead of the nail in the coffin of faster-than-light neutrinos, the new suite of results is more like the sod planted atop their grave.">

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I see they had a bad connection , but how could a bad connection give a early time?

and how many time's did they do the experiment?


and would you happen to know how a particle that has mass can be accelerated to the speed of light.

what happened to time dilation and increasing mass and all the
special relativity stuff?

the formula for adding velocities never allow anything to even reach the speed of light.

you can get really close but you can never get there.
so they would need to have all the energy there is left on the planet to get something that has mass to travel at the speed of light , but we still have energy.

so how did they get the mass to travel at the speed of light?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul when I see answers like yours to the questions I posed there are two basic questions that always come up.

1.) How do you think thousand of scientists and thousand of experiments failed to confirm your theory as it is far simpler than what is proposed currently and in many experiments your theory has been falsified.

2.) Why do you bother pursuing and discussing your theory it is never going to be accepted by science because of question 1 so why is it so important to you?

Last edited by Orac; 09/12/12 07:58 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
1.) How do you think thousand of scientists and thousand of experiments failed to confirm your theory as it is far simpler than what is proposed currently and in many experiments your theory has been falsified.


the math they use is bogus , let me prove that to you.

I theorize that the speed of a car is 10 mph
and that nothing can move faster than the speed of a car.

if Im driving my car at 1/2 the speed of a car (5 mph)
and I put the pedal down but the car will only accelerate to 10 mph then the Special relativity formula stands true.

insert any numbers you want for v1 and v2 you will never
get the car or anything to exceed 10 mph.

I designed the formula that way in order to support my theory.
I have never been proven wrong either!
and the speed of a car will never be broken
the only way I can ever be wrong is if they figure out that my math was wrong.

cs = the speed of a car = 10mph
s = (v1+v2) / 1+(v1xv2)/cs^2

we all know that the speed of a car is more than 10 mph.

the underhanded trick in the above formula is that you can insert any number in the element that represents cs^2 and s will never result in a number higher than the number that you inserted for cs^2.

its clear that the math was created for the sole purpose of supporting the theory.

but whats so scary about it is that the scientist use the math
in the programming that measure's c.

so how can speeds ever be correctly measured?

Quote:
2.) Why do you bother pursuing and discussing your theory it is never going to be accepted by science because of question 1 so why is it so important to you?


its not a theory , its pure fact.

if you think Im wrong then prove to me that anything can travel
faster than the speed of cars using my speed of cars and my math.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted By: redewenur
That's a classic post, Paul. It's so insightful it should be put aboard a Voyager spacecraft and sent to the stars. It's the essence of all that NASA ignored in their efforts to edify ET about intelligent life on this pale blue dot.


why build another slow poke spacecraft , they should just let me build the propulsion system and it could be there and back in a week or less.

it could go out to the voyager1 and use some super glue to stick it to the spacecraft , then give voyager1 a light speed or two push.

then come back.

or go push pioneer 10 and voyager2 to light speed 2


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul that doesn't really answer either question.

There are thousand of scientists and thousand of experiments on all aspects of your theory not just speed of light that falsify it. For example the Bohr atom which has been completely falsified so there would almost need a conspiracy for that many people to get this all that wrong?

Remember if a scientist could prove what you propose they would be guaranteed a Nobel prize. What you propose isn't complicated so why hasn't anyone taken up the idea?

Your so called fact will never be accepted by science because you won't publish a paper or construct an experimental proof or any of the normal things science requires.

From what I can tell you have convinced no one of any of you idea and you have exactly zero chance of changing science by posting on a science forum.

So I question what it is you hope to achieve in all this?.

Last edited by Orac; 09/12/12 08:03 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
need a conspiracy for that many people to get this all that wrong?


they just all need to use the same math.
and they would all get it wrong.

BTW , since that one formula is bogus , what does that say about the rest of the formulas?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: paul

they just all need to use the same math.
and they would all get it wrong.

BTW , since that one formula is bogus , what does that say about the rest of the formulas?

Gentle Readers: Here again Paul justifies his errors by claiming that every body else is wrong. This of course means that a great many things that work wonderfully according to real science are completely impossible. We are going to have to give up all the things that we use that depend on the bogus science that Paul is attacking and figure out ways to do it in accordance with Paul's science. This may be a big problem since I for one don't want to give up all the modern technology that won't work under Paul.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Gentle Readers: Here again Paul justifies his errors


what errors are you speaking about?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
The fact that a multitude of simple experiments show your theory doesn't hold!

Thats a little hard to get past Paul and why you haven't convinced anyone.

The whole argument is essentially going circular here in a mexican stand-off so I am not sure there is much people can add other than trade insults.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
The fact that a multitude of simple experiments show your theory doesn't hold!


then it should be easy to find one and post it up so I
can prove to myself that I am wrong.
besides I dont have a theory.

heres something I found.

Quote:
As the particle bunch passes through the tube it is unaffected (the tube acts as a Faraday cage), while the frequency of the driving signal and the spacing of the gaps between electrodes are designed so that the maximum voltage differential appears as the particle crosses the gap. This accelerates the particle, imparting energy to it in the form of increased velocity. At speeds near the speed of light, the incremental velocity increase will be small, with the energy appearing as an increase in the mass of the particles. In portions of the accelerator where this occurs, the tubular electrode lengths will be almost constant.


is that how they decide if the particle is gaining mass?

or is the gain in mass detected at the moment of the collision?

there may not be any gain in mass , the time that the particle is under the influence of the accelerating mechanism would be shorter and shorter with each acceleration increment.

and that does not tell me that the energy went into an increase in mass.

if there is no detected gain in mass at the moment of collision then there is no gain in mass.

this is all that cern has to say about particle detectors.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/Detector-en.html

mass x velocity !

if the speed of the particle x its mass or its kinetic energy
is equal to the impact energy produced by the collision then
thats a clear closed door on any gain in mass.

if its higher than it's speed x its mass then it is a gain in mass.

anyone know where the particle types speeds and impact energies can be found?




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

then it should be easy to find one and post it up so I
can prove to myself that I am wrong.
besides I dont have a theory.


I tried that it becomes a pointless excercise because I can't even enough basic agreement on fundemental physics to discuss what is going on. Bluntly I am not going to waste my time again.

Quote:

is that how they decide if the particle is gaining mass?


The most obvious proof of a particle gaining mass as it gets faster is what you have to do in a particle accelerator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron

Quote:

In contrast to this approximation, as particles approach the speed of light, their relativistic mass increases, requiring either modifications to the frequency, leading to the synchrocyclotron, or modifications to the magnetic field during the acceleration, which leads to the isochronous cyclotron


No doubt you have some other explaination however which I am really not interested in because it will turn into another long and inane discussion the conclusion of which will be beyond any sort of proof I or any scientist will or can accept.

This is basically the path the rest of you post begins to take and so we will end up in another pointless excercise which I am beyond caring about.

Last edited by Orac; 09/13/12 06:04 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
No doubt you have some other explaination however which I am really not interested in because it will turn into another long and inane discussion the conclusion of which will be beyond any sort of proof I or any scientist will or can accept.


I dont need one , its just above the portion you posted.

Quote:
In the nonrelativistic approximation, the frequency does not depend upon the radius of the particle's orbit, since the particle's mass is constant. As the beam spirals out, its frequency does not decrease, and it must continue to accelerate, as it is travelling a greater distance in the same time period.



that says the particles mass is constant.

which makes loads more sense to me and my logic.

there must be another example in the multitude you speak of
I can only find things that are really obvious or should I say
things that would actually occur.

dont stop trying just because Im asking for one more of the multitudes of experiments that prove R.

heres your chance , and if it is in one of the other links you posted then you know which one it is , so just re-post it.

thats pretty simple to do for you , but it would be kind of hard for me to find , since I stopped clicking on your links when I
clicked on one that automatically downloaded a file to my computer , I couldn't delete the file until I killed the explorer process on my computer.

but I put the file in storage first on a usb drive.

which is why I didnt click on your links after that.

so if you dont mind , do like you did in your last post and
include the portion of the web page that you believe to have
the pertinent information that I should look at.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: paul


Quote:
In the nonrelativistic approximation, the frequency does not depend upon the radius of the particle's orbit, since the particle's mass is constant. As the beam spirals out, its frequency does not decrease, and it must continue to accelerate, as it is travelling a greater distance in the same time period.



that says the particles mass is constant.


Gentle readers: Again Paul ignores the part of the quote that suggests that he is wrong. I enlarged the relevant text so that he should be able to see it. What they are talking about is an approximation, not reality. It works as long as you keep the velocity low. As it increases you need to use the relativistic calculation.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Page 9 of 12 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 12

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