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.
Description Sun and Earth was in past in point 1 .The Sun started ring 1 in point 1 ( light wave = 3D ball ) after short time ( 5- 6 minutes ) Sun and Earth will be in point 4
??? Please study below problem and questins Ring 1 ( wave 1 ) is traveling ( not exist C+ V ) Before (wave 1) minimal 150 000 000 km distance
What during signal travel is doing Earth and Sun ( please use above velocity map 20 km/s )
What will be after 6 months ( summer ?)
more precision drawing Doppler Apparent shift + Red /Blue shift ( right now without test I can not add more informations )
first pictures ( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s ) > http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg
CLASSICAL MECHANIC AND APPARENT POINT PROBLEM
Each body in the univrse is moving = Each body (planets) has got own Apparent point ( virtual point )
A point = zero mass ( it is virtual point ) A point = stationary point in the universe zero kinetic energy master ( this point is not moving we are sure )
Very important paragraph in books ( physics - fundaments )
" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them). This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s).Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving . The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."
Please imagine below situation
Rocket 1 ------> 10 m/s ( respect to apparent point )
Rocket 2 ---------------> 20 m/s (respect to apparent point )
Rocket 3 -> 0,1 m/s (respect to apparent point )
Inside rocket we have a person . The person stated walk from rocket Rear to Front
How many energy need person inside R1 ,R2 and R3 please prepare kinetic parabola graph respect to apparent point
I wait for people from Universities above and below link to many very nice test - before Us many job to do. Mr Mach was great engineer. We can step by step repeair physics and separate mathematica illusion from real Universe
I live in small polish town ( it is for me getto 25 % people without job ) I dream start research NEW physics and cooperate with many people in LAB below target for next 50 years tests ( I'm good enginner I can prepare many usefull tool for team in lab ) I wait for any proposition cooperate --- +48 690 091 398
below IDEA can be the best computer CPU model ( many diffrernt HZ - zero HOT problem ( zero signal lost ) - gravitation is able help us change information's adress ) many informations in one and the same time ( ideal parallel magistrale )
Why would any scientist test this dribble of yours.
Here want me to disprove your dribble and rubbish with one image
Do you get how stupid your whole idea is and how simply testable it is ... smart people in the dark ages worked out how to test it.
So a smart person in the dark ages shows more intelligence than you are currently showing.
If the forces don't exactly balance the glass in the image above will fall. You can drive the little vehicle around any direction you like the glass will stay there it is a standard student robotics control exercise at uni.
The above image has a name ... lets see if you can work out what it's called.
There is a reason for getting you to find out it's name because this year an extremely accurate version of the above test was done in the quantum mechanics and there was a big reason it was done.
Try learning and following evidence rather than dribbling garbage it helps make one look less stupid.
Last edited by Orac; 09/09/1302:48 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Can You use Newton :):):) please evaluate forces ( above idea right now we have in F1 susspension ( Kowary Poland 50 km from my city ) Please remember about Newton
I will give You one question ? what is it inertia
respect to what You want to measure Your inertia ?
Inertia = resistance to Your finger ? that give mass m
ball ---Vo--> < Me ( I'm ready to push opposit ball )
............^ ...........You are ready to push perpendicular to ball
Who will push and feel biger resistance ( You or Me )
( To help You please ask small lady that like Aikido !!! she will explain you that perpendicula direction and huge man fly like a birth )
What is it Inertia ??? ( You can not find one good definition in books )
Vo respect to apparent point is important not respect to Earth or Sun !!!
You can also do a variation of the trick with thermodynamics.
This is telling you that INERTIA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MOTION it is a far more general law.
You basic problem is you think that classic physics somehow works IT DOESN'T it has been known to be wrong for 100 years we only teach it at school because it's suitable for most layman problems and much simpler than the alternative.
Why they did the Quantum Mechanics version of the inertia test is because of this idea.
The discovery of the Higgs particle means you live in a universe that can be described by Quantum Mechanics and inertia needs to resolve in that description as well as in the trivial classic physics world.
YES the Higgs particle also has a role in all this garbage you are discussing ... try starting here
Are you beginning to see the scale of the issues yet Newton?
The scale of the problem you are dealing with across multiple areas of science and you somehow think anyone is going to accept your stupid child interpretation of classic physics ... are you really that crazy?
Everyone will ignore you because you won't even attempt to understand the scale of the problem and you think anyone cares about classic physics which we already know is wrong ... you look like a stupid child because you act like one, repeating silly ideas that aren't remotely feasible.
Last edited by Orac; 09/09/1305:44 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Again you are being naïve .... Here you want me to dumb the test down for you.
You are in a plane and you throw a ball forward or backward does it make a difference?????? .... try it!!!!
NO ... IT DOES NOT ... IT'S THE SAME AS THROWING IT ON EARTH !!!!!!!
Why do you think an explosion in a pipe is any different ... because you are failing to grasp the obvious.
You are taking your energy to a stationary reference frame and not doing the maths correctly ... YET AGAIN YOU FAIL AT MATHS.
ARE YOU GETTING THIS YOU ARE WRONG AND MAKING A MISTAKE AND REPEATING IT OVER AND OVER WILL NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!!
IT IS THE SAME MISTAKE ... MISTAKE + MISTAKE + MISTAKE is still wrong.
Lets go beyond your silly classic physics experiments and see if I can open your eyes.
I answered your question I want you to answer my question now and I want you to just answer the question stop posting examples and just have a simple discussion.
DO YOU REALISE CLASSIC PHYSICS IS WRONG AND CAN'T BE MADE RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, EVEN IF I ACCEPT YOUR WRONG MATHS IT SOLVES NOTHING?
Hint: Einstein started the problem but it has nothing to do with relativity but it is why we care little about your experiments they are pointless. I need you to grasp the problem goes way beyond what you are thinking.
Okay I thought long and hard about this and decided to give the answer rather than make you work thru to it
The problem you are trying to work out is create a reference frame in classic physics ... it is pointless and I shall explain why.
The universe has another much more correct set of rules and descriptions which is Quantum mechanics and that description tells you classic physics is wrong and gives you ways to fix it.
QM has the same problem as classic physics in that it needs a reference frame only things aren't solid like in your imaginary solid classic world.
Despite different name and treatment, a quantum reference frame still share much of the notions with a reference frame in classical mechanics. It is still defined with the same definition. It is still always associated to some physical system. And it is still always relational.
In Laymans terms:
QM has to be relational there is no choice because there is nothing solid to anchor a zero reference frame in, which is what you are desperately trying to do.
As the QM universe and your classic universe are the same thing QM more explicitly tells you why there can be no zero reference frame.
So you may think you are up against Einstein which you are but you are also up against QM because what you want to do in creating a zero reference frame is instantly falsifiable in QM.
So it is important you understand that if you try to create a zero reference frame it's not just Einstein you have problems with but particle physics and QM.
I am going to be sort of layman friendly and say Einstein doesn't have to be explicitly correct but any replacement has to be a RELATIVE THEORY you can not have zero reference frames because you can falsify that in the other two science fields.
The classic mathematics in your problem is just numbers that may make you feel like you can prove or disprove things but you need to understand that classic physics is a horrible simplification that inevitably breaks down if you look at it too hard ... all you are proving to yourself is that problem.
GET IT .. PHYSICS LAWS HAVE TO BE RELATIVE FOR QM AND PARTICLE PHYSICS TO HOLD
In looking for a zero reference frame you are looking for a pot of gold at the bottom of a rainbow and the two situations are exactly the same. The solid classic world is an illusion as is the rainbow and you want an absolute point on the illusion and refuse to accept it can't exist.
That is why scientists ignore you and treat you like a nutcase because you fail to do enough reading and learning to even understand the magnitude of your problem in your theory you insist is right.
Please tell me that some of this is getting thru and you are beginning to see the problem you face ... ABSOLUTE SPACE IS DEAD AND BURIED.
Last edited by Orac; 09/10/1303:50 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.Ok thank You that You read my post and You use Your own brain
Now we understant the problem ( I'm not idiot that think that we can measure asymetry of montion )
problem is how to evaluate how many energy need mass left and mass right for the same motion )
m -----pipe -----m ---> ( If exist velocity like show arrow)
mass LEFT will slown down after explosion mass Right wiill accelerate after explosion
situation after explosion
<----V1 m .....Earth ...... m V1 ----- >
IF WE WILL MAKE THE SAME TEST BUT PERPENDICULAR PIPE to Velocity arrow we can 100% be sure that 50% explosive energy will take mass m left and 50% mass m right
WHY because Inertia forces ( resistance that give mass m to dynamite is equal )
ASK SOMONE WHO LIKE AIKIDO ABOUT BELOW (we can measure below )
More Easy is push the ball perpendicular to velocity arrow child 1 must invest more biger forces to have at the same time the same velocity change Child 2 have better situation very easy he can push the ball own finger ( reason is kinetic energy that have small ball )
Absolute zero not exist ? Yes we can not see zero what mean zero if not exist zero not exist perendicular direction !!! to not zero montion ??? !!!
I was in point 1 --> I'm in point 2 ----> I will be in point 3
apparent point 1 ,2,3,4, .... exist ? Yes
Below I showing doppler for light ( not my own picture )
apparent point 1 the source was in point 1 and started ring 1
point 2 , Ideal ring 2 , Ideal ring 3 ( C respect to Apparent point in all #3D direction ( rings = 3D Balls )
(NOT EXIST C+ V! so we not see ellipse on that drawing )
Apparent point ? I know that body was in that point this point is not moving this point exist and is virtual zero mass zero energy ONLY INDEX ( like zero in mathematica - without zero mathematica not exist -- without apparent point physics is flat and we don't know what is the time , what is our mass , main dimenssion )
You --- 300 000 km ---Bulb -----300 000k m --- me -----> 1m/s
Light need 1sec for above distance IF only rocket absolute not move Your and My Eyes will register the same brightness of bulb
below picture explain what is it brightness
CLASSICAL MECHAINIC IS NOT IMPORTANT ?
read below paragrapf is inside each book ( physics ) open Your book please find below paragraph in quantum mechanic
" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them). This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving . The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."
I don't know nothing ? I must make many experiments and test then I will be sure
LET ME TRY AND EXPLAIN THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL AND PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY
In classical physics, motion is continuous. Motion is the varying position of something with respect to time. Newton's laws describe it.
In quantum mechanics, there is no motion in that sense. You have two observed positions at different times, but no knowledge of what happened in between. The wave functions describing position and momentum are continuous though. But the object itself does not move smoothly on a classical path it simply is an illusion of observation in the same way the frames of a TV picture appear to show motion.
Classic physics is wrong the scientists worked that out back at the turn of the 19th century with the double slit experiment showing the wave behavior of matter.
Read from article=>Matter waves were first experimentally confirmed to occur in the Davisson-Germer experiment for electrons, and the de Broglie hypothesis has been confirmed for other elementary particles. Furthermore, neutral atoms and even molecules have been shown to be wave-like.
We have shown large molecules of 144 atoms (phthalocyanine (C32H18N8) and derivative molecules (C48H26F24N8O8)) can pass thru both slits simultaneously .... solid matter is an illusion or rainbow if you like.
The solid world isn't solid at all it is an illusion of our mind and humanity.
We have shown it beyond doubt with all the many amazing QM experiments that are routinely done.
Now QM also tells you there is no zero reference frame there can not be one because you are dealing with a wave
So do you understand why you can't use classic physics to solve the absolute space problem the universe doesn't even remotely work like what classic physics says it just a good approximation to match our human illusion.
It would be like me telling you I have an experiment to show that a rainbow has absolute space relationship. Even layman adults but not children can usually quickly work out that is ridiculous. That's the joke about the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow
If you want it in simple terms it is like you trying to tell me that TV is a real universe even though I can show you the images frame by frame and there is nothing alive and I can even make it go backwards.
See what I am trying to explain Newton what you think you can prove is impossible to prove in classic physics because classic physics isn't remotely like how the universe works.
No classical experiment can tell you about absolute space and that was what was confusing to all the old scientists and the trap you are falling into.
Do you see why you look like a child with a rainbow Newton?
Last edited by Orac; 09/10/1303:07 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Einstein reasoned that there is no stationary hitching post in the universe relative to which motion should be measured. Instead, all motion is relative and all frames of reference are arbitrary. A spaceship cannot measure its speed relative to empty space, but only relative to other objects. If, for example, spaceship A drifts past spaceship B in empty space, spaceman A and spacewoman B will each observe only the relative motion. From this observation each will be unable to determine who is moving and who is at rest, if either.
This is a familiar experience to a passenger in a car at rest waiting for the traffic light to change. If you look out the window and see the car in the neighboring lane start to move backward, you may find to your surprise that the car you observe is really at rest and the car you are in is moving forward, or vice versa. If you could not see out the windows, there would be no way to determine whether your car was moving with constant velocity or was at rest.
How To solve above problem ????
Please imagine huge spaceship (below idea explain later I wiil show how to use dark filtre and photocamera and simulate long distance)
I made in home very simply test (Modern Physic ---> it is impossible recognize ----> Me Marosz I can measuer You can repeat my test ) 220 km/s and 30 km/s and perpendicular direction to velocity ( 0 km/s )
*****************************************
About classical mechanic after I finished my test I started think about classical mechanic interpretation
I think that Pendulum not change position respet to Earth own rotation because Each body in the universe has got own special velocity and own special apparent point ( I call this inertia )
for Me ( I can make mistake I don't know I only think right now )mass m = constant we can not change mass m Velocity rise up = inertia rise up not mass rise up
What is It inertia ? kinetic energy and AVERAGE Gravitation forces ( Mr Mach told that when you moving small mass on your table The universe feel your move -- average ravitation forces exist between universe and small mass m in your room )
BR MACIEJ MAROSZ engineer and Inventor ( not Idiot ) my design - machine work ? ---> http://tesla4.blogspot.com/
I never study quantum for me it is to hard to understand I like simple machine ( car engine , vehicle ) I use my photocamera to test because I during play with my daugter i made strange picture I was my motivation for test
I never study quantum for me it is to hard to understand I like simple machine ( car engine , vehicle ) I use my photocamera to test because I during play with my daugter i made strange picture I was my motivation for test
Hence you can not understand that it is not just Einstein you are against it is QM.
QM is not that hard you can read around the more complicated mathematics which is just a formalization of the proofs.
There are millions of experiments that show QM is correct and as it describes the same universe as classic world and it explains why there can be NO ABSOLUTE SPACE and NO ZERO REFERENCE we accept Einstein is right or at least more right.
As you are trying to prove ABSOLUTE SPACE which no amount of classic experiments can prove because it is wrong I will simply ignore you the same as why all scientists do the same.
All mechanical and classical experiments will work up to certain limits on earth and you can use them for daily problems but you can't extend them into space or use them to try and explain the universe where they fail badly.
Good luck finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Last edited by Orac; 09/11/1301:26 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
how look light's beam from the sun ( Luminosity def.)
Point source S is radiating light equally in all directions. The amount passing through an area A varies with the distance of the surface from the light.
OK ? here we have doppler definition ( rings = 3d ball (luminosity ) + not exist C+V and C-V ( apparent point animation in VACUUM !!! ) )
I need study quantum I wiil go and buy some books ....
Here let me save you some money ... this is a reasonable enough introduction to quantum mechanics for layman no mathematics and not very hard to understand
Initially the wave properties of matter are very unsettling because it is natural for humans to make the world solid and the human mind is great at fooling us
Which of the two yellow lines is longer ... measure them on screen with a ruler
Last edited by Orac; 09/11/1312:36 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Below Example will Kill Your brain I wait for Your post
..Bulb..<---300 000 km ------> sensor 1 ............................................. .....You inside big spaceship .....( zero windows)........... ............................................. Sensor2.<------300 000 km ---> Bulb
Exist Motion ???
------------------> or opposite direction <-----------------
Light need 1 sec. to touch the sensor 1 Light need 1 sec. to touch the sensor 2
I know that You are moving I don't know velocity but I know that You are moving inside the universe
please turn on and off bulbs (0,001 sec long impulse )
THE LIGHT SPEED IS ABSOLUTE !!! Not exist C+ Your rocket velocity !!!!
Orac I want to know Your opinion During light is going to front and rear Are You moving ?
how sensors regiser brightness
a ) absolute stationary rocket b ) 10 m/s ----------> c) c/2 -----------> d) <-------------- 10 m/s ( other direction) e) You are moving but perpendicular to light from bulb
DO YOU SEE DIFFERENT a,b,c,d,e situation please explain me how and why senror 1 and sensor 2 not register the same brighntess in situation b),c),d),e) can You evaluate "SIGN" of the motion or perpendicular direction
Newton I already know the answer to your problem it is easy to answer when you know how and you won't listen ... I can even tell you the maths to fix your problem.
Repeating the same crap over and over won't convince me.
You simply refuse to look at your big problem .... look at your example on a different scale.
Take your problem down to a single atom ... think about it.
You have made space and motion absolute.
How does a single atom resist forces if space and motion are absolute?????
When you make something move the atom would experience the forces of motion differently is what you are saying?
So why doesn't the atom simply collapse when you push on it how does it generate a force relative to the centre of the atom???????
Lets extend the problem for you.
An electron you probably imagine as a small particle circling around an atom centre. That particle has mass you probably even know that.
So now your thought problem when you quickly accelerate a solid why don't all the electrons end up at one end.
Think about that if you are standing in a bus and it moves off to fast you lose your balance towards the back of the bus so surely an electron must suffer the same problem?
Your problem you are trying to work out is most pronounced for an atom so take your problem down to an atom scale.
Now try and think about your same experiments.
The problem you always end up with is historic electrons and bits of the atom should either fly of into space or the atom should collapse instantly.
This is why the absolute space and force question is most pronounced in the QM world because the centre of each atom is somehow able to act as a reference frame for the atom.
Think how ridiculous that is from what you are trying to do that the centre of each and every tiny atom can create it's own reference frame against the backdrop of the whole universe?
This is the problem that Einstein and many others were working on they only increased the scale to deal with large objects later.
Originally Posted By: newton
Below Example will Kill Your brain I wait for Your post
I am sorry I don't find it remotely confusing it is trivial to solve as does any scientist ... you are the only one who can see a problem.
See this is what I don't get you admit you find QM hard so you already realize you aren't as smart as many scientists. Yet for some reason you think you are smarter than scientists who already understand what you are doing wrong but won't listen to there answer.
To a scientist you look like a stupid child because you can't see the glaringly obvious problem in your own answer and I have given you the answer multiple times.
The answer for the last time because you seem to have mental issues, not meaning to be rude but it is frustrating how you can't see the glaringly obvious
Thus the kinetic energy of a system is lowest with respect to center of momentum reference frames, i.e., frames of reference in which the center of mass is stationary (either the center of mass frame or any other center of momentum frame). In any other frame of reference there is additional kinetic energy corresponding to the total mass moving at the speed of the center of mass. The kinetic energy of the system in the center of momentum frame is a quantity which is both invariant (all observers see it to be the same) and is conserved (in an isolated system, it cannot change value, no matter what happens inside the system).
Do what it tells you to do and you suddenly find your great mystery that only you see goes away.
Originally Posted By: Newton
Orac I want to know Your opinion During light is going to front and rear Are You moving ?
There is no point in answering any more of your questions which are easy to answer because you won't listen and you jump all over the place.
You think there are multiple answers to your problem. The problem is if you chose an answer you must apply that answer to the same problem at different scales and then your whole universe blows up or collapses.
Until you stop posting the same garbage over and over and discuss one problem from start to finish at all scales and the implications it is pointless.
Now I have wasted enough time of this garbage and you refuse to listen so please don't address any more questions to me I am fast getting beyond interested because you are a nutcase who won't listen and do things logically.
Last edited by Orac; 09/12/1312:33 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
This a prblem for newton gravitation Eguation Absolute montion change distance !!!!
Important is where signal started how fast signal is moving respect to point where was HUGE mass M and where huge mass M started signal
Apparent point and we need change famous equation Motion is in every bodies Respect to apparent point
NEWTON ---? GALLILEO ?
BR THINK ABOUT GRAVITATION SIGNAL and 150 000 000 km distance ARE WE MOVING ???? YES 20 km/s please use fact that gravitation have some velocity and need some time for distance !!! 150 000 000 km distance !!!
Winter and SUMMER position DO YOU UNDERSTANDE PROBLEM !!! CLASSICAL MECHANIC = HUGE BODY MODEL AFTER HUGE MODEL WE CAN SPEAK ABOUT SMALL THAT WE CAN NOT SEE
ATHOM e-----C-------------e --------> Motion
C -center e- electron
You know why we have ellipse shape ?
COPERNICUS STOPED THE SUN MAROSZ STOPED THE SPACE
POLAND vs REST of THE WORLD 2/0 !!!!
To explain SKY mechanic very important is also THERMAL shape change
I was looking in many books ( nobody describe that Half of the Earth is more HOT and hot body is more bigger please add to above self rotation ) ... this is the topic for many many posts .... other post about athom ?? who know :):)
ROFL ... you know the atom is not elliptical right.
See how crazy you are .. is there no stupidity you won't make up to save your theory
Here is an image of the hydrogen atom 1 electron, 1 proton
It was filmed on earth and guess what no ellipse .. QM even correctly predicted the exact orbital and it has for each and every atom in the periodic table.
There is a deeper problem your atom is like a Bohr atom model and you have to answer the stability problem ... which goes like this
WHAT STOPS THE ATOM COMPLETELY COLLAPSING ... IT CAN BECOME AN ELLIPSE ... AGAINST WHAT IS IT PUSHING TO STOP TOTAL COLLAPSE
Your theory FAILED yet again ... think that's about what 7 or 8 times .. we don't allow 1 as scientists!!!!
I still don't get why you don't ask a scientist to explain all the evidence against your theory and try to work through each of the problems rather than look ever more silly.
Edit: Incase you do decide you actually want to learn you will note that QM theory of predicting atomic orbitals accuracy is rigorously tested usually by predictions like new elements and how to make them. Starting to see the mountain your theory has to get over, Einstein and relativity are the least of your theories problems.
You are into mechanics and engineering and you think your theory is all you need to explain everything.
If that is so you should be able to build a big version of a working atom like life size with basketballs.
I mean you think it looks like this
The electric charges all balance out so make me a huge working one of these please (not a drawing or models) but basket balls that spin around a central group of basketballs.
You aren't allowed to use wires or ropes etc because atoms don't use those and you can't argue you can't make it on earth because of gravity because atoms exist here on earth in gravity.
So make me a big working version of the model please because you think it is possible to do so.
If you can't make me a big version of your atom .. why not .. PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Last edited by Orac; 09/12/1302:21 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
VERY GOOD TEST THANK YOU FOR YOUR LINK DID YOU LOOK ON ALL PAGE (move mouse down of Your link ) !!
What time they made this picture ? Where was the Earth and Sun during they take a picture ?
How look main angle microshope horizontal line and main velocity
->>> when You have two vectores You know how to add
Give me georaphic wide of the labolatory I will show You important angle and we can ask them please take a picture on this direction and angle You will have evidence !!!! that it is not circle !!!
CIRCLE ??? for my wife it is small ellipse We can prove or disprove circle
MORE INFO FOR YOU ABOUT ATHOM
TIME IS ABSOLUTE MOTION CAN CHANGE ELECTRON PERIOD !!! Great idea the same electron jous make not the same way ( elipse rise up if velocity rise up ) longer or shorter way Important is apparent position and absolute montion = Huge speed time slown down ( not time but electorn period and way is bigger !!!)
IDEAL CIRCLE ? Exist only if atom is in stationary point in the universe and not take any energy form outside !!!
Atomic clock slown down during travel but not time !!! time is absolute :):):) (
Thank You Your posts ARE VERY GOOD INSPIRATION
ABOVE TEST WE CAN ASK MICROSCOPE OWNER PLEASE USE SPECIAL TIME AND SPECIAL MICROSCOPE ANGLE we schould see 24h period shift ( maximal point direction )
Dear Orac Can we speak about Earth and Sun ( sky mechanic )
and not Use others planet around Sun and Earth
Your Problem is that You want to speak about sigle atom without information about many problems around athom !!!
Mr Mach learned Us that all bodies in the universe cooperate small mass m motion can change huge mass M velocity important is speed and inertia
( in the universe not exist friction ) Inertia rise up if velocity rise up
What Is it black hole ? Information about body is moving slower than body ? or we have huge abberation and very low signal level !!!! ( apparent point is important ? )
Not exist C+ V what if V is closed to C ???? apparent point it is very good tool for many facts NOT for SINGLE ATHOM ( not real teoretical example)
The planet problem is identical to the atom problem .... you want absolute space size doesn't matter.
So lets not even worry about planets or atoms which are too hard to test for you and I ... we have 3 marbles.
Set the 3 marbles into your model we can both easily do it and test things.
You can't do it can you .... you are a mechanical/electrical guru why can't you do it?
Why Newton?
Atom/planet or marble they all work it's the same universe.
YOUR PROBLEM IS CLASSIC PHYSICS IS WRONG and you are stuck ... I know it, you know it as does everyone.
It's called the collapse of Newton's universe ... PLOP .. universe all gone
Here is the best model anyone has ever been able to make for a museum and it's not very good even children have trouble with it
SO WE HAVE A GOOD SETUP WE CAN BOTH TEST CALLED 3 MARBLES AS CAN ALL THE READERS
WE CAN MAKE IT 2 MARBLES IF IT HELPS
SO LETS TEST ... COME ON NEWTON
The best bit is we haven't even got to the hard bit of stacking atom models on top of atom models which we should be able to do to build a solid and then apply pressure .... oh the problem gets a lot worse Newton.
Are you feeling rather silly yet Newton?
Absolute space is dead absolutely marbles tells me so!!!!!
Last edited by Orac; 09/13/1306:24 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
If you decide to actually discuss why you can't make the marbles look like an atom I am more than happy to take you thru how people tried to solve it historically and what the problems are so you can see the problems from different angles.
However I suspect you will respond with the usual wall of garbage about your great theory
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
below Galileo His problem was main inspiration for modern physics ( my test with light solve below problem ) it is fact that we can measure different brightness of picture ( Ok I and You don't know why and how ... above I already showed my point of view .... )
below paragraph is right now in each books physics for me t is not only about Newton !!!
" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them). This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving . The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."
Nine marbles I don't know but what about 900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 marbels
Speak about one atom = nonsense Gravitation = many palnets cooperate ( motion ??? ) Dark mattery ??? darkk mattery can be apparent points milion years before very far far from Earth some bodies were in that point and send gravitation signal that we can measure but body is far far away from point where we look
Wiki "Special relativity is generally considered the solution to all negative aether drift (or isotropy of the speed of light) measurements, including the Michelson–Morley null result. Many high precision measurements have been conducted as tests of special relativity and modern searches for Lorentz violation in the photon, electron, nucleon, or neutrino sector, all of them confirming relativity"
Hey my simple test is here ( You need photocamera + bulb )
very cheap and simple test ( problem is that to many persons like to be more satrer than others They are "Elite"
They like use mathematica that nobody understand and take money from goverments for test that nobody understand !!!! )
Even if I was to accept there was a problem with SR/GR we know your theory is dead.
Whatever theory is correct must be relative you can not have absolute space
That is why you can't make marbles into an atom here on earth not even using magnetism or any other technique you lack something which is a repulsive force and worse it has to have special properties of how it works at distance.
That is why even as good as you may be with mechanical and electrical things you can not build such a model.
The problem for you Newton is such a force CAN NOT EXIST WITHOUT EINSTEIN BEING RIGHT.
So even if I accept there is another explaination of Michelson–Morley experiment WHICH I DON'T ... your theory is as dead as ever.
The universe couldn't work with your rubbish theory it would collapse in on itself .... NO REPULSIVE FORCE !!!!!
So you need a repulsive force it must be measurable and detectable and experimentally verifiable by science and somehow you have to get the universe to still behave as it does.
TRY MAKING A REPULSIVE FORCE IN YOUR THEORY AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS
Any theory that wants to replace Einstein's must ultimately actually work ... yours fails that test
So here are your 3 marbles again think how to make it work
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
1 appatent point is inside books 2 aberration and fact that not exist C+V is inside books 3 Luminosity and distance/Area Square functon is inside books 4 Doppler we have two bodies different velocity we also see apparent position not Real and Actual position of the source
I see huge problems inside Fundaments I not like or dislike Einstein but please explain me what is it apparent point for You ?
Point 1 -----You are in point 2
You were in point1 ( point one not exist but it is stationary point "frozen motion " )
You can not change past ( fact that You were in P1)
FACT that YOU were in P1 is absolute also for others observers ( They will be able evaluate Your actual position they can see red/blue shift and more they can see lower and become more brightness picture ( similar is with black holes after many years who know ? ---> we can see that blackholes are more bright )
My discovery ? observers can measure brightness and Hz not only Hz ( Level of signal is important )
Dear Astronomers You can see red blue AND MORE
You are able measure Intensity of the signal SHIFT ( You can feel more hot light = you register the light more closer apparent point below Solar system please see below animation and picture )
below SUN and Earth model and 20 km/s ( winter distance is different if You compare to summer distance ) reason is apparent point and motion respect to apparent point ( Important is where the signal started not where right now is the sun and the Earth )
if You are sending master signal of light from each new point where You are in space LED can have 120 mln Hz
Led ------- camera ----->30 km/s point1.......point1
after short time led will be in point 2 ( camera escape from light ( first signal started in point 1 )
"********"Led ------- camera ----->30 km/s point1..Point 2........point2
please add to abve picture doppler
Not exist C+ V so You are sending rings point 1 ----ring 1 point 2 ---- ring 2 point 3 ---- ring 3 .....
lets speak about Michelson Morley ( please stop speak about Newton I know and You know that NEWTON is incorect he didn't find absolute zero )
Quote = In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations.
I am sorry Newton .. we are here the universe exists so you are wrong.
Repeating silly things over again and again won't make it right.
So I will repeat until your idea can make the atom model spin the marbles it is dead ... I have 3 here if you want to play
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
If you are in the mode to stop being silly and want to actually learn you need to see how deeply relativity is in the universe.
Lets start explaining first there are two sorts of relativity and you get them confused and even mix them up. At a layman level Special Relativity is actually the easiest which involves inertial frames or moving frames and General relativity involves gravity as a rough guide.
Many of your comments don't distinguish between the two but it is important you isolate which you are talking about.
Special relativity you have almost no chance of proving wrong ... good luck with that.
Theories that Special Relativity forms the basis for:
1.) Electromagnetism
You are the mechanical/electrical person well none of your fields would work without SR.
Electromagnetism with the advent of Quantum Mechanics was corrected from its classic physics to a single framework called Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
NOTE THIS POINT: In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved.
2.) Quantum Mechanics and Atomic structure
You did part of this exercise above with the marbles
There are formal mathematical proofs that special relativity comes out from the frame work of quantum mechanics. Atomic structure and forces require special relativity to be correct or else the atom falls apart you found that problem.
This is the problem Einstein was playing around with when he discovered the idea.
3.) Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD).
The atomic problem from above made it clear that you need more forces to hold the atom together and make a repulsive force.
In 1973 the concept of colour as the source of a “strong field” was developed into the theory of QCD by European physicists Harald Fritzsch and Heinrich Leutwyler, together with American physicist Murray Gell-Mann.
In QED there is only one type of electric charge, which can be positive or negative. To explain the behaviour of quarks in QCD and hold the atom together, here need to be three different types of colour charge. The three types of charge are called red, green, and blue in analogy to the primary colours of light but there is no connection whatsoever to actual colour.
QCD holds the position as the most tested and precise theory in science.
That theory has it it's core to make it work special relativity.
4.) Standard Model and the Higgs
The standard model extended QCD to cover all particle interactions except gravity. The model predicted the existence of an unseen particle which was creating relativistic mass of particles.
Again note the theory is fully compliant to special relativity and would not work without it.
CONCLUSION Special Relativity has to be correct because those 4 high complex theories rely on it. No other theory or idea even comes close to surviving in those 4 wildly different and complex theories.
See those 4 big items they tell you that absolute space does not exist at least for fields
You can't talk your way around it the universe would not be in existence if space was absolute to light, electromagnetism or particles.
DISCUSSION:
That is why you get treated like a lunatic Newton because some of your idea is beyond silly.
Gravity is the one effect as scientist we don't have a good grasp on however you can not disprove special relativity using gravity effects you can only disprove General Relativity.
Lunatics don't stop to realize this point that no universe space observation can make special relativity wrong it is a different field and a different theory.
At best anyone could do is prove Einstein half wrong that is general relativity is wrong absolutely no chance of proving special relativity wrong.
Hopefully you will bother to read and learn.
If anyone tells you they have effects that involve light or electromagnetism that they think proves special relativity is wrong and want absolute space they will have made a mistake ...... that is an almost certainty from point 1-4 above.
If you want to make claims about gravity and GR being wrong well fine there is a little ground to discuss things.
So do you understand that many of your claims in your posts are beyond stupid because they require Special relativity to be wrong which means the universe ceases to exist. Some ideas above are slightly feasible because they oppose General Relativity and as we have gaps in gravity are ok to discuss.
So if you want to use Michelson Morley to talk about gravity effects fine but you try and start making Special Relativity wrong and I really am going to call you a lunatic.
So choose very carefully what you think you can show Newton because your answer may blow the universe up in your face.
That ends the lesson for today.
Last edited by Orac; 09/14/1305:14 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I'm very simple person
if someone use laser and repeat Michelson Morley
he will not be able measure West East different
I without any outside help
made in home very simple tool
(everyone can repeat my test and build compass in home )
[img:center]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PqEJjEZQisM/UKjVcJCGp9I/AAAAAAAAALs/0XOxA_hceK4/s1600/wwwwwwwwwwwww.JPG[/img]
[color:#FF0000][b]Apparent point
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif]click! >>>wiki def.[/url]
and Airplane A and B [/color] [/b]
in one and special moment two airplanes
are in one and the same point
(in the same point bulbs started the same ring )
[color:#FF0000][b]not exist C+V !!! [/b][/color]
light's signal is isotropy respect to apparent point !
light need time "t" for distance :
( bulb ) ---- ( front of airplane)
light is traveling from apparent point to sensor
during this time A
Unfortunately for you I suspect there will be a terrible child error in your setup which I haven't wasted my time to look for because you will simply ignore me and invent 5 new pieces of junk because for some reason you think you can somehow rewrite the whole of physics.
You freely admit
Originally Posted By: Newton
I'm very simple person
yet for some inexplicable reason you feel you are gifted enough to rewrite the entire physics of all science even though you clearly don't even understand more than a small fraction of physics.
That being said science has a long list of Michelson–Morley done in recent years (2003-2009) to much higher tolerance than your setup with laser and masers and all are negative.
The ultrahigh precision of the new experiments is quoted as delta c/ c and stand at less than 10E-17 or 0.00000000000000001 if you want it long hand.
Every Michelson–Morley experiment ever done comes back with the same result speed of light is constant in all directions.
So no Newton I don't believe your result and as you continue with five new claims every time I show you the error in one of your so called experiments I don't intend to waste my time on yet another.
Last edited by Orac; 09/15/1301:12 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
first pictures different West and East ( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s ) > http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg
Question for You If I will use water and made the same test light will slowndown ( 1,33)
what about Earth ? ( Earth will not slown down )
You and Me know that that below test will give more better ( bigger ) different of brightness West and East pictures ( please compare to my first test inside AIR )
( air VS water ) eaven simple person like me feel different!
My test and Michelson Morley ? ( I think that my tool = only one and very long ARM + more simple build ( zero mirros ) )
Why very long ARM ? ( zero vibration problem and mechanical construction ) !!!
please read how work dark dark filtre ?
(below lady look on The Sun how far her eyes feel SUN (brightness is lower what about "virtual" distance???)
On My camera in my home I can use dark filtre and very Easy simulate 150 000 000 km I'm able change many parameters ( power of bulb -- distance to camrera )
I can simulate any Star distance to Earth !!!!
I think that above post explain You why my tool look very simple but it is HUGE MACHINE for many new test
DISTANCE and BRIGHTNESS = square relation function ( M-M are able measure olny line function )
PLEASE STUDY MY POST ?
RESPECT TO WHAT ? I CAN MEASURE WEST and EAST DIRECTION DIFFERENT BRIGHTHNESS ???
RESPECT TO SUN ?
RESPECT TO EARTH ?
RESPECT TO SUPERMAN or BIRTHS ?
SIMPLE QUESTION RESPECT TO WHAT ?
WEST EAST line = 30 km/s 220 km/s direction I see more biger brightness different!
RESPECT TO WHAT ???
Wake up !!! please compare water and air and camera test
I destroyed modern physics = respect to what I can see different brightness ?
How much money cost experiment ? ( it can not be too cheap for NOBEL ???? - exist some rules about prize )
I like people who have money they think that 1000 000 dolars award for Mr Hawking make that he is right person on right place !!!
I have many Fun right now I not represent any universitet and company I showed above huge precision tool ( I made first prototype alone in my home without NASA lab I know how To use new knowledge for navigation )... I wait for brave people who are able open speak about relativity ( without old experiments balast )
BR Maciej Marosz ( engineer and inventor - my test not cost 1000 000 dolars but are more good and more precision
below many of my design vision ( city can fly vision it is not stupid drawing please evaluate hexacopter forces , silent and think ??? ( I'm not idiot I love simple design )
Below very very logical argument water VS air test ?
Wake up !!! please compare water and air and camera test
I destroyed modern physics = respect to what I can see different brightness ?
The only thing you destroy is your credibility and other peoples time that read this garbage. You are beyond stupid with this sort of nonsense, as I said scientists will just ignore your garbage.
The joke was I shredded your theory enough to make it blatantly obvious it was wrong to anyone reading according to all levels of science and then the best part was you stated the exact thing ... the whole of science is wrong to make you correct
I am sorry Newton you probably don't get it but everyone else will
Now you can lick your wounds and retire from the debate or else continue and answer questions and we get to play how to make Newton look silly part 2.
If you want to play HOW SILLY IS NEWTON V 2.0 start with next question.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW LIGHT SLOWS IN A MEDIA SAY WATER !!!!
Very basic question since you understand all physics.
Last edited by Orac; 09/16/1308:28 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
test 1 Bulb ---AIR ( 100mm ) ---- camera ----->30 km/s
test 2 Bulb ---Water( 100mm) -----camera -----> 30 km/s
I don't need to speak how water slowdown air I know one light need time Ta - distance 100 mm inside air Tw - distance 100 mm inside water
During Light is going to camera camera and Earth escape from light How far from lihght will escape Earth please compare Ta and Tw Earth speed = constant and we know that exist around Sun
please evaluate distance A and B A) 30 km/s = 30 000 000 mm/s and time Ta B) 30 km/s = 30 000 000 mm/s and time Tw
if A not equal B and Vearth = constant we can calibrate camera ( brightnes of picture inside air and inside water and in vacuum )
What about Michelson - Morley ??? My test very easy is able show East West 30 km/s and 220 km/s and others
I don't need to speak how water slowdown air I know one light need time
I am afraid you will need to know how Newton
See here is the weird thing the light never travels at any other speed than "c" really but yet it goes slower.
How is this possible?????
This is what the early scientist struggled with if the speed of light is only ever "c" which it is how does a media slow light down.
The answer to that question tells you why you can't do you test under water because light doesn't behave like you need.
Originally Posted By: newton
What about Michelson - Morley ??? My test very easy is able show East West 30 km/s and 220 km/s and others
As I said no scientific test has ever shown light doing anything but "c" ever and all the labs around the world face all sorts of directions.
That is thousands of universities, hundreds of thousands of students in there first and second year labs and not one ha ever seen the speed of light do anything other than "c".
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
if A not equal B and Vearth = constant we can calibrate camera ( brightnes of picture inside air and inside water and in vacuum )
I am confused about this statement?
You have sent light into two different media with totally different energy losses and you expect them to have the same brightness ?????
Think about it this way light from the sun comes thru many kilometers of air and it is still bright outside if you go to the ocean and go down just a few hundred meters it is almost totally pitch black.
We then have the second issue you think the photon of light is really travelling in the media and that gets interesting how light travels thru a media
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Below picture it is experiment with light and doppler efect for light ( left side )
WE ARE NOT SPEAK ABOUT NEWTON !!
we speak about Michelson Morley ( BRIGHTNESS VERSION )
CAN WE RECOGNIZE WHERE LIGHT STARTED IN PAST ( point 1,2,3,4,... doppler picture)
CAN WE RECOGNIZE ABSOLUTE ZERO MOTION ( please compare situation A and B or C
if light is going isotropy respect to point 1 ( apparent point 1 )if cameras inside rocket and rocket are moving respect to apparent point 1 THERY IS NO OTHER OPTION FRONT CAMERA or REAR CAMERA will register not the same Energy in the same TIME ( at the end of picture you can see how look light's beam )
