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.
Well it is a very subdued night in physics central with most just scratching there heads after the LUX report on dark matter.
From the detector and apparatus side LUX is operating at nearly twenty times the sensitivity of it's nearest competitor. It's calibrations and backgrounds are a spectacular achievement to those dedicated scientists who worked on the system.
Most expected it to see something for most types of dark matter the counts at this level should have been thousands of events instead LUX saw exactly 2.4 events which is more or less it's background sensitivity.
That means it has ruled out a lot of weakly interacting Dark Matter candidates (WIMPS) and light candidates from most popular theories.
I have no heard from any scientists that doubt the results because of the backgrounds that it is showing so most are factoring in a NULL result for dark matter.
So we are left with either Dark Matter being very dark and hardly interacting with matter at all or it doesn't exist and both are a little unsettling to science.
Very dark matter with lack of any sort of interaction with matter means it is going to be very hard to do any sort of experiments at least with the limit of science at the moment.
On the other side if there is no dark matter then we need to mix up what we know exists in some form of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) and get a consistent theory. Almost every attempt at doing this so far has been less than successful.
You will get the usual nutcases that claim this shows there xyz crackpot stupidity is thus validated but the reality is LUX signed a death note to most of the testable most likely to be able to tested theories. In that sense the lunatics win because no theory left is going to be testable for a good many years unless we get a physics break through.
I guess it was too much to hope for a Higgs and Dark matter resolution within a short timespan but it would have been nice.
So there you have it ... roll out your theories that have completely Dark Matter or no Dark matter at all none of which can be tested anytime soon and try and convince people that yours is the best answer
So we are left with either Dark Matter being very dark and hardly interacting with matter at all or it doesn't exist and both are a little unsettling to science.
Dark Matter never made any sense to me anyway , I just figured that they needed a crutch and so they invented Dark Matter to lean on.
so , now what happens to the space expanding faster than c crutch?
wasnt that a result of Dark Matter or connected to Dark Matter in some way or form?
I forget or better yet its because I never looked into it , because I didnt think it was worth my time , because I didnt believe that Dark Matter existed.
Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.
so , now what happens to the space expanding faster than c crutch? ?
Below one picture
I see airplane but I can not hear it
what if I not see and not hear ???
Black Hole = Newton Action and reaction + new point of view for old problem
fashlight ----> C> ...... observer 1
observer 1 can not see light ( information about body position ) have lower velocity than body
observer 2..............flaslight -----> C>
observer 2 can not see light !!! light can not hit flashlight and back to his eyes !!!!
flashlight -----> C> I I I I Observer 3
Observer 3 is abbel see very LOW LUX ( exist huge abberation that reduce brightness of this what is sending flashlight )
look below light made distance "a" after time T How many meters made rocket during time T ?
Sensrs on opposite wall can register ENERGY / AREA Energy is constant if electric power of laser is constant what can change ? AREA !!! ( one point , or many points - line)
Wery important fact !!!
dark night You keep in Your hand Bulb ( edison ) if You are moving in space with Earth ( 30 km/s . 220...) You are sending many 3d Ball Waves
Look below not NEW GENIAL THEORY !!! ( only doppler and !!! and !!! not red blue but INTENSITY OF SIGNAL SHIFT !!!
How work bulb in vacuum and what mean distance for bulb Inverted Square Law
Doppler for light Bulb was in past in point 1 and started perfect 3D ball 1 .....
First Test Michelson Morley ( Intensity of signal version LUX )
so , now what happens to the space expanding faster than c crutch? ?
Below one picture
I see airplane but I can not hear it
what if I not see and not hear ???
Black Hole = Newton Action and reaction + new point of view for old problem
fashlight ----> C> ...... observer 1
observer 1 can not see light ( information about body position ) have lower velocity than body
observer 2..............flaslight -----> C>
observer 2 can not see light !!! light can not hit flashlight and back to his eyes !!!!
flashlight -----> C> I I I I Observer 3
Observer 3 is abbel see very LOW LUX ( exist huge abberation that reduce brightness of this what is sending flashlight )
look below light made distance "a" after time T How many meters made rocket during time T ?
Sensrs on opposite wall can register ENERGY / AREA Energy is constant if electric power of laser is constant what can change ? AREA !!! ( one point , or many points - line)
Wery important fact !!!
dark night You keep in Your hand Bulb ( edison ) if You are moving in space with Earth ( 30 km/s . 220...) You are sending many 3d Ball Waves
Look below not NEW GENIAL THEORY !!! ( only doppler and !!! and !!! not red blue but INTENSITY OF SIGNAL SHIFT !!!
How work bulb in vacuum and what mean distance for bulb Inverted Square Law
Doppler for light Bulb was in past in point 1 and started perfect 3D ball 1 .....
First Test Michelson Morley ( Intensity of signal version LUX )
LUX nombers and solar system ?
How I know that my own coordinatin system is moving ?
Exist zero montion ?
Why Michelson Morley is important test ?
Why Mr Mach Idea will never cooperate with Einstein
Mr Mach started think that we can use FAR FAR star as a ZERO his idea is very good
I made in home my own small star * my test camera and bulb
I know electric power of the star I know that this star is moving the same velocity like my own coordination system ( Earth ) I know distance bulb sensor
I have all datas to evaluate aberration !!! power of beam or geometry of beam AND POSITION ON SESOR
not exist C + V or C-V light started in point 1 ( past ) How far Earth is from point 1 ( I can measure Intensity shift )
point 1 ... point 2 ... point 3 ( Doppler drawing ) !!!
Everyone can do similar to me test. Einstein made huge mistake !!!
he can not explain three facts that very good cooperate doppler + aberration + LUX nombers ( Intensity shift ) !
WHAT IS VERY IMPORTANT !!!!
gravitation and light work very similar !!!
m--R----M ----> 220 km/s
m--R----M --------------------------C/2
mass m will feel different gravitation forces (LUX for light Energy/ Area for gravitation )
distance and how far from place vere signal started mass m feel signal is very important for atoms and electrons !!!
below atom ( wodore ) do You see velocity ? ( ellipse ) microscope position and Earth velocity ?
I respect your right to have an opinion but we don't need you same picture B U L L S H I T in every thread.
If you have something to discuss that's fine go ahead but mindless posting of the same image over and over again and I will complain and ask you be banned. We have seen that same image like 50 or 60 times .... oh you added a green bit
You can have a view and I don't even care if it is different from mine but please interact and say something on the forum rather than post the same crap images which are meaningless.
BROKEN BAD ENGLISH WOULD BE BETTER THAN STUPID PICTURES
You could tell us what you theory says about dark matter if you feel you have something to say ..... say it!!!!
We already another LUNATIC who says you are apparently wrong because thus expert Dr Sorin Cosofret who apparently is a genius with two degrees and can answer everything
Look he even has a website and HE IS RIGHT so you go convince him about your theory.
I think whichever of you can convince the other I will believe ... so I will support whoever wins
Convince Dr Sorin you are right and I will support you .... deal?
You really need a website ... you aren't getting your genius out to a larger following.
If you want my real opinion of both of you here is my image
I am really praying natural selection selects against idiots because the idea of that much idiot gene progressing thru generations is more than I want to think about.
Last edited by Orac; 10/31/1310:43 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I understand there is a language barrier that prevents you from communicating to the desired degree necessary to present your opinions in a clear and understandable fashion.
the images that you post could do this for you if you clean them up a bit , leave out the jokes , and add a summary of the message you are presenting in the images.
try to keep the images within a clear tolerance of each other and maintain communication from image to image , to allow a viewer to follow the opinion that you have.
you need to concern yourself with a viewers loss of attention I know you can draw , and some of your comments are clearly understandable , therefore I know you can do it if you focus on keeping a viewers attention.
capture the viewers curiosity , lock the viewers interest and feed the viewer your opinion.
and keep it short but to the point.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Paul has set a better tone than my last post so I am going to try one last time to show where this is going to end for you Maciej Marosz unless you change the way you are doing things.
You can keep your theory alive but you MUST ACT DIFFERENTLY.
I am going to use Sorin Cosofret to show you where you are headed unless you listen. I did some looking around old physic site archives (waiting for the lux broadcast) and Sorin comes up in posts dating back earlier than 2008.
It's rather childish game scientists play to see if we can identify posts of absolute stupidity that are so silly as the title says "I worry about you."
So Sorin has been putting up the same silly arguments for something over 8 years it's probably longer. He has been given the same answers and same details as I recently gave him from at least 20+ different science forums.
The response given back to him in 2008 is telling
Quote:
The life you waste defending this "work" is your own. Should you be interested in a real work of physics, you might find this interesting:
He has wasted 8+ years of his life posting the same rubbish which will never be accepted by science because it doesn't follow the guidelines of science.
I actually feel rather sad for Sorin to waste that much of his life and thoughts on such a futile exercise and all he got from it was to become the butt of a lot of jokes and get laughed at. Whether Sorin is aware or cares about what has become of his reputation is unclear to me but I feel embarrassed for him.
That will be you Maciej Marosz in 8 years if you continue down this path you need to act differently. You think I am bad now you better believe if you are still posting the same images 8 years from now I am going to be pretty hostile, I have already seen that image 60+ times.
First and foremost as per Paul has said above you need to communicate not post what appears to us as the work of a bad impressionist painter. It doesn't matter if your English is not good your pictures are even worse.
You are going to encounter criticism, you have to expect it and you will have to show slowly and methodically what you propose. If you fail to do this science will just ignore you like I currently do ... the point here is science doesn't care about your discovery. Unless science can get full answers so it can neatly join it in to a much larger physics there is nothing gained by accepting your physics. Everything is working perfectly fine at the moment so why break everything to put your idea in if all it does is break everything else.
So the key point here and it's worth making it clear
PHYSICS IS WORKING PERFECTLY FINE FOR MOST SCIENTISTS TODAY IT DOESN'T NEED YOUR CHANGE UNLESS IT HAS SOMETHING TO GAIN.
At the moment if it accepted your idea in to science in it's rather crazy form everything from the atom, cosmology, QM and chemistry .... all stop working.
IT WOULD NOT MATTER IF YOU WERE RIGHT ... NOTHING WORKS ANYMORE.
So what science will do is simple it will ignore you and eventually sometime in the distant future some other person will work out how to put the idea you thought of properly into science in a proper manner and they will get all the prizes and no one will even remember Maciej Marosz.
That is you fate Maciej Marosz, so now it's up to you, are you willing to learn and change or do you want to continue on to be the next Sorin Cosofret. Let's see where you end up 8 years from now and if you learnt anything and any of this sunk in.
Last edited by Orac; 10/31/1304:54 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Dear Orac in books doppler for light it is only RED / Blue shift
what You think do we have also Intensity shift
level of signal ( brightness shift ) ???
source --->V1 ----distance R ------ sensor---> v2
please compare to below sitiation
sensor ----->V2 -----distance R ------- source ----> V1
situation A V1 > V2
before see situation B please study below animation ( not my own but from books physics ) - not exist C+Vsource and please compare apparent point to point 1 from doopler picture
So basically you read nothing of what we wrote and learnt nothing ... you really are drop kick stupid.
So lets start counting ... 61
I see the images but I see no relevance I know how Doppler and inverse square law work I HAVE A SCIENCE DEGREE. If that is all that is about remove them I know how those effects work as will most on here because you are on a science forum.
I think it's the next bit you loose everyone because you start comparing objects with MASS to objects WITHOUT MASS. So can you clarify which type are we talking about?
I think that is where you need to start but be clear are you talking about light or objects with mass.
In your discussion something put one picture ... and explain it in one post and then wait for response. Noone can put a whole theory in a page or a single post. Einstein started with a single thought E=MC2 he argues the rest out from there and he won every argument. So if you are going to do this start with the first idea don't tell us how it ends we don't care until we agree with the first fact.
So are we clear one fact and one picture in each postI will respond otherwise I will just ignore you.
My image of the universe I will copy it every time I see your bulk images I think my universe is prettier... lets see how fast the moderator bans us shall we or can you learn how to communicate.
Last edited by Orac; 11/01/1303:15 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
source ---> V1 -----distance R ------- sensor ---->V 2
if V2 >V1 = sensor escape from the source ( distance R rise )
Intensity of signal is going down
above discovery I made in 2012 ( doppler made own idea 1842 )
Fact or False ? before me nobody use Inverted Square Law in way how I did this and add Inverted squear law to doppler
We have one small problem Source and Sensor are inside medium or are inside Vacuum ?
If they are inside vacuum all what happen inside vacuum described J.Bradley ( astonomy aberration ) below very nice animation ( please imagine that the source and the sensor are moving in space I not like below animation but I use it to help You imagine the problem )
I'm sorry uppssss I cross one topic ? or I speak about the same problem ?
m ------ R ------ M --------R ------- m -----> Motion
what about athoms on Earth ? athoms feel motion ? upss I cross topic ???
What about atomic clock and motion ( m = electrom , M = center) atomic clock ? do we have two different time and space ? or one atomic clock that have small problem during travel in airplane - motion change forces that work on electron ( not exactly forces but Intensity of signal from center )
So if what you suggested is true they would have no chance of doing the experiment as the earth swirls around in space.
Remember for a laser the power is it brightness you measure a laser power by it brightness per square area of beam and they are measuring it DIRECTLY to extreme accuracy.
I am not sure where you want to go from there the idea is clearly wrong .. we call that a falsification.
So you can't just ignore that you have to either explain how we are seeing something totally different to what you idea says.
Now I know you have an experiment you say shows the effect but as scientists we always try and reconcile different experiments. So science has multiple universities all reporting a different result to your home experiment. The obvious and most likely conclusion is your experiment has something wrong in it's control conditions but you refuse to look at them.
Last edited by Orac; 11/01/1303:32 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
You actually put two ideas in your post ... NOT ONE AS ASKED .. but I will cut you some slack.
You took the problem into solids and we can answer that as well.
What was funny is you sort of jumped on the image of the atom saying it's not perfectly round. I found it funny because you have no idea how many times that image has been scaled and probably distorted yet you think it showed something.
However it does bring up another almost instant falsification of your idea because you realize the atoms would distort and that would be correct if your idea was true.
That has a massive implication because lengths of solids would change depending on there motion
So you could get a couple of meters of material and accurately measure it and move it around ... it should change under your idea right?
I want you to think about electrons in a piece of metal and we take that metal on a centrifuge ... what should happen under your idea? The electron has mass 9.10938291 × 10-31 kilograms and it's fairly loosely bound.
Last edited by Orac; 11/01/1303:43 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
NOT EXIST C+ V or C- V (fact from books many time confirmed for EM waves )
Where the signal startet ? where sensor 1 and sensor 2 will register signal (where will be bulb 5 - 6 minutes later ) ( how far from point where light started sensors will register signal )
Please Use inverted square Law and C speed in vacuum
FALSE ? MY TEST IN HOME = FALSE !!!
WOW ...
WHY YOU HAVE WINTER AND SUMMER ( 66.66 is only problem no 1 ) do You see problem no 2 in above post ?
BUBL WAS TURNED ON ONLY FOR ONE SEC !!! WHERE THE SIGNAL STARTED ? WHERE THE SIGNAL WILL BE REGISTER ? HOW LOOK BEAM SHAPE ?
That's not an experiment anyone can do ... I am not even going to bother arguing it. I know whats wrong with it but you wont listen lets stick to experiments scientists and if necessary you can do and test.
SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE IT IS BAD IN SCIENCE YOU ARE AVOIDING A PROBLEM TO YOUR THEORY.
The problem you are bringing is the bulb emits in 3D and we can't have sensors everywhere. So stay with a laser which travels in a nice straight line.
If have misunderstood your home experiment then that's fine we can come back to it.
I NEED TO GET RID OF THE INVERSE SQUARE PROBLEM BECAUSE IT MAKES ANY EXPERIMENT HARD ... I HAVE GIVEN YOU A SUGGESTION
It shouldn't change anything in your problem but means I can measure at one point and one point only I don't have to try and cover an entire 3D sphere with measurements and it removes the inverse square problem .. happy with that?
So we have a laser beam and it's power is simply the brightness in its cross sectional area. The beam will widen slightly as it travels distance it always does but for most usable distance you can ignore it.
If you agree with all that ... no more talk of inverse square law and stay with the laser beam.
So according to you the laser power will change depending if it is going with the movement or against it .. correct?
I am avoiding hypotheticals lets stick to facts we can check.
Last edited by Orac; 11/01/1305:13 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I should actually add these days we can go smaller and more precise than even a laser beam we can go down to a single photon which there are methods to tag a photon with Quantum entanglement.
The process is call pre-heralding and so you can track an individual photon of light and detect it's arrival.
The initial detection rate was 84% I understand that has been improved lately.
So definitely no inverse square law for a single photon situation science basically can do anything to test your theory they would just need it to be viable to want to spend the money to do it.
I think we are getting somewhere near the misunderstanding and I guess we should ask and make sure you accept
For a single photon the inverse square problem doesn't and can't exist because it is a single item .. correct? Maciej Marosz doesn't exhibit inverse square law because he is a single item .. that's the simplicity of the logic.
Normally I would take it a person realizes and accepts that but I need to check with you that you understand what a photon is.
Ultimately the question we are after is Maciej Marosz or Einstein correctly predicting the behavior of a single photon of light and as that doesn't involve the inverse square law so we need to get it out of our experiments and discussion in some agreed way.
So are we clear I don't understand how you think the inverse square law gets involved, unless it has something to do with your home experiment and if that is the case lets ignore your home experiment for now.
My position is straight forward Maciej Marosz as a person doesn't exhibit square law behavior a photon of light also doesn't exhibit square law behavior because it is ONE item.
What I am starting to think is you think a photon of light spreads out in 3D like a radio wave it doesn't it is a particle called a gauge boson under electromagnetic theory.
Is that why we don't see the same answers .. I need you to tell me you understand what a photon is?
Does everything above make sense to you?
See I had not thought about this before because we sort of don't think like layman If you got confused and thought a photon did emit in every direction it's energy would get less and less by the square law
Why no one would think about it like that is the photon is the emission ... a photon doesn't emit anything. It would be like telling me Maciej Marosz is emitting Maciej Marosz's. You see the directionality of a photon in the movies with the sniper red dot on the person to be shot. You can't see the beam in travel because the photons are directional you only see them when they hit a target and bounce off in all directions and hence you see the dot on the target.
Is that what has got you confused you got photons all mixed up?
Last edited by Orac; 11/01/1307:21 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
The problem you are bringing is the bulb emits in 3D and we can't have sensors everywhere. So stay with a laser which travels in a nice straight line.
hmmmmmm?????
WE CAN CHANGE TEST AND USE LASER ( Michelson Morley used hot Edison Bulb in first interferometer not important small joke that You can confirm in books - Gallileo made test with candle)
Laser and ideal strait line + doppler + vacuum
not exist C+V ( fact 1 ) light speed C ( constant fact 2 ) laser has got electric power P ( fact 3 ) ( laser can sent X joules / sec)
below test we can made in space
during short time T light made distance "a" during short time T laser emited for example 10 Joules energy
during short time T rocket made distance ???? how to evaluate ??? on opposite rocket's wall we have sensors similar to this what use photocamera ( can be also traditional old film )
DEAR ORAC CAN WE RECOGNIZE HOW MANY JOULES REGISTER POINT or NOT ???
We should know about teperature problem ( we can evaluate constant mistake that we will made in above test ) ( hot diode is sending biger beam and more biger power ) producent always inform about +/- %
Forget all that I am pretty sure I have worked it out why we can't understand you.
You view a "PHOTON" like a mini light bulb don't you emitting in 3D and that's why you say we can't remove the problem ... found it.
I couldn't for the life of me work out why you kept going on about the inverse square law function but I am pretty sure I understand why you think that.
It also explains why in some of you examples with rockets that you couldn't work out they would never see the light.
THE PROBLEM I AM SURE IT IS BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERTSAND A PHOTON.
You need to understand what a photon .... that's the problem I am sure or it.
Haha that's why you make no sense to me and I make no sense to you ... sorry it wasn't obvious to me because I don't think like a layman ... so hard when you don't understand the other person.
SO DESCRIBE A PHOTON FOR ME THATS ALL I NEED YOU TO DO I AM SURE THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS
DOH I AM SUCH A SCIENTIST DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A PHOTON IS?
I am sure once you understand a photon this will all clear up this is the so called particle behavior of light.
Last edited by Orac; 11/01/1308:20 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Nope not even close and there is the problem go and read "PHOTON" in Wikipedia.
It's the smallest unit of light as I showed you in the link we can tag the suckers and they are very directional and act like a particle or a solid object like you and I.
That's why you don't make any sense to us you lost the directionality bit which is the main strange part of there behavior.
There is probably nothing wrong with your definition if you add
PHOTON = zero mass PHOTON = energy portion IN A LINEAR DIRECTION
You can't spread that energy out in 3D it doesn't work like that a laser beam wouldn't travel thru the air if it did it would act like a sound from a speaker or radio wave does from an antenna you couldn't make a real light beam like a laser forms.
One of the first problem your theory would face is HOW does a photon hold it's energy in only a linear direction. Einstein can answer that one you have got a problem.
You probably don't understand the problem so let me simplify it, if light could "PUSH" off space to go in a direction then light interacts with space and any movement of anything would bend a light beam. How many laser beam have you seen not travel in a straight line? The only option is light at creation point can "feel" and "push off" space but not ever again and sorry I don't know where to even go with that as you have something existing then not existing you might as well go with GOD as the answer then.
The good news is you are not a complete idiot your idea made sense when you have a wrong idea about the photon, the bad news is your theory is dead because we know far to much about photons to be wrong and you are not against Einstein you are against every experiment ever done on the particle nature of light.
If you bothered to read the wiki entry on photon you will note
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon => The photon concept has led to momentous advances in experimental and theoretical physics, such as lasers, Bose–Einstein condensation, quantum field theory, and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. It has been applied to photochemistry, high-resolution microscopy, and measurements of molecular distances.
All of those things shouldn't work if we had the photon description wrong and the laser alone falsifies your description.
Last edited by Orac; 11/01/1309:33 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
DEAR ORAC CAN WE SPEAK ONLY ABOUT BELOW TWO ILUSTRATIONS
please copy and pasate to Your PC and edit by MS Paint please show me Your version what will register sensors on rocket's wall ?
Light speed in vacuum is C only ! ( fact 1 ) not exist C+V or C- V ( fact 2)
I'm giving You simple questions please directly give me Your idea
EM waves ( radio , Light , gravitation ) made distance "a" during time T
how meny meters made during time T rocket ? Vo = 0,3 C distnce between rocket walls 300 000 km !!! T= 1/300 000 s
laser work only 1/300 000 sec ( please imagine that You can turn on / off laser for very short time
where is energy ? photons ? rocket's wall = many sensors where beam will hit wall ? how look signal ( it is triangle ? ) or I made mistake ( first line will wait for next line ? )
For test we can use also (HOT Edison's BULB ) below rocket has got two wings. Wings are long " distance Y " . at the end of wing we have the source.
Please evaluate below situation please use mathematica and real nombers )
situation A distance Y = 1000 meters Vo = 0,3 C ( rocket line vlocity )
situaton B distance Y = 300 000 meters Vo = 0,3 C ( rocket line vlocity
Where Light will hit rocket's wall
Vo respect to what ? respect to place where wave started ? respect to point 1 .... if You are in point 2 !!!
I was in point 1 , I'm in point 2, I will be in point 3
WHAT IS IT X1 ( wave's head ) this is point that is more brightness for flat sensor this point will first hit the wall
You can imagine that laser = line point 1 ---- X1 or point 2 ----X2
sesor can measure X1 ..distance ...X2 ...distance ....X3 ...
if distance is the same we have constant velocity
NOT RESPECT TO OTHER BODIES IN THE UNIVERSE !
MOTION IS ABSOLUTE AND SPECIAL FOR EACH COORDINATION SYSTEM WE NEED EVALUATE RESPECT TO LIGHT !!!
You ---> V1 -------R distnace ------- Star ---> V2
my model work or not ? do You like astronomers or they are idiots ?
in my post I'm showing You pictures that made other people ( Inverted square Law ) and Doppler
below Map also is not my own
Why they are using rings ? they shoud always use single line Star = many lasers line or many rings ???
Dear Orac it is very hard and too much problems for single person describe all aspects and applications for new discovery
below picture I'm 100%% sure ( please confirm in books why we have winter and summer - they speak only about 66.66 angle in book ) please remember who and how explain more problems
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT 20 km/s and Time that light need for distance Sun --- Earth made huge different if we speak about Inverted square Law and Intensity of signal ?
Earth will not register different Hz ( different colour) but winter / summer = different distance to place where signal started ( Energy / Area problem )
where the signal started ? where will be Sun and Earth after short time ?
I made my test inside air I wait for someone who can repeat my test inside vauum . We need also support ( astronomers ) we nee perfect set camera direction and eliminate Omega problem
( rotation forces and rotation doppler efect for example we can prepare table that have omega ideal opposite to Earth rotation we can make test in many place on globe and evaluate many parameters )
I have nothing to say and I don't want to discuss it with you.
I understand your stupidity it is what we call a fine tuning problem there are 61 parameters of the universe that you can change that make things different and we have all looked at them and discussed them.
As attractive as some results are they do not describe our universe which is the only one I care about.
I am really not interested in discussing them with someone of you science level. If you wish to waste you time playing with this stuff the go for it.
For my part this discussion is closed I already know the answers and as you won't follow the logic so it is all pointless.
I would thus appreciate if you keep this rubbish out of my threads you are welcome to post it in your own although I fear nobody will care.
BTW my answer is most astronomers are idiots and incase you don't realize astronomy is not a science they give it a title "social science" or "natural science" that's like psychology and all the other social sciences. Not like you can test any of there rubbish is it, I am a starship short of being able to do that. Cosmologists I will cut some slack too because most of there work is on the cosmic background radiation and we can test all that.
I only trust what I can test and measure myself and photons in a lab do not lie and if you want to ignore that evidence because you like some LALA story that looks good on big space scale that you can't test then knock yourself out like all the other crackpots but please stay away from me.
I hate lunatic crackpots incase you haven't worked it out they waste hours of science time because they are too stupid to see the evidence thats right in front of them.
I love your and all the other dropped on there heads stupids that say all science has to do is give up Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electrodynamics and it will all be okay. YOU ARE ALL DROPPED ON YOUR HEAD STUPID LIKE SCIENCE WOULD DO THAT .... SORRY THERE IS NO NICE WAY TO PUT IT ... GIVE UP ALL THAT FOR SOME HALF ARSE IDEA WHICH MAKES ASTRONOMY WORK BETTER .... OH BUT YOU CAN'T TEST IT. THEN TO TOP IT OFF YOU WON'T LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THAT SPACE STORY IS RUBBISH BASED ON EARTH EXPERIMENTS .... PLEASE GO AWAY!!!!
I have wasted enough time of this rubbish I will say goodbye and hope it all works out for you.
Last edited by Orac; 11/01/1301:52 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
ORAC What I am starting to think is you think a photon of light spreads out in 3D like a radio wave it doesn't it is a particle called a gauge boson under electromagnetic theory.
RADIO WAVES ? we can speak about radio waves
MANY PEOPLE USE RADIO OBSERVTORY TO GET INFO ANOUT THE UNIVERSE
THEY WILL and CAN MEASURE NOT ONLY RED /BLUE SHIFT BUT ALSO INVERTED SQUARE LAW PROBLEM ( apparent distance shift )
What About Gravitation ? GENERAL EM waves ohhh .. sory
Light NO... it is hard topic for You Mr Einstein You want to separate and different rights
Enough please go away .. yes what you suggests violates Quantum Mechanics, so yes you are up against it as well as Einstein.
None of this matters you don't want to look at how a photon ACTUALLY behaves as we measure it in the labs so please go away and talk to the other idiots out there.
From a science prospective we don't care what you lunatics think if you won't study the evidence not some cock and bull story that can't be tested from space and won't be in anyones lifetime if we don't sort out the correct and evident science we work on.
I will not bother responding anymore it is all garbage and I really really don't care, I understand the rubbish you believe in and I know why it's wrong.
Last edited by Orac; 11/01/1303:45 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
PLEASE CALIBRATE YOUR LABORATORY (before each experiment where You are using light You need evaluate COSTNANT MOTION PROBLEM and ABERRATION and DOPPLER
position , angle , arrow
constant motion is inside each test on Earth and in space
First Michelson Morley but Brightness of Beam Version
First Idea about Gravitation and apparent distance
Frist expain why we have winter and Summer ( not only reason is 66.66 degrees angle )
First Idea How to solve very OLD PROBLEM Constant Velocity and question "I'm moving or Stars"
First man who told that DOPPLER it is not only RED/BLUE shift but also Intensity of Signal SHIFT
Firts Idea how to explain different period in atomic clock that is moving ( not exist different time only the same electron is making longer ellipse ) --> wodore atom
Inventor who explained how to build new generation compass and measure West East or other directions ( constant astronomy velocity ) , first internal system for Airplane and rocket
First man who explained what is it black hole wiyhout SRT and GRT
First definition Dark matter (we need cross C limit )
COPERNIC stoped THE SUN MAROSZ stoped the space and time
BR
Maciej Marosz Engineer and Inventor
( Up sky Beam Warning light - and fly city vision electric FLY TRAM many new tools !!! )
ORAC What I am starting to think is you think a photon of light spreads out in 3D like a radio wave it doesn't it is a particle called a gauge boson under electromagnetic theory.
newton , light does spread out in 3D.
thats why we can see light at any angle.
laser light is different because the light is intentionally directed in a planned direction , light from a laser cannot be seen from any angle unless the laser light is reflected off of particles as it travels through a medium.
we dont just see the rays of light that point directly at our eyes.
if we did we wouldnt even see the sun at all.
think of the sun as being a photon of light !
after all how could a photon be illuminated only on one side?
LOL
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
@ Paul very important fact is that we must study how is build laser
Laser is somthing very not natulral it is tool like each machine has got shape tolerance
Hot Laser bigeer angle of beam ( I think that single photon beam it is theoretical model we are very far to build so perfect tool )
One problem is Laser next problem is Motion and calibration
even if ( for example You will build perfect laser ideal shape zero material and tolerane problem )
How You want to calibrate laser every target is moving !!! Your lab is moving
we can speak face to face I'm sure that I see Your apparent picture very close to Your fresh position but apparent !!!
I made in home test ( good /bad ) I'm hapy many people use brain right now !!!
thank You
Dear Orac person who speak about new can use books only for small help I'm happy that I found in web 1930 Tolman surface brightness test it is very similar to my own idea ( only similar )
Doppler it is RED /BLUE shift AND Intensity Of signal problem !
If we have situation like in michelson morley test
source --->V1 ----R -----sensor ---->V1
source ---> V1 i i R i i i Sensor ----> V1
We will never register fresh source position we have aberration ( 1730 J bradley ) light speed is only C !!!
Very Important problem is Gravitation Forces and Distance gravitation started in point 1 after short time mass m and M will be in different position ( gravitation need time for start work )
black Hole ---> V1 -------------R ---------------We ----> V2
if V2-V1 > C ??? we can not see signals form black hole !!!
Action and Reaction model !
back hole ----> F1 .... -F1 < ------ we
we can have very small mass but huge velocity ( kinetic energy) ( huge inertia help Us escape ) If we want to speak about our mass we must separate gravitation mass and inertia mass gravitation mass is more biger We = many mass around US not only Earth this is how I understand gravitation mass
(Einstein is flat Mr Mach told him about above problem I don't know why Einstein forgot about Mach in SRT )
( I can not see mass m I only register gravitation forces ??? mass m was there in past right now is in other place ?
It is very important I feel this all my brain ( Nobody right now can be sure nothing I not speak about HAOS but we must test I joust wake up !!! I wait for Your own IDea !!! )
I'm not sure nothing about above I showing hipotetical model but above I explain only Idea how it works how it can be !!!
many astronomers will be able made huge work !!! we need research ....
DEAR ORAC DRAWINGS = EQUATIONS Drawings = Logica
( more easy is use drawings ) I'm sure that without problem we can describe all by mathematica
At times I you make me cringe and I am not sure whether to laugh at your stupidity or cry .... in your native language I think the translation is "Glupszy niz ustawa przewiduje"
You have literally millions of science experiments against you and that is why I am ignoring you. Against my better judgement I will at least give you some more things to think about.
As scientists we don't draw pictures in ever increasing stupidity that could either be cartoons or porn depending on you bend ... scientist go out and measure things instead.
In 2002 the first single photon source was created using Quantum Mechanics by Toshiba. It was big news and carried by all science magazines the layman simplification of the work appears proudly on the Toshiba website
=> We have developed the world's first light emitting diode (LED) capable of emitting a stream of single photons
In 2004 those single photons could be effectively tracked in flight without destroying them by again using Quantum Mechanics
http://phys.org/news138.html => In a world-first, the path of a single photon can now be measured without destroying the photon in the process.
In 2010 Toshiba managed to compact both processes into one and Quantum Entangle the produced single photons so you could track the photons from creation to end
So perhaps stop with all the stupid claims and read science magazines ... the light saber article is an extension of the quantum work above.
So if you think you are against Einstein he is nothing compared to the thousands of Quantum Experiments that say Maciej Marosz = "Glupszy niz ustawa przewiduje".
What do you propose we do with all the thousands (that is not an exaggeration there are thousands now) of experiments that show you are wrong .... ignore them ???????
So make all the stupid claims you like and proclaim to the world how your great theory breaks all science .... SCIENCE AND I DON'T CARE what Maciej Marosz thinks.
Does you little brain understand why science and I will just ignore you because we can't ignore the thousands of experiments ..... EXPERIMENTS > Maciej Marosz stupidity
So enough I have nothing more to add ... YOU ARE WRONG END OF STORY ... if you don't want to accept that is fine by me.
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1303:52 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
TOSHIBA LABORATORY ? TOSHIBA ? IT IS INSIDE SOLAR SYSTEM ? ( 30 km/s ,20 km/s , 217 km/s
1 km/s = 1 000 000 mm /s !!
WINTER and SUMMER problem 150 000 000 distance and 5-6 minutes ?
DEAR SUN MR ORAC REQUEST PLEASE SENT TO US ONLY ONE SINGLE PHOTON PLEASE NOT SENT MANY PHOTONS ONE MORE PLEASE NOT MOVE DURING YOU ARE SENDING PLEASE STOP AND WAIT ...
GENERALY MAROSZ NOT DISCOVERIED NOTHING IMPORTANT !!!
DEAR ORAC MOTION AND COSTANT ABOLUTE VELOCITY and experiment that You know it is nothing more than question about option 1 or option 2 . ...or option 3 If You have own idea :):):)
Where the single photon started ? Where will be sensor ( screen ) after short time ? Single photon can hit side wall ?
Lets see I can see an airplane fly .... Maciej Marosz says airplanes don't exist. I say look Maciej Marosz there is an airplane flying .... Maciej Marosz says no airplane can only fly if god exists?????
You are Idiotka (and yes I use the female version for you).
If you ever get in trouble and go before a court and in front of the judge they look at the evidence ... science works the same way.
I am sorry for you Maciej Marosz we can't just ignore evidence because you don't like it.
I could fill a book with what science knows about light and photons you could not even fill a single page.
I am sorry Maciej Marosz this is simply beyond your ability to argue it .... it is the same as airplanes they exist whether or not Maciej Marosz believes it.
I will tell you one last funny thing Einstein didn't like where science eventually took his idea into Quantum Mechanics. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to disprove his own idea.
Science won't let the owner of a theory change it what chance do you think we have of letting some Idiotka, Maciej Marosz on the internet change it?
Sometimes in life you have to accept the inevitable truth .. airplanes can fly ... and Maciej Marosz theory is wrong.
For my part all I can do is tell you the truth that light behaves exactly as science says it does.
Thus ends the story .... THE END.
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1311:48 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
He lost the argument with Quantum Mechanics scientists as well and conceded he was wrong in 1997.
=>When announcing his result, Hawking also conceded the 1997 bet, paying Preskill with a baseball encyclopedia "from which information can be retrieved at will."
So to layman like yourself he is still a genius to me and many Quantum physicists he is just a funny little man in a wheelchair wrong like all the others before him.
THE LESSON HERE IS BE VERY CAREFUL BRINGING ARGUEMENTS FROM SPACE WHICH YOU CAN'T TEST AND INSIST THEY ARE RIGHT AGAINST THINGS THAT CAN BE TESTED HERE ON EARTH.
Science took on Einstein, it took on Stephen Hawkings do you really think it cares about the stupidity of Maciej Marosz.
The answer is clear you were all wrong!!!! ... science only cares what is right not who promotes it.
To his credit Stephen Hawkings worked out he was wrong, Einstein never made the realization and wasted the last 30 years of his life ... which group will Maciej Marosz be in?
=> With this new experiment, the researchers have succeeded for the first time in experimentally reconstructing full trajectories which provide a description of how light particles move through the two slits and form an interference pattern.
=>The 2011 Physics World Breakthrough of the Year has been awarded to Aephraim Steinberg and colleagues from the University of Toronto in Canada, who have, for the first time, tracked the average paths of single photons passing through a Young’s double-slit experiment. It was previously thought that individual photons cannot be tracked as they travel through the slits to create an interference pattern. However, Steinberg and colleagues used an emerging technique called “weak measurement” to know which way the photons went (Science 332 1170).
I did warn you there are thousands of experiments science have done with light
Surely it has to have sunk in that science knows a hell of a lot more about light than Maciej Marosz is ever going to know.
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1312:00 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
=> With this new experiment, the researchers have succeeded for the first time in experimentally reconstructing full trajectories which provide a description of how light particles move through the two slits and form an interference pattern.
=>The 2011 Physics World Breakthrough of the Year has been awarded to Aephraim Steinberg and colleagues from the University of Toronto in Canada, who have, for the first time, tracked the average paths of single photons passing through a Young’s double-slit experiment. It was previously thought that individual photons cannot be tracked as they travel through the slits to create an interference pattern. However, Steinberg and colleagues used an emerging technique called “weak measurement” to know which way the photons went (Science 332 1170).
NO OPTION ON HOW YOU THINK IT WORKS .. YOU CAN TRACK HOW IT WORKS.
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1312:26 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
=>Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is a thought experiment in quantum physics proposed by John Archibald Wheeler in 1978.[1] The results Wheeler predicted have since been confirmed by actual experiment
Wheeler's experiment is a variation on the famous double-slit experiment. In Wheeler's version, the method of detection used in the experiment can be changed after a photon passes the double slit, so as to delay the choice of whether to detect the path of the particle, or detect its interference with itself.
I can change the result of your experiment later in time.
Get it the result of the experiment can be changed long after the photon passes through the slit.
There is no easy way to explain this all to you I am afraid ... it's called Quantum Mechanics.
It doesn't work anything like what you think so your question is sort of stupid.
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1312:33 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
AVERAGE I CAN TELL YOU F... IT WILL NOT HIT TWO SLITS
AVERAGE THEY HAVE RIGHT
MANY AVERAGE INTELIGENT PEOPLE GRADUATE STUDY LIKE YOU !!!
STOP STOP F... ABUT OTHER OLD EXPERIMENTS and USE YOU BRAIN NOT AVRAGE DATA !!! 150 000 000 km ? average single photon will be in two slits ? How far from place where photon started are slits ????
There is no easy way to explain all this to you and that is why we don't try. Quantum Mechanics involves all complex mathematics because we really do have to deal with this stuff.
However Quantum Mechanics is built on thousands of experiments not a pile of mathematics.
The universe really is a lot different to how you imagined it and the childish physics we teach you at school
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1301:00 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
If you learnt nothing else you learnt what Quantum mechanics is about ... your immediate dislike of it you probably understand why Einstein didn't like it.
However it appears to be a truth about the universe one no experiment has ever shown to be wrong.
NONE of us like Quantum mechanics but we can't ignore it just because we don't like it.
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1301:06 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
So the answer to your slit question I can not answer they had to draw that because if they tried to photograph it they couldn't if they can see the slits at the same time as the interference pattern it will stop.
You can build one and try and take a photo of it yourself ... it's like trying to find the end of a rainbow
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I have no actual problem with you initial start points as I said originally.
There is nothing wrong with that statement.
The problem came with everything in between .. you have seen the problem Quantum mechanics throws up with things not being solid do you really think there could be an ABSOLUTE SPACE in such a situation ... nothing is solid so absolute to what
So my basic objection is absolute space .. if you want absolute energy that's fine by me but not space.
We opened you eyes and showed you the real physics as it is in all it's horrible detail ... things never seem quite the same. You never need to know any of that to live and work each day you can assume the world is solid but you have to not look to deep
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Initially because of the history it was thought particles were solid and as you have seen that simply isn't true.
However as you deduced you have energy and the energy itself can move around or spin.
So you need to not think of it like a solid ball spinning but I guess more like a liquid ball in space spinning .. I seem to remember there were some images of water droplets drifting around the space station.
That is why not all spins can be equated to normal momentum spin like spinning a ball for example in a liquid ball you can simple have a vibration backward and forward across the ball of liquid.
So the short answer is a spin is something that is different between two particles and we are now trying to call it quantum information as opposed to spin because it confuses.
So spin = quantum information = energy
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1301:42 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
This is the standard way we fix up stuff these days.
Spin is an intrinsic property of elementary particles, and its direction is an important degree of freedom. It is sometimes visualized as the rotation of an object around its own axis (hence the name "spin"), though this notion is somewhat misguided at subatomic scales because elementary particles are believed to be point-like.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
QUANTUM FOR ME IS SOMHING THAT I WILL NEVER FEEL AND UNDERSTAND
Bozon Higgsa is moving or not ?
bozon higsa -----> V1 ?
bozon higsa > zero motion ?
My experiment ( source (LED) emited photon ) single photon is going to Source ( why You ask me about quantum mechanic ? ) distance source -- double slits exist photon need time to touch the doble slits what if V1 = C/2 what if V1 = C
Where will be double slits short time after photon started trip ?
we speak about one single photon or photons ?
photon is rise like ballon ? ( not have one direction ) ?
what if the distance source/double sits will be very long ?
what if the distance source/double sits will be very short ?
how one photon can be inside two slits what if it will not touch any slit ( below picture HUGE V1 and HUGE distance !!! )
Very hard to know if the higgs boson is moving or not our understanding is too early as yet.
Interaction of matter with it gives some mass what we call relativistic mass but it does not create the mass we attribute to gravity. So some otherwise massless particles gain mass by interaction with the higgs but not all.
So again it's not simple the story of the higgs mass depends on what type of object you are talking about.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
QUANTUM FOR ME IS SOMHING THAT I WILL NEVER FEEL AND UNDERSTAND
You can if you try just follow the experiments.
Quote:
how one photon can be inside two slits what if it will not touch any slit ( below picture HUGE V1 and HUGE distance !!! )
The question you didn't ask which is the one most students immediately ask .... is the photon real?
The point above is important and you will probably have less problem with it than many students because you haven't wanted to make the world solid again .. that does not seem to bother you.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
This explains the mass that goes missing as energy that is used as the force to bind the nucleus together.
Now again they are avoiding discussing how energy binds something together because they are deliberately avoiding having to discuss quantum mechanics.
So just checking you understand that there is a lot of energy required to hold those protons together in a nucleus of an atom ... and I do mean a lot like atomic bomb size a lot.
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1302:11 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
You are welcome ... you are now realizing how much more complex this is.
You however are on the right track there is one thing to always follow it doesn't change from classic physics to quantum mechanics .... ENERGY ... follow the energy
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
These reactions have to be relativistically invariant otherwise they would vary ... the chances of two unrelated things sharing the EXACT same relationship to light is incredibly unlikely.
So again we see it is almost requirement for gravity mass and inertia mass to co-exist with exactly the same relationship to light we require relativity.
So I stayed with almost there because you can't exclude that there was some incredible fluke and the two happen to be the same weird value but lets just say it is unlikely.
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1303:32 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Okay back to the atom so we saw in the link above we are missing a pile of energy that is somehow binding the nucleus together but they never discussed how.
I am sure you know the nucleus is made up of neutrons and protons and at school you probably dealt with the protons because they carry charge and largely ignored the neutrons.
The neutrons being in the nucleus is not an accident
So the quick version the neutrons and the protons are themselves made up of sub atomic particles called GLUONS and QUARKS. Those subatomic particles have reactions of attraction like magnetism and charge but different to either and they have 3 different types we call them colors
Here is what the interaction looks like
This is the force that holds the atom together and you will note it isn't a steady force it requires things to change states all the time for it to work.
You are probably now seeing why the universe is quantum in it's nature and matter isn't quite as solid as it seems
All matter as far as we have ever been able to determine is built on this rather continually changing process. The missing energy is that energy that is in the constantly changing process above it never stands still so it took quite a bit of science to work it out ... but that's another story.
If you want to take it to electrical analogy the above is very similar to 3 phase AC power as opposed to DC power for the electron - proton interaction.
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1303:09 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
What quantum property makes the U and D and the colors different above?
You probably see the danger now of taking stuff from space and bringing the argument back to earth ... if you find it doesn't work for Quantum Mechanics then it is almost certainly wrong.
Quantum Mechanics is all about information or energy whichever you want to call it, how it moves and why it moves. As far as we know it is in all the particles and atoms in the entire universe and now you understand why Quantum Mechanics is important and science can't just ignore it.
You should also now see how careful you need to be about changes with special relativity it has relationships to almost everything in science. Even Einstein didn't like where it ended in Quantum Mechanics and we didn't let him change it.
Gravity and general relativity you can play around a lot before things break. So make sure you have it clear which you are playing with. So if you have proposed changes in space, science has limited ability to test so go for it see where it goes. Those changes suggest something other than what we measure here on earth you are almost certainly wrong as Quantum Mechanics doesn't obey classic rules it makes it's own as the atom shows you.
Last edited by Orac; 11/05/1303:46 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Exist any test experiments ( history that You know )
Anyone try find relation between / direction / arrow and Energy exchange inside athom ???
Photons has got direction ?
You showed animation many facts joust happen ( exist some special orientation , special direction ) and relation with Motion >>>> ?
can we use double slits test to recognize motion ?
we can have one single photon = ( fact )
I would like to measure airplane velocity and not use outside bodies ( satelites, stars )
Full dark box on board airplane athoms inside dark box and EM waves source + EM sensors ?
If we can solve airplane problem next step we will be able build ultra precision Navigation system +/- athom size mistake
It is very hard in very short time generate new theory that was not target for me when I made test.
after I made my test ( camera bulb ) I know that everyone in home can see west east different . Question why ? and how ? next problem is Michelson Morley ? Why ?
Quantum Mechanic it is huge tool outside my brain right now
DARK BOX PROBLEM INIDE AIRPLANE = VERY IMPORTANT AND OLD QUESTION .
I'm moving or objects around me ?
Newton want to solve this question and he can not ? Gallileo also give up ! Einstein not solve problem he joust described what see observers .
CAN WE RECOGNIZE >>> MOTION ARROW , DIRECTION , INSIDE QUANTUM WORLD ,
EM waves need Medium ? No ( we have right now in books )! Yes ?
Medium = for me Athoms Vacuum ? not exist or exist Vacuum ? what is around US in space ?
above picture I showed 3 options and dual slits experiment right side of picture = typical Engineer problem ( geometry and shape tolerance please add temperature to have full point of view for deformation )
important is distance ( source ---- Sensor ) for doble splits test ? please think about 30 m/s and 217 km/s
Constant velocity special LINE velocity is very Important We all know that we can recognize Earth's Omega ( solar system omega )
Omega + Line velocity =====> these two info can give us R(radius)
Omega = V/R ===> R = V/omega
R --- it is very important info for astronomers above test can also solve many question about expansion
=> Quantum tunnelling or tunneling refers to the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount.
No way you are going to hold it in a box
Quantum Mechanics really is about time it isn't about space and motion and it does not seem to care about it. It is also why QM is silent about gravity there ideas that you could bring gravity under QM but they are only ideas by scientists and they are along way from even what I would call believable.
So really at the moment you have GRAVITY+SPACE and QUANTUM MECHANICS+TIME and so events are usually taken into the frameworks as either spacelike events or timelike events.
Last edited by Orac; 11/06/1303:41 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
can we use double slits test to recognize motion ?
It doesn't matter how fast you move the double slit remains the same .... observation is all that matters. They have actually done experiments with particle accelerators at different speeds thru the slits no difference and they have tried spinning the experiment very fast on a centrifuge platform.
There is no way to understand the double slit that is why it confuses and annoys everyone it is such a simple test but it makes no sense in classic physics.
Originally Posted By: Newton
we can have one single photon = ( fact )
Definite fact you can buy it on a chip these days from Toshiba or many other semiconductor manufacturers.
Originally Posted By: Newton
I would like to measure airplane velocity and not use outside bodies ( satelites, stars )
Full dark box on board airplane athoms inside dark box and EM waves source + EM sensors ?
Science says it can't be done if General Relativity is correct.
From a Quantum Mechanics it can't be done because all of Quantum Mechanics obeys special relativity it's that problem that QM really doesn't care about space at all so there is no way into the problem.
Originally Posted By: Newton
Quantum Mechanic it is huge tool outside my brain right now
DARK BOX PROBLEM INIDE AIRPLANE = VERY IMPORTANT AND OLD QUESTION .
I'm moving or objects around me ?
I understand the issue unfortunately QM isn't going to help it is rather silent on the gravity and motion issues.
Somehow QM and gravity must meet but it is unclear exactly how they do at the moment we are still looking for it .. but gravity is the problem, we know a lot more about QM than we do about gravity.
Originally Posted By: Newton
EM waves need Medium ? No ( we have right now in books )! Yes ?
Medium = for me Athoms Vacuum ? not exist or exist Vacuum ? what is around US in space ?
Oh wow you really do like asking the big questions.
If I answer this it opens up a whole new area of quantum mechanics and experiments .. are you sure you want to do this?
I will give you a link to read and tell me if you really want to discuss a new bit of Quantum mechanics ... I am sorry QM has a lot to say about many things
Doppler we know Inverted square Law also we Understand
Two mass on table in Your room ( Sir Newton not showed below problem it is my own Idea)
m--R---M --------> 30 km/s
m--R--M absolute stationary situation
m ---> V1 ----R ------ M ------> V2
V1>V2 , V1 < V2 , V1 = V2
distance R = R but Motion ??? and apparent position (1930 Tolman surface brightness test for light ) mass m will not register the same Intensity of signal !! ( fact )
WE DON"T KNOW NOTHING ? we are like small baby Exist many problems !!! Nobody Saw this problem ?
Dear Orac I'm alone or You small understand me ?
Who will start clean this situation nobody ? I can not made test in Home nobody trust simple test !!!
camera1----- Bulb ------ camera2 >>>> 30 km/s or 220 km/s
camera 1 can not see the same brightness of picture like camera 2
( Evidence = 1930 Tolman surface brightness test)
NOBODY CAN SPEAK ABOUT SIZE OF THE ATHOM OR ANY OTHER SIZE
IF WE WILL NOT MEASURE EARTH MOTION
BELOW SENSOR IS GOOD START ( I hope other people will make better) We must study motion problem !!!
I USE VODORE BECAUSE I BELIVE THAT EXIST MEDIUM INERTIA
We Are moving ! YES
RESPECT TO WHAT ?
I was in point 1 I'm in point 2 I will be in point 3 ...
if distance between points is the same I have constant motion
not exist C+ V so I can use C to evaluate own velocity !!!
picture idea explain
The universe = dark lake Lampions explain apparent points ( my own coordination system was in past in that point
camera can register different brightness and geometry ( position )
Dear Orac I'm sure that we can measure velocity without words respect to other body only respect to apparent position ( our own apparent position )
Airplane A and B were in Point where signal started after short time front sensor will be in new position ( source also ) but sensor feel apparent position not fresh !!!
I understand what you are saying but there are two things against you in the quantum case
The teleportation is instant like impossible to measure fast. The best they can calculate is 10,000 times faster than the speed of light and that is based solely on the accuracy we can measure time
=> Spooky! Quantum Action Is 10,000 Times Faster Than Light
Theoretically it really should be instant otherwise other effects we should have seen will occur.
The distance really doesn't matter to Quantum Mechanics it could be the other end of the universe from what we can work out .... it would still do it.
That is why it isn't going to help you with your problem it won't see the motion and distance it really doesn't behave like our classic physics world.
Originally Posted By: newton
NEXT PROBLEM IS GRAVITATION ?
I USE VODORE BECAUSE I BELIVE THAT EXIST MEDIUM INERTIA
I understand what you believe and I even understand the implications I am a scientist after all.
You keep posting the same images and repeating the same argument but most of your arguments have fatal flaws from what I can see.
My problem is you seem to be grasping at straws and to me what seems almost silly desperation at times.
Here is a simple example .. so lets look at this claim
Originally Posted By: newton
NOBODY CAN SPEAK ABOUT SIZE OF THE ATHOM OR ANY OTHER SIZE
From a quantum mechanics point of that that statement is totally wrong because the atom does not obey your classic laws, so let me give you the facts on this item
1.) The binding energy holding the nucleus alone in place is massive like on a whole other scale to forces of motion. Atoms survive the entire pressure of the weight of the earth pushing on them and if you don't accept that even think of the deepest mine we have done and the atoms at that point have all the weight above them pushing on them. No pathetic motional forces would distort or change an atoms shape even if it could feel them.
2.) We pick protons up in particle accelerators and take them from whatever speed they are doing here on earth. The calculation on the LHC collider spinning a proton goes like this
With E = 7 TeV speed of the proton is 99.9999991% times the speed of light.
If the proton changed shape in any way the magnets holding it off the wall would not work. If the proton elongated it would start corkscrewing and quickly slam into the walls.
The LHC alone tells you that at least those parts of an atom in the nucleus are never going to change size or shape by any motion.
3.) So what about the electrons. Well same story JLAB accelerates electrons and it has the same story as LHC.
4.) Okay so the bits of an atom don't change but can a whole atom. Well science has a magic tool called a diamond anvil cell and it can create pressure which are around the same as the centre of the earth and the answer is even at those pressures nothing changes
So my problems with your views on the atom size and measurement is that the science firmly says the Quantum Forces involved are so massive that the sorts of effects you get from motion would be impossible to measure small.
We are actually theoretically sure as we can be that quantum mechanics survives a black hole that was the argument that Stephen Hawkings conceded on.
So while I understand your view and what you are trying to challenge in science you need to be careful because motion forces like gravity are pathetic forces as forces go.
Look at the table of strengths of the 4 different fundamental forces in this link
Strong force .... 10E38 Electromagnetic .... 10E36 Weak force .... 10E25 Gravity force .... 1
The Quantum forces are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger.
That is why even if there is an effect (which I doubt) you will never be able to measure it would be incredibly small that you would never pick it from background noise.
Get it the forces trying to hold the atom shape round are massive compared to the motion forces ... it would be like saying a bug hitting a car windshield deflects the car ... I don't doubt the car does get deflected by the bug physics says that, I just doubt you could ever measure it.
Do you now understand why I laughed when you tried to tell me the image of the atom I showed you was not perfectly round and you tried to claim it proved your idea ... I found it incredibly funny
Do you finally see an atom is never going to deform it's shape based on motion ... not ever well at least not in this universe the forces of motion are too pathetically weak.
So in our universe the atom shape and size you can be very confident about
Last edited by Orac; 11/07/1302:53 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
C limit for me not exist I like hear that theleportation is faster !!! The Universe not like limits !!!
Please imagine two masses
m1 -R- m2 --------------------> 1,4 C
m1 = m2
if velocity = 1,4 C and we have special distance R
m1 + m2 = M !!! You have two masses that are one M
one M ? apparent position mass m2 = actual "fresh" position for mass m1
ATHOM ??? CENTER OF THE ATHOM
I think that exist huge OMEGA ( Vx/r) very small radius "r" below I showing only two masses we can have more small parts of the center ( the small parts can have different sign "+" / "-" /"neutral" ( three masses double "+" and one "-" + OMEGA = "+"
Vx I m1..r...m2 ...........I ...........Vx
Vx > C m1 +m2 = (M) one mass apparent mass
Energy E = m1Vx^2 / 2 + m2Vx /2
If m1=m2 wehave famous E= mVx^2
More faster than light = many secrets it is very fresh but It is very strong tool how to conect in one two different bodies
+ and - can be in one point !!!
We need many new facts about Gravitation Froces and Very Low distance ( ( very low distnace = ZERO apparent distance it is similars colours mix RGB and we have 24 milions combination in TV )
m-r-m ------> motion
mathematica not like div by zero ( physics told me that apparent distance can be zero )
QUANTUM ? YES I SEE HUGE FUTURE ( this dyscipline will be more stronger than any other for next 20 Years ) I don't know nothing about quantum I need study many facts
Thank You for Dialoge ( I wake up today above post I made during I sleep -:) many of my patents and ideas Joust bourn in dream
centrifugal force problem F= mVx^2 / r
DEAR ORAC PLEASE TRY PUSH APPARENT POINT !!! CAN YOU OR NOT PUSH SOMETHING THAT NOT EXIST ??
Forces can not push apparent point ( Your finger can not push mass m that is moving faster than >C " mass m not exist in apparent point but exist "info about mass m"
HUGE ENERGY INSIDE ATHOM ( if You will give energy to body that have got rotation You will change radius r and You can brake balanced situation )
m1-r-m2 and omega + wake up energy = that r will change You will destroy conection Vx1<----m1 m2 ---> Vx1
Above picture ( we know well that old tool- slingshot) explain huge energy m1 ----> Vx1 + m2------->Vx1
DEAR ORAC PLEASE TRY PUSH APPARENT POINT !!! CAN YOU OR NOT PUSH SOMETHING THAT NOT EXIST ??
Forces can not push apparent point ( Your finger can not push mass m that is moving faster than >C " mass m not exist in apparent point but exist "info about mass m"
I want you to think about what you just said very carefully and think about centrifugal force.
It has to be resisted by something otherwise it just moves.
So when you swing a weight on a string the string has to withstand the centrifugal force otherwise it breaks ... get it the force sees the string.
There is a great demonstration done on the space station take the time to look at it
Space itself never sees centrifugal force as you see in the video the thing that is spinning sees the force.
So contrary to what you are saying there is clearing a force arising from an apparent point and you see it clearly in the demonstration in space
So you need to be a bit more careful ... it also doesn't prove you are wrong just shows you were actually slightly inaccurate in that thought.
As for the atom rotating like you see in classic physics, no you are correct it would be catastrophic and why it doesn't happen. You know a lot more about the atom now and you know it isn't rotating like the silly simplification we sometimes use to teach children.
I should also warn your atom bomb explosion is very apt for one of your suggestions.
Imagine the atom did change shape and elongate with speed, eventually you could reach the point it actually got so elongated it became unstable and broke apart .. just by moving
So under Maciej Marosz idea the atom shape gets changed by motion you could get
JUST BY MOVING TOO FAST ... SEE YOU NEED TO THINK CAREFULLY.
That was part of the reason I laughed at the time.
Anyhow I am very pleased you are discussing things now Maciej Marosz you are no longer acting like an idiot. You language is not that bad, I understand what you are saying and trying to get across. What was hard before is you weren't really listening to what we were saying you just insisted on a proof something I could see was flawed.
Some of your space ideas are untestable at the moment and I have no real data to disagree with you because you are just inverting the movement reference.
Some parts of your argument I disagree with others I can see cause no real issue and that is why it is important you interact with science.
You have made a start and you probably learnt a lot more than you ever thought you would and I am glad it is pushed you to study .... it is not as hard as it seems and you will always find scientists happy to answer questions if you get stuck.
Good luck with it and let me know if I can help if you get stuck.
Last edited by Orac; 11/07/1303:42 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
The problem was in science we expected the proton spin to balance exactly to the opposite of the electron spin ... science got a big shock when it wasn't. The bigger shock was that neutrons had a big magnetic moment.
Proton: g = 5.5856912 +/- 0.0000022 Neutron: g = -3.8260837 +/- 0.0000018
As the article discuss now we understand the quark model of the neutron/proton interactions it makes sense but you need to be careful when trying to do any calculations using classic physics.
So you need to break the problem down sort of like this if you want to use classic physics
AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS IS A SIMPLIFICATION TO BE ABLE TO USE CLASSIC PHYSICS BE CAREFUL WITH ANY CONCLUSIONS
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
"I am not sure where you are going with your model but be careful when dealing with the atom even the nucleus is a bit tricky."
Dear Orac above only my own Idea "Free Idea " without any knowledge about athom ( I like small children they Use own idea before read - It is very creative )
Physics it is Not Einstein wave = wave ( if we speak about sound important is medium velocity if we speak about light in vacuum important is only info where light started )
PLEASE USE THE SAME ANIMATION FOR LIGHT WAVE and VACUUM !!! ( please free Your brain )
IF YOU WANT TO EVALUATE PROBLEM I'm Moving or objects
Or You want to recognize Your own coordination system LINE CONSTANT VELOCITY
You must Use Doppler and Inverted Square Law (brightness ) and aberration ( 1730 J Bradley - apparent position ) + Fact that not Exist C+ V !!! exist C speed respect to point vhere signal started ( space not change Size time not slowing down - only main beam angle and brightness is important )
you can made similar to My test ( camera and bulb / hot and sensor / ... electric resistance ... ) I very sorry but classical mechanic is not so precission to show 30 km/s and inertia different by experiment we can have huge problem !!!
for classical mechanic we can use very old equation ( scoundary school level ) but please use zero ( earth it is not zero )
mass m can cross Light speed !!! THEORY ( SR, GR ) can not block Classical Mechanic ( chiken was first not egg )
About my athom model I think that huge problem is question Can You use forces to stop body more faster than light or this mbody must Hit other body to stop or slown down ?
How to inform mass m -----> 1,4 C " HEY dear mass I'm force do You remember me few km in past I pushed YOU ???"
Dear Orac Vx ( line velocity ) is very big >C it is perfect mixer
Omega direction ( I marked red colour CCW direction but it can be CW direction all can finaly give ZERO !!!
We can have different ball mass and size ( above picture I shoved Fife equal mass but it no need have the same mass ) when You change in car somone change mass position to give zero )
Radius can be different for each ball separate
Above model will have 3 D rotation or Not ( 3d = left / rigt own rotation not only one omega like I showed )
Generaly all can give ZERO ( apparent position = mixer )
Mass m faster than light = that not exist classical mechanic rules ( mass m will never get iformation about past - gravitation can not stop mass m faster than C> )
Omega and mass m faster than light ? ( right , upper, corner ) rotation can be very fast mass m can hit own apparent position and can feel OWN gravitation from past !!! mass m faster than light can make work and not lost kinetic energy !!! ( planets will feel old apparent position points and go to this points but nobody can inform mass m please stop You made in past work You must lost energy !!! )
Dear Orac In my brain exist many more strange facts please use Your imagination if mass m will slown down You will be able see mass m and stop mass m by gravitation .
TELEPORTATION ?
Mass m apparent position can change position many bodies in the universe at one and the same time ( mass m faster than light = JOKER this is why teleportation is faster than light Newton gravitation not exist it is past for mass m - nobody can inform mass m please stop You made in past work !!!)
What is it teleportation for me my imagination (I never read about teleportation )
mass m + Huge energy
point 1
mass m exist in point 1 p1 =( apparent point )
very fast travel
p2
How they give so many energy to small body in so small time ? they = people who made teleportation ( from Your links ) 147 km 400 km ? biger distance = more bigger energy portion to mass m ?
it is huge energy to mass m and very fast trip !!! not dematerialization but velocity >C = that body lost mass
I You will travel >C You will not exist for Universe ? NO Universe will feel Your old apparent position but Universe will not be able inform You ( Newton Action and Reaction will work only in one direction You ---> Universe not Universe ---> You
Universe can inform You only if You will hit other mass m other type comunication not exist ( huge aberration outside signals not exist for You )
Build rocket faster than light it is target for people ( for Engineer ) mass m faster than light lost mass m can not recive information about observer and other problems work that mass m made in past
how we can stop mass m faster than light ? this mass must hit other mass to stop or slown down .
147 km .... 400 km... I think that they not register the same mass m only other mass m1 that feel apparent position mass m and change own position ( they register mass m1 mass m1 joust feel apparent position mass m )
( it is very hard stop mass m faster than light and not destroy this mass )
for Mr Mach the universe = many bodies conected ( roped ) by gravitation please push mass small mass m on table in Your room the universe will feel what You did ( will feel new position of mass m )
Mach was first person who like use apparent position to measure velocity ( his ide is very close to my experiment camera bulb )
Mach FAR FAR star apparent position = My Bulb apparent position
bulb ----- camera >>>>> 30 km/s
WHAT IF MASS m will go more faster than C> ( this mass exist has huge kinetic energy ) but nobody can see mass m we only can register apparent position mass m.
Mass m faster than light lost conection with universe ( grvitation information can touch only past apparent signal that already made mass m > C )
"lost conection with universe " = that mass m faster than light will not register that You made move small mass m on Your table
They can rotate both clockwise and counterclockwise (equivalent to 1 and 0), and in both directions simultaneously (a mix of 1 and 0) – something that is completely unthinkable in the traditional, "classical" world.
You can't take the classical spin too serious it's a simplification
So you need to put in option 4 with it spinning both ways simultaneously
Yes it's sort of hard to imagine but it does it and it is testable, only when you measure it will it take on a definite value ... that observation thing again
I am sorry you can only bring QM into classical world to a simplistic and sometimes erroneous level.
Last edited by Orac; 11/11/1306:05 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I am not sure if this is going to help or make things worse for you it depends how you have gone with accepting quantum mechanics and abandoning your classic world.
This is a really interesting discussion about using very "weak measurements" or observation and then essentially restoring the spin back to it's proper unobserved or uncollapsed state.
Unfortunately that is not even close it's so badly wrong it's as we say stupid and you are reverting back to your old stupid where you are ignoring science facts on how things we know work.
This stuff is beyond you to challenge because Quantum Mechanics makes many thousands of predictions al of which are shown to be true.
I can show you thousands of tests on quantum spin to show you it is nothing like the rubbish you just wrote.
CLASSIC PHYSICS IS DEAD ... IT IS WRONG AND A BAD SIMPLIFICATION.
There is no infinities in Quantum Mechanics and your error is thinking that a quantum spin is remotely like a classical spin we have told you time and time again to stop that rubbish.
So you have a clear choice.
Accept you are wrong about the atom and learn or go off on the stupid nutcase path.
You have made steps to stop and learn I hope you continue to make that choice rather than go off on more stupidity.
Last edited by Orac; 11/12/1308:53 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
In My links ( Ytube ) I showed that Your laboratory can be in two place :
( please imagine that You have Quantum Laptop )
place no 1 ( small mass m ) place no 2 ( big mass M )
Quantum Mechanic not feel different places ( laboratory location ) QM is absolute the same ? why low temperature help keep spin ? What is it temperature / preasure ?
Ok I don't know nothing about athom ( no problem I can learn I will learn )
What about Orac who like QM how You want to add constant velocity problem to athom ???
It's a Quantum Problem movement is irrelevant to QM ... remember it can jump from one end of the universe to the other instantly if it needs to.
See the problem your classic movement rubbish mean nothing to a quantum problem.
Things in the quantum domain don't play by our silly little classic rules ... as I said learn the Quantum rules or look like a complete idiot your choice.
I am sorry you silly little motion and mass rubbish means NOTHING and you are completely lost and you can't make any sort of argument about it.
You can't wipe QM out in a black hole, at the start of the universe in a big bang ... DO YOU REALLY THINK IT GIVES A TOSS ABOUT MASS AND MOVEMENT?
Stop and learn or just keep dribbling more rubbish and go back to being a LUNATIC ... choose A or B.
This stuff is all well known and we build bombs and all sort of weird electronic stuff around it ... stop and learn instead of trying to make up more and more stupid answers
Occasionally when you stop dribbling ever more stupid things and actually just follow the evidence of all the experiments a great many very smart scientists have done you make progress.
Lets face you are not the cleverest person in the world I don't get what makes you think that you somehow can solve the workings of the universe. You realize you haven't got a clue how QM works and still you want to insist you can answer these problems ... that is classic stupidity.
Anyhow so we are clear there in no spin in a classic sense, any motions and mass you want to somehow make an argument about are irrelevant because the Quantum Information won't see it doesn't care one bit about it ... it has it's own rules it obeys and those are very different to your silly classic rules.
Last edited by Orac; 11/12/1302:02 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Your lab can be near big mass M or near small mass m .
Position of laboratory where You test Quantum Computers is not importnat for QM ? so why temperature is impotrtant for keep spin ( in lower temp Quantum computers work better )
You not understand what I did in abve Ytube for classical mechanic it was impossible recognize constant velocity ( in my You tube constant velocity is important ? )
For Mr Einstein also not exist any special coordination system he also not recognized constant motion problem
For QM exist velocity or not ? below picture it is joke ? why it is ellipse not perfect circle ?
above picture made nice microscope
problem is that in Lab nobody think before picture where is Earth Constant Velocity Arow and where is Lab
I am going to take a leap of faith and assume you might actually want to learn something rather than keep inventing garbage ... so you may ask what are the rules of Quantum Mechanics.
1) Particles are waves, and waves are particles .. with one possible exception. All matter and most known energy in the universe exhibits this weird property that they are not solid like classic physics used to imagine. The one big exception here is gravity which only has a proposed particle the graviton and as it has never been verified gravity remains the one big item outside the scope of Quantum Mechanics. So nothing in the universe we know of is truly solid it all phases in and out of existence and the nucleus of all atoms have to do that or the strong force could not work.
Implications: For really large objects made up of billions of atoms the phasing in and out is dwarfed by the sheer number and so is not noticeable. So at large scales classic physics works as a pretty good approximation and for most layman it is all they will ever need. You start playing around down at the atom level you need to understand Quantum Mechanics.
2. The quantum waves oscillate in discrete states. However, unlike classical states (which are discrete), a two-state quantum system can actually be in a superposition of the two states at any given time.
However the oscillation of QM states create it's own weird behavior
1.) A quantum state cannot be read without the state becoming the measured value ... in layman terms locked to reality.
2.) As the quantum state can not be determined with measurement and measurement locks the quantum state you can not clone quantum information. It is actually impossible to clone a quantum wave because you can't measure or observe it or it locks.
3.) As a quantum state is a superposition waveform you can't possibly lock or collapse both states because that would require you to be in two realities at the same time. This is called the Quantum no deletion theory that Quantum Information can not be deleted
Implication: You can never be sure about a quantum state without measurement all you can do is go on probability. The problem is making a measurement seems to lock the quantum state and create a fixed reality. The problem from a classic physics point of view is that it makes an assumption a universal reality exists. That is why the double slit experiment with light drives people crazy because it shows you reality is created by observation you can't assume you can work out which slit the photon went thru without observation.
Implication: This create one of the strangest and most important consequences of quantum mechanics that of “entanglement.” When two quantum particles share a superposition state they interact right way, their states will depend on one another, no matter how far apart they are in space.
3. Everything not forbidden is mandatory. A particle moving from point A to point B will take absolutely every possible path from A to B, at the same time. Classic physics describes only the most probable path which for large objects turns out to be almost always correct but you can't assume it when looking at small individual particles.
Implication: Initially as weird as it sounds the prediction is the only way to create the interaction between an electron and a magnetic field correctly. All electronics ultimately relies entirely on this understanding.
Implication: It is why weird effects like quantum tunneling happen and get exploited in electronics. In the quantum world there is a probability things will pass straight thru barriers that under classic physics they shouldn't.
That is the 3 rules of QM .. some people break rule 3 apart to measurement creates reality, no-cloning and no-deletion and have 5 rules but the result is the same.
You will note non of that cares anything about mass or motion, temperature or any other classic physics stuff it's a totally different set of rules they are simple and all encompassing EXCEPT GRAVITY.
QM describes several key things about the universe that the conservation of energy in the classic physics sense is guaranteed. Quantum information can't be created or destroyed (that should sound familiar) and QM explains why that law exists for classic physics because classic physics is a simplification of QM for large objects.
So are we clear nothing in Classic Physics is ever going to challenge QM because classic physics is a dumbed down version of large scale QM ignoring weird effects. To challenge QM you would have to violate one of the central tenants of QM above.
So will you please accept that all your silly stupid classic physics garbage above is wrong when you are dealing with the atom and just learn rather than that make up stupid rubbish that seems to make sense to only you. When you get down to the atom you have to throw your classic physics away it does not work at that scale.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
POSITION, MOTION, MASS, TEMEPRATURE NONE OF THAT MATTERS.
WHY???
THOSE THINGS ARE BUILT OF QUANTUM INFORMATION THEY ARE LARGE SCALE EFFECTS YOU MEASURE.
QM is a waveform fluctuation in space and time and it is only affected in the ways described above ... those rules create classic physics as a simplification for large objects.
Your classic physics is a simplification of QM for very large objects.
The atom is not a very large object you can't use classic physics and you certainly can't apply large classic effects to them.
Surely this has to be sinking in!!!!!!!
NO ALL YOUR DETAILS ABOVE ARE RUBBISH ... COMPLETE RUBBISH.
Last edited by Orac; 11/12/1303:58 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
So in chemistry we allow you to have atomic mass etc because in normal situations at large scale solutions it's a reasonable approximation but they are approximations make no doubt.
Last edited by Orac; 11/12/1303:58 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
So contrary to your garbage above the shape of the atom in the real world is rather vexing because it would change and morph over time as it phased states.
So in many ways the whole idea is beyond stupid and the idea that some classic physics was having an effect is even more retarded.
Does it really have any shape at all is probably the better question. It's charge potential would be spherical, it mass would be a quantum spin anywhere and everywhere and most of its interactions would be from the center point in space. That's probably as best you could describe it with accuracy.
Last edited by Orac; 11/12/1304:04 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I'm sorry I'm not a partner to speak with You about all problems
I want to ask You about words that I already found in link
Dynamic nuclear polarisation via conduction electrons has, however, not yet been demonstrated at room temperature – which is crucial for the method to be useful in practice for the development of quantum computers. The main problem is that the spin orientation in the electrons can easily be lost at room temperature, since it is sensitive to disruptions from its surroundings.
Temperature ? can You explain me temperature problem ? Why the can in lover temperature and have problem with high temp?
The question that's not answered in all that was what is why does the liquid in the thermometer expand in fact not all substance behave that way .... in fact ice expands when cools
Long story short ... energy is quantum information and what it does in certain molecules is make the quantum spins faster. In some molecules but not all the faster spinning bonds makes them expand.
So what the problem is with temperature for a quantum computer is it represents random quantum information in a computer trying to store quantum information.
In an electrical sense it would be like asking you 5 volt computer processor to deal with a baseline of 110 volts AC running thru all its circuits.
I should have asked you to try and come up with a description of temperature in your classic physics .. it's actually quite funny watching people try and work out what temperature is.
Now if you want to see something really weird under quantum mechanics how about a material that expands under pressure. See once you understand the rules of QM you can break many classic physic simplifications.
The connection between the microscopic world of quantum physics and our everyday experience, which is concerned with much larger objects, still remains puzzling.
Quantum Mechanics is the most accurate theory we have but it is a description in rules and mathematics.
IT DOES NOT TELL US WHY IN ANY WAY !!!!
IT ALSO DOES NOT COVER GRAVITY!!!!
I have no idea why it behaves like it does I just now that if you give me any classic physics law (except one) science can devise a way to break it under QM.
The one classic physics law I can not break is the law of conservation of energy ... no perpetual energy machines in QM.
We keep testing our own 3 laws but as yet no one has been able to violate them.
But yes you can make weird things happen like materials expand under pressure and teleport stuff around when you understand how it all works.
Last edited by Orac; 11/12/1304:36 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
So going back to the image of the atom what it was really showing was it was a wave thing the idea you could read any sort of shape or distortion out of it still sort of amuses me ... but you should know better by now.
Talking about the atom nucleus shape at all is very very tricky and certainly trying to imagine classic physics garbage affecting it is out of the question.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Electron period and temp ? Electon period and motion >
e--C-----e -----------> c/2
e---C---e zero motion
No decay rate of atoms or electrons is unaffected by temperature but you can change the rates by playing around with the electrical structure in the correct way or by using the weak force.
In 1992 a group used good logic and created a shift of 0.9% in the decay rate of beryllium by firing specially prepared electrons at it.
Originally Posted By: newton
can we desroy atom by hot/cold cycle faster ?
Nope the process is simply changing quantum spin and that process can be done repeatedly and as far as we know indefinitely.
Originally Posted By: newton
can we destroy athome by cycles give photon / work
Not destroy you can excite them by sending in the right frequency photon and it will absorb the photon.
In physics, absorption of electromagnetic radiation is the way in which the energy of a photon is taken up by matter, typically the electrons of an atom. Thus, the electromagnetic energy is transformed into internal energy of the absorber, for example thermal energy.[1] The reduction in intensity of a light wave propagating through a medium by absorption of a part of its photons is often called attenuation. Usually, the absorption of waves does not depend on their intensity (linear absorption), although in certain conditions (usually, in optics), the medium changes its transparency dependently on the intensity of waves going through, and saturable absorption (or nonlinear absorption) occurs.
Originally Posted By: newton
can we evaluate efficiency
It is 100% efficient something you can't have in classic physics
I have seen lots of idiots try and claim it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics .. it's a quantum effect and yes it violates the classic law and that's ok
Originally Posted By: newton
how many photon enerrgy will be exchange to work ?
One
If you want to take it to the quantum extreme you can store that single photon inside the absorbing atom. The record for doing that scientifically stands at 60 seconds
how much time need athom for fotoemision how many energy will lost from single photon
Times of the exchange vary depending on atom but they are all very fast but you can't get an exact time.
That same old quantum problem all we can calculate is the probability to find the electron in a given state and the same for it's reaction with the photon.
So all you can do is use semi classical physics and mix in probabilities and what you get is a thing called Rabi frequency probability
Of coarse you can haven't you ever sat out in the sun to warm yourself .. your skin is a media to light
Originally Posted By: newton
Can we change capacity of medium by light ?
Capacity ... that is just a measurement of scale of many different properties under science ... you have thermal capacity, electrical capacity, stress capacity ... thousands of different types of capacity
So capacity of what fundamental property?
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
The difference is you probably listened to him and did not insist something he knew was wrong was correct .... in other words you learnt because you listened
You have covered a fair scope of QM and as you have probably found out unlike GR which there are only hand full of experiments, try and tell us QM is wrong is a whole other sort of argument.
So you have seen the strength of QM lets look at its weaknesses.
The biggest problem with QM is we don't understand why it behaves like it does and this can lead to wrong assumptions.
I have spent a long time convincing you about light and it is built up of photons and how those photons behave and interact.
The problem is that is the laws of QM as they are expressed and it doesn't say that photons can't have group properties and by omitting this it sorts of misleads you.
If you think about it you have certain laws that effect you and solely you but when you go to work or hang out in an organized gatherings there are often another set of rules that can be imposed on you. Those work place or gathering laws never violate the laws that cover you but cover behavior of the group.
With light there is some recent work to show you that you need to be careful with QM because it doesn't cover groupings.
Here is the image that will show you the problem where scientists turn light into something resembling bullets and the article
So what is going on here, well QM doesn't say that photons can't have group properties it really covers only the individual. The individual photons are waves and they have characteristics so you can organize a group of photons to mix there waveforms together and do really weird stuff and you are in no way violating QM laws. Gravity for example may work exactly like this it is a large scale group effect that has nothing to do with QM itself.
In human terms its the equivalent of organizing a protest march or organize a large group of people to do something on a large scale. There is no law on you being an individual that says that can't happen and in fact many great adds on TV are of large groups doing things. A few weeks ago in your homeland you had this
No law about you as an individual stops that from happening and from a scientist with QM perspective we need to be always careful because QM has really nothing to say about grouped behaviour.
So the light in the example above is an airy wave it's actually a classic physics an dates back to 1892.
QM doesn't cover it or remotely have anything to say about it because it is a theory about tricking a group of light photons to work together to create an effect.
So here we have a classic physics theory that is not understood or explained by QM and isn't a simplification of QM process.
There are not many group physics theories or laws so the issue is largely ignored but I am showing one weakness with QM.
It may also help you understand how gravity could be a very independent effect about which QM is silent. So if gravity worked in this independent way it would not change the way QM worked at all but some grouped behaviour may arise that QM was completely ignorant of and airy waves show that possibility beautifully.
Some of your theory falls into that category as possible but some is completely and stupidly wrong because you violate QM. As I said if you want to play around with gravity knock yourself out but don't for one instant think gravity will change QM results because they can't unless gravity is itself a QM effect and then your whole theory is dead anyhow because it is classically based theory.
Last edited by Orac; 11/13/1302:55 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Your Power = that You can use this liks at right moment
People similar to me = Creative work = please write many wodrs many questions without sense - and please try find sense.
Originally Posted By: newton can we evaluate efficiency ?
Orac It is 100% efficient something you can't have in classic physics smile
Originally Posted By: newton
how many photon enerrgy will be exchange to work ?
Orac One smile
Can we warm medium by light ?
Of coarse you can haven't you ever sat out in the sun to warm yourself .. your skin is a media to light smile
ABOVE QUESTIONS and YOUR ANSVERS BELOW MODEL ( real probem for Engineers )
I WANT TO LEARN WITH YOU not LEARN YOU !!!
Physics = that we can describe where is energy and how energy is exchanged
*********************************************************** (Tesla opinion about machine + Radio waves + electric analogy) + eclipse of the sun Idea ( photon ---> electron --- athom ) ************************************************************
at first I want to learn You very simple fact ( camera obscura) I will back to below example later ...
A] bulb ( 4 watts) -----5 meters ------ camera
B] bulb ( 1 watt ) -----5 meters ------ camera
camera in situation A registered brightness of picture X picture time = 1 sec. ( camera open/close)
camera in situation B registered brightness of picture X picture time = 4 sec. ( camera open/close)
/////////////MAIN IDEA AND TEST AREA ///////////
...LIGHT (energy ) >>>>>> MEDIUM
Medium = machine that we use to transport energy (conveyer )
How much time we need for one single step ( one athom step) ( average we can evaluate how many athoms we have per one meter )
How much energy we will lost for single step (one athom step ) ( Orac - how many joules will be exchange for Hot )
Signal Hz and (Medium and conveyer efficient ) ? We all know EM Radio waves ( long and short )
Lower Hz schould have lower power lost and longer distace ( electric energy A portion ) !
High Hz (the same electric energy A portion ) distance and power lost problem ?
VACUUM ideal zero or very close to zero lost conveyer model ?
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Dear Orac right now I must go to work I will back
above post is not finished
important is below picture If You have time please read aboud radio waves ( it is EM wave but only different Hz )
It covers EM waves of all descriptions including light from the classic field of classical electromagnetism.
So put simply your classic electromagnetism is a simplification of QED ... so please don't try and use it to say QM has somehow got it wrong it is the other way around classic physics has got it wrong.
QED is the most tested accurate theory in science.
You can't argue this Maciej Marosz because anything you are going to use from classic EM theory is a simplification and stupidly wrong at some level.
I want you to type this so I know you realize it to be true
Classic EM theory is a simplification of the quantum electrodynamics and sometimes it will give really bad results if you take it too literally.
Where you seem to be going is one of those really bad simplifications because actual classic radio wave theory is slightly wrong as any good radio engineer knows.
So clear you can't argue this using classic electromagnetics because it is wrong ... it is a really bad simplification.
LET ME SHOW YOU HOW STUPID CLASSIC ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY IS
To actually launch radio waves through space under you classic electromagnetic theory you need a medium only there isn't one?????? So what does a radio wave travel in when it's in space
Here read the classic description for EM waves it's actually funny if you think about it hard
As an electromagnetic wave, it has both electric and magnetic field components, which oscillate in a fixed relationship to one another, perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy and wave propagation.
Here you even draw it funny
Surely it has struck you the electric and magnetic dimensions are where??????? They are imaginary we skip over that fast at school if you are lucky students get confused and think it is a normal 3D drawing and accept it
Every now and again you get a really bright school kid who works out the other stupidity in that representation you have a magnetic and electric field being created between two empty points in space or coming up out of one, they usually think its a normal 3D drawing and then you have to try and explain well actually the points are imaginary they don't even really exist .. that usually goes down well
You get the odd student that works out the final problem when a radio wave spreads in actual 3D how the hell do the electric and magnetic fields spread out in 3D because they are drawn relative to the wavefront moving in 3D. So now you have energy jumping across space in classic physics which trying to explain is interesting
Want some real fun try and draw the above waveform expanding in 3D, the magnetic and electric field are already making it 3D. So what is you drawing skills of 5 dimensions like?
Usually the smart students end up asking the question it almost always goes like this ... I love how the scientist answered it without discussing QM.
Do get the students problem he has worked it out our simplification is really really bad at this level.
Originally Posted By: student
I do not understand how a wave would move in 3D space. Can someone show me some animation or something? I can understand it in 2D space (ie on a graph) but not 3D. I also read somewhere that they do not oscilate in space, but in electromagnetic field strength and direction? Is this true?
The smart little student has work it out he needs 5 dimensions and it's not sitting well with his classical physics world
I still really love the scientists answer just imagine them as little arrows he of coarse doesn't point out the problem the arrows can't point into any of the 3 real dimensions of space ... shhh go fast and the student might not see the problem he gave him the same stupid simplification with a different trick
Ok it's a really bad simplification we use but it's the best most of us can come up with and most layman buy the story.
When we teach you this stuff we make simplifications to not have to talk about QM. We do that simplification at school levels to avoid discussing QM because you are unlikely as a layman to ever need it and its complicated.
What is funny is then watch and odd idiot layman try and use our simplifications back against us.
Please don't be an idiot you can't use our stupid simplifications EM waves don't really work the way we taught you at school they are QM in nature.
If that was where you were going with your post don't bother you should know and have learnt enough not to make that mistake you understand at least the basic nature of QM now.
If you want to discuss something different then fine continue on and ask away and lets see if I can help answer it .. I just don't want to waste time with silly classic physics stuff that we already know is wrong.
Last edited by Orac; 11/13/1308:38 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I will assume you aren't being silly and tell you I already have problems with this setup.
Originally Posted By: newton
at first I want to learn You very simple fact ( camera obscura) I will back to below example later ...
A] bulb ( 4 watts) -----5 meters ------ camera
B] bulb ( 1 watt ) -----5 meters ------ camera
camera in situation A registered brightness of picture X picture time = 1 sec. ( camera open/close)
camera in situation B registered brightness of picture X picture time = 4 sec. ( camera open/close)
Looking at your proposed experiment I already have massive issues and concerns that I will be able to answer anything.
Electrical power is measured in watts not light energy ... no 4 watt globes you buy will actually put out the same amount of light and they have horrible efficiency conversions like 2% most of your 40 watts in a incandescent light bulb is going out as heat it is something like 95% to heat. Modern fluorescent lights are better but still bad.
So lets get to specifics have you actually measured the light with a light power meter or do we have even a basic manufacturer specification of the amount of lumens of light we get per watt of your bulbs.
The 1 watt globe is going to be totally different to the larger wattage.
Here you can see the problem on normal incandescent globes
40 W tungsten incandescent 1.9% efficiency 12.6 lumens per watt
60 W tungsten incandescent 2.1% efficiency 14.5 lumens per watt
100 W tungsten incandescent 2.6% efficiency 17.5 lumens per watt
Generally with light bulbs the bigger the globe the higher the efficiency and the more lumens per watt it will put out.
In general if you did you test above a 4 watt bulb on for a quarter the time for a smaller bulb you will always expect the bigger bulb to show more brightness if measured over time just based on incandescent globe physics it puts out more light energy.
We haven't gone into spread angles which ideally you would control by putting the bulbs in a reflector and then bring the light out thru a long metal pipe so all light energy is forced out down the tube in the same way. Essentially you are making the bulb setup act like a laser which is the easier way to do this test.
So done properly I would expect the bigger bulb to show more brightness over time (more light energy) but a lot depends on the bulb type here you really need to calibrate the light energy properly.
So that's my first advice measure the globes properly otherwise the test is really meaningless
Next lets talk about the camera as a detector of brightness it is really really terrible .. to show how bad.
Take a 1 second exposure on the 4 watt globe now open the exposure to 4 seconds. Now do the same two exposure for the 1 watt globe and look at all the images.
How do you quantify 4 times the light energy on a camera once it goes white as fully exposed it goes white and no additional arriving energy does anything. You can't meaningfully calibrate any of these 4 exposures.
So the camera is useless for any time or energy based measurement it is worse than non linear it suffers saturation when it goes full exposed and can't go any whiter.
So all in all the experiment is totally pointless and will tell you absolutely nothing meaningful you might as well go to a psychic and ask what it all means because a scientist sure as hell can't tell you anything with that terrible setup
If you were a scientist or really were an engineer you would know the drill assume nothing measure and control everything in an experiment Maciej Marosz, that setup is disgusting at all levels.
Last edited by Orac; 11/13/1311:40 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
***** YOU ARE NOT READY RIGHT NOW STEP BY STEP ... I WILL USE SIMPLE QUESTIONS and WAIT FOR YOU ... I MADE ABOVE TOOL ONE YEAR IN MY BRAIN !!! ...I'm not smarter than You but all need time ..
Maciej Marosz I am a scientist I can see exactly what you are trying to do and test and it won't work you can't calibrate it.
Here let me save you the effort I can tell you what you are trying to see.
What you are thinking is that the light will be brighter on one side because of the motion and are trying to prove it.
The setup is terrible and you won't be able to calibrate it and worse you have air involved so you have refraction so even if you measured something you have no way of isolating what is moving the media or the light.
You have issues with lenses which have there own refractive indexes at different points each corner of a standard image has totally different characteristics ... I have discussed this with you.
You are never going to be able to make any of this work and any results you get is almost certainly going to be random chance.
Ok I can think of a fairly easy way to test your idea it would be easy to setup give me a second I will draw it.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
This stuff is basic electronics and it uses the energy absorbed to be converted into an electrical voltage which gets displayed up on a normal voltage meter.
Here is what you end up with
Okay now mount a laser pointer on one end of a metal beam and mount the detector on the other say around a meter long. Now nothing can move so you can walk around and face it any direction you want and if science is right nothing will change if you are right the measurement will change depending on your direction.
Okay we can take the whole idea further and calibrate it .. make and L with two pieces of metal.
Now get a beam splitter the cost of these optical units is not very expensive you can buy them from an optics supplier for a few dollars ($5-$10)
Just make sure you tell them the color of your laser pointer which I am guessing will be red the most common.
Now you can measure the power in two direction simultaneously in two different directions from the same laser source so any temperature or voltage changes are removed because the beams are being generated from the same source ... but yeah it will need two laser power measuring units.
If you know you electronics you can even setup a difference signal between the two units and now rotate the whole setup hell you can walk around with it if you want.
If you can't measure a difference with this setup there is no way a camera will see a difference it is a much more accurate test.
If you get stuck let me know and I will send you the parts if it helps.
If the effect is real that setup will at least give you a chance to see the effect and it isn't prone to refraction problems in the media and lenses etc because it is directly measuring the energy of the light.
Understand there is an absolute guarantee in that setup that the results are consistent and you can be sure if there is a difference the power and energy of the light is the cause. I certainly would accept that if you could show it.
Last edited by Orac; 11/13/1302:02 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
In a perfect vacuum 100% makes it the distance wont matter light makes it from stars billions of light years away.
In air totally different problem because air attenuates the energy that is why ligo is done in a vacuum tube.
I am not sure what your point is all that is known and obvious .. you say you are an engineer call it what it is attenuation that is it's proper engineering name
There is no attenuation in space or we wouldn't see light from stars .. do the maths yourself if you can see the light from a star several billion years old the attenuation coefficient has got to be like really really small and you see the stars constantly so most likely the attenuation coefficient is 0 dbm. Given how long light travels from a star and there are no gaps in it I am not sure you could argue the attenuation coefficient is anything other than zero.
So using your classic physics or best engineering physics explain to me how you want to argue space attenuation is anything other than zero.
That's why I can't work out where you are going with this all you are going to see is the attenuation coefficient of earths atmosphere you aren't going to learn anything about space because the attenuation coefficient of space is already blatantly obvious even to crazy classic physics.
I can't for the life of me work out what you think the problem is.
In your drawing of the plane above I really doubt it will work because attenuation thru a media involves more than just the movement of the media.
Look carefully at the attenuation reference for air in the link
See we had to quote the air temperature and I am afraid it is worse the pressure will also change it. I am pretty sure those effects alone on a plane are going to drown the signal you are after and I am still thinking if the change in gravity may also cause a problem ... I don't doubt the signal exists I just doubt you will be able to get an easy stable measurement on it as it's going to be tiny.
Last edited by Orac; 11/13/1303:29 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
each meter and water will lost small energy portion
(Kinetic energy -- each meter water will lost )
PERFECT VACUUM ??? I'm engineer not perfect engineer !!!
plese imagine that there where is Earth right now many years ago was other Star ? mass ? planet ?
below picture Sun were in past in point 1
exist any polution ? sun left some polutions ?
I think that in each place we have electromagnetic polutions
how work polutions ? if polutions are isotropy they can be medium ?
above picture I can not explain right now by classic mechanic ?
Light >>> medium
please imagine that in one time many sources want to send light and use one and the same medium ( many directions )
HOW WILL WORK ATHOMS INSIDE MEDIUM
IN ONE TIME THEY WILL MAKE THE SAME SAME JOB WITHOUT POBLEMS ?
ALL PHOTONS WILL BE DELIVERY ON TIME ?
ATHOMS WILL BE MORE TIRED AFTER 8h shift
WHAT ABOUT ATHOMS LIVE LONG ?
LIVE IS PERFECT ONLY FOR FLAT PEOPLE ! NOT FLAT PEOPLE SEE MORE BUT NOT ASK ( we not like work and fight with many others around US - Einstein and I have many friends Marosz ???? and ... )
DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THEY INVEST IN LIGO 300 mln USD
call to LIGO and ask about help YOU WILL HAVE MANY FRIENDS ( they want to confirm GRAVITATION PROBLEM SRT , and GRT efect for space and time ) few mistake and nobody will understand them they will inform NOBEL comission and next NOBEL for EINSTEIN :):):)
You wonder why I think astronomers are dropkick stupid when they ask this sort of question.
The whole problem with the question is it is built on garbage of how attenuation works in a media.
Then you try to add dust into space and claim it is now a media
RUBBISH .... DUST IN SPACE DOES NOT MAKE A MEDIA
A media is defined as something that changes the speed of light not a collision with something.
I am sorry I am not doing this stupidity it is one for people who are drop kick stupid and believe in classic physics.
It's a really stupid argument and you have to first believe classic physics is really true and we didn't lie to you and tell you a pile of half truths ... which itself is not true we did that we lied to you.
The attenuation calculation from classic physics already tells you the coefficient is zero but yet here the dropkicks are trying to turn space into a media ... seriously people learn. If space really was a media it would have an attenuation and you would have no chance of seeing any star light not after billions of years not even in classic physics.
The answer is NO IT IS COMPLETE GARBAGE and if you spend the time to go through the proper science you can learn why.
The bit that makes me laugh with the whole stupidity is people actually want a 5 dimensional object interacting with a 3 dimensional absolute space and produce a result ... and that makes sense to them .... please save me
Anyhow I am out of here I don't do classic physics garbage I have told you that before if that's your theory .. good luck
Last edited by Orac; 11/13/1304:01 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Laser 2 and laser 3 and laser 4 are sending ideal perpediculal signal to laser 1
Can we change beam's power of laser 1
we have L2,L3,L4 what if we will use more stronger lasers than L1
what will do athoms ( test in medium L1 beam inside air/water ) hot /cold medium
what will do vacuum ( test in vacuum L1 beam is in vacuum )
What will hapen with beam's power (L1 ) if in one and the same time two photons want to exite one and the same athom what if three . what if four .... what if six ...
Oh I understand alright it's the same stupid argument as above in a different way you just can't see why.
You want to measure it fine go ahead and measure it I already know what the experiment must show because there really is no other option.
Please don't bore me to death with great explaining of what it means if you are right it's like idiots that want to discuss if you could go faster than light.
Show me that you can go faster than light first and I might be remotely be interested in discussing it other than that you are wasting my time because I have pretty strong proof that you can't.
I showed you what happened to the last scientist stupid enough to make that claim based on a stupid experiment he should have known was wrong and checked.
I am not the least interested in discussing your actual theory from above because I already have pretty solid evidence it is wrong like thousands of experiments that say it is.
However science is a free society we allow people to test ideas no matter how stupid they are and I have even helped you with how to do it.
What I don't have to do is waste my time on this stupidity and discuss it's implications when you have no evidence or data that it is even possible and I have thousand of experiments that say you are wrong.
So do your tests and if you can show something we can discuss ... come back when you have some results I could actual believe and trust.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I am not sure what you find puzzling about that article?
The light saber from starwars is a bit over the top what they are doing is making a different form of matter here are less going for headlines reports of the same thing
So again what they are doing is playing with QM to break classic physics rules
Here is what they do
=>What we have done is create a special type of medium in which photons interact with each other so strongly that they begin to act as though they have mass, and they bind together to form molecules. This type of photonic bound state has been discussed theoretically for quite a while, but until now it hadn't been observed.
Understand it is a theoretical thing that QM says will happen something classic physics would never expect .. NOT EVER UNDER CLASSIC PHYSICS.
Are you understanding this it is proof of QM being right because it predicted the effect.
UNDERSTAND???????
Now here is the explaining for classic physics to try and make sense of it
=> "When the photon exits the medium, its identity is preserved," Lukin said. "It's the same effect we see with refraction of light in a water glass. The light enters the water, it hands off part of its energy to the medium, and inside it exists as light and matter coupled together, but when it exits, it's still light. The process that takes place is the same it's just a bit more extreme – the light is slowed considerably, and a lot more energy is given away than during refraction."
AGAIN BE CAREFUL IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO SIMPLIFY QM FOR LAYMAN (and some dropkick astronomers who only understand classic physics)
Now the reason
=> The reason they form the never-before-seen molecules?
=>An effect called a Rydberg blockade, Lukin said, which states that when an atom is excited, nearby atoms cannot be excited to the same degree. In practice, the effect means that as two photons enter the atomic cloud, the first excites an atom, but must move forward before the second photon can excite nearby atoms.
=>A Rydberg atom is an excited atom with one or more electrons that have a very high principal quantum number. These atoms have a number of peculiar properties including an exaggerated response to electric and magnetic fields.
=>The only truly stable state of an atom is the ground state with n = 1. The study of Rydberg states requires a reliable technique for exciting ground state atoms to states with a large value of n.
NOT EXACTLY SOMETHING YOU ARE GOING TO FIND IN NATURE YOU WILL FIND SOME IN SPACE BUT PLASMA PROCESS... WE CREATED THESE THINGS USING QM IN A LAB.
=>The density within interstellar gas clouds is typically many orders of magnitude lower than the best laboratory vacuums attainable on Earth, allowing Rydberg atoms to persist for long periods of time without being ionised by collisions or electric and magnetic fields. As a result of this longevity and the abundance of hydrogen it is particularly common for astronomers to observe radiation from the heavens at a frequency of 2.4 GHz, now known to correspond to the hydrogen n = 109 to n = 108 transition. Such a highly excited hydrogen atom on Earth would be ionised almost immediately as the binding energy would be significantly below thermal energies.
See the problem classic physics can't make these on earth because they can't build a vacuum remotely as good as space.
=>Strongly interacting Rydberg atoms also feature quantum critical behavior, which makes them interesting to study on their own
That's why they were playing with it and created it by using QM under very cold conditions.
So is it clear the whole process start to end is playing with QM to break classic physics I warned you about this you give me any rule I am pretty sure we can break it except conservation of energy.
HOW ANY OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR THEORY IS BEYOND ME.
IT'S SOMETHING WE MAKE IN A LAB AND IT SHOWS SCIENCE UNDERSTANDS A HELL OF A LOT.
Last edited by Orac; 11/13/1305:15 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Is that like your results are they imminent ... that's the new term apparently ... you can use that if you like as well.
Tell everyone your proof from your experiment is imminent it's all the rage in junk science.
My suggestion is contact these guys with your suggestion because they have fast dug themselves into a hole by looks and need a new idea about right now.
I am afraid none of that is science it is something to do with cows and there backsides.
Last edited by Orac; 11/13/1306:03 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Velocity can change also III newton rules for small speed
30 km/s .... 220 km/s
IF QUANTUM MECHANIC NOT RECOGNIZE RIGHT NOW MOTION PEOPLE NEED ADD MOTION PROBLEM TO QUANTUM , QUANTUM COMPUTER IS USING ATHOMS !!!
You can ask any astronomers mass M from Ytube 2
I never studied Hubble observations resoults but mass M from my You tube accelerate step by step like I showed ( step by step to next apparent positions velocity rise up )
Hubble also saw red shift and know that galactics accelerate right now
Universe is Infinity above evidence
Above idea and rotation ( ultra fast rotation ) ulttra fast rotation can eliminate all Newton's forces
Below picture will be bridge between new physics and athoms we need add motion problem to ATOMIC CLOCK
( not like Einstein there is now different time inside airplane
only electrons feel not the same forces during trip it is very natural that they made longer way arund center respect to absolute space and they have different position below energy graph )
I already CLEAN UP in classical mechanic I also Cuted Einstein Head
QM I must study to understand
I'm sure that double slits experiment = stupid exaple that we very easy can eliminate One photon can be cut by slits on two parts two different energy portion ( please add to below picture ) two slits
YOU HAVE RIGHT QM = NICE MAGIC BUT ENERGY YOU CAN NOT CREATE !!! TWO SPLITS can ONLY DIV one and the same PHOTON !!!
photon has got angle ( Inverted square law ) ABERRATION 1730 it is very old fact ( aberration = that energy never will go to one point like in my rocket Vo = 0 )
By the way you never answered the question what was the significance of science making the light sabers?
I still don't get the relevance to your theory if anything I actually thought it pretty much told you that science was right and you were badly wrong in a single article.
You usually just ignore any experiments that basically tell you that you are being an idiot ... I mean I count 11 or 12 problems so far you just want to ignore everything from atom binding energy, quantum effects thru to basic heat transfer mechanisms.
So I did sort of expect you to just ignore the light saber article or is it now that you understand it properly you now want to ignore it?
In Maciej Marosz language we say YOUR THEORY HAS BEEN DESTROYED ... that is how it goes doesn't it
I still think your best bet is talk to the LIGO people because they need a miracle about now. They were told the machine was almost certainly too small to see a gravity wave but still they were convinced they would ... coincidently they are Polish from Warsaw university as well.
So I have a theory that there may be something in the water in Poland
Is your discovery "imminent" like there's is
Anyhow I am away from tomorrow for bit over two weeks for work so I will look forward to you results and nobel prize results when I get back I guess
Last edited by Orac; 11/14/1302:14 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Cameras register apparent distance to Bulb ( signal started in past NOT EXIST C+ 30 km/s !) . Camera 1 is more close to point 1 more close to point 2 ...3...4. Camera 1 will register higher brigntness of picture if we compare to Camera 2
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 )
Whats that like that 75th time you have posted the same bullshit image
I assume it's not for me but anyone stupid enough to wade thru this trash from top to bottom ... newsflash I don't see anyone else commenting they all stopped reading about 100 posts ago.
Paul told you and I have told you it actually doesn't help it will turn most people away instantly haven't others told you that. Spend some time and try and write out your theory google translate is your friend .... there you go I helped you again.
For my part I did enjoy having fun with the HMS TITANIC of science theories it has more holes in it than swiss cheese. You give me great humor each day and I do hold an outside chance one day the penny will drop and you will understand but it is a fading hope
My humor with your current post is you cover black holes you have got a few of them in the theory
OH BUT WAIT IT'S SMASHED ALL THE OTHER THEORIES.
I HAVE WORKED OUT ALL THE OTHER THEORIES DISAPPEARED INSIDE ALL THE BLACK HOLES IN MAROSZ's THEORY.
Anyhow enough laughs for today I must get packed.
Take care see you in a couple of weeks no doubt you will be up to posting 150 of the same image by then.
May the 5 dimensions of an EM wave not disrupt your 3D world sniker world badly while I am away.
Did Copernicus, a monk ... and there are others like him... have a degree in a science? Were there no self-taught scientists, ever? What about Benjamin Franklin?
ME? When it comes to science, I am content to be a curious layman. So I read and ask questions, OK!
SO, HERE GOES: ================================== LUX says no to most dark matter
What does this title mean? "Most dark matter"? Why not all matter?
BTW, I learned that LUX is an acronym for Large, [/b]underground [b]Xenon. The basic word, in Latin, is Lux; in Greek, it is phos (thus we get, phosphorus, photography, etc.); in French it is, leger, and so on.
BTW 2, I have always been interested the sciences. However, the only physics that I really know is of the kind that I studied--and did well in at that level--when I was at the high school--in the late 1940s.
AS A THEOLOGIAN, one who takes the integral-theory approach to philosophy, the sciences and the creative arts I know that the Bible is not a book. It is a collection of ancient documents, which are full of comments & metaphors about a 'god' and 'gods', in many forms', including 'light'.
For example, in Genesis 1.03, it is recorded that God [ELOHIM--the highest power] said, "...let there be light (related to the German word, Licht). In John 8.12, Jesus is quoted as saying, "I am the Light of the world ..."
1.First, physically speaking, without the LIGHT of information--the kind we call bits and bytes--would physics, as we know it, exist? Of course not!
2.Second, mentally speaking, without the LIGHT of knowledge--the kind that is physically (genetically) transmitted in the DNA, from one generation to another--would animal life as we know it, exist? Again, of course not!
3.Third, spiritually speaking, without the LIGHT of spirit-based wisdom--the kind that is physically, mentally (or culturally) and spiritually transmitted, from parents to children, to tribes, to nations and so on, by the use of behaviour, language of the kind that leads to self-awareness and to consciousness--would humanity as we know it, exist? Once more I say, of course not.
With this in mind, take note of Exodus 3.14. For me, it is a poetic story--not one to be taken literally--of a thought that came into the mind, soul, spirit of Moses, when he (about 1,300 BC) or so the story goes, saw a burning, or light-giving bush. Out of this 'light' and into the mind of Moses, came the god-given thought, "I AM, WHO I AM".
LIFE, therefore, MUST BE KEPT IN BALANCE From this metaphor from Exodus, I learn: Every time I see, hear and experience things, phenomena, with my senses--and do so, consciously, it is possible for me, or anyone, to have a peak, god-like experience. What we do with such phenomena makes us who we are, WHO I AM--for better, or for worse, for good or evil...
Ah YES! The importance of ECOLOGY.
Let us not forget that it is too much sun LIGHT and HEAT that can dissipate life-giving waters and make deserts appear. On the other hand, it is the lack of sunlight--brought on by too much dust and water-logged cloud cover, which can bring on another ice-age.
THE CHALLENGE
It is up to all of us, as people--philosophers, including curious children, scientists (especially those here on SAGG) and all creative artists to show the way.
Last edited by Revlgking; 11/15/1304:56 AM.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
I was in point 1 I'm in point 2 I will be in point 3
I no need other bodies to evaluate own position ( I'm moving or star ? I no need star I can observe how energy feel problem of my own motion !!! Energy always escape there where feel lower resistance !!! bodies not like accelerate !!! acceleration cost more energy than slowing down !!!
kinetic energy graph = parabola !!! rise up speed 2 m/s is not equal slown down 2 m/s
m*V*V/2 !!! ( please take a pancil and evaluate the problem ) zero = point where You were short time ago in space ( apparent point )
(Galilleo and NEWTON did't recognize constant motion problem in his Equations - Marosz I can recognize inertia mass free from gravittion and what ? what is it inertia ? kinetic energy do You see relation )
Dark mattery problem what if ? body go more faster than own gravitation ( Newton did't even think that we can lost gravitation mass - Inertia mass m and gravitation mass are two different masses Einstein can not put "=" )
if someone will give to mass m energy portion E and mass m will start go more faster than own gravitation waves ( Mr Mach's model - More faster than sound Airplane ) Nobody will see mass m !( light can not hit mass m and back to observer eyes )
light >>> mass m ---->
other bodies will feel always apparent position of mass m
above model work also for small speed 20 km/s 30 km/s , 220 km/s
m1 --R-- M ---R-- m2 >>> motion
mass m1 will feel Mass M gravitation position more closer than mass m2 mass m1 go to apparent position mass M mass m2 escape from apparent position mass M
similar problem registered and described Maciej Marosz in 2012 after made in home own test
camera 1 ----R ----BULB -----R ----camera 2 >>>> 30 km/s
Very important is INVERTED SQUARE LAW and velocity 30 km/s 220 km/s and distance R
(please try find info in books about below facts)
1730 James Bradley Aberration 1842 Doppler 1930 TOLMAN brightness test
2012 Marosz Michelson Morley ( brightness of beam )
WHERE ENERGY ESCAPE MORE EASY ? DO WE HAVE ANY SPECIAL DIRECTION IMPORTANT FOR LIGHT ? +30 km/s - 30 km/s No !!! for mass M Yes !!!
IIMPORTAANT FOR MASS M ---m reaction and action ?
HOW LOOK UNIVERSE ( velocity map ) ? ( absolute montion and Michelson Morley brightness ? )
WHY WE HAVE WINTER AND SUMMER ? 66.66 is reason no 1 exist more ???
HOW WORKS ELECTRON and ABSOLUTE MOTIONS Problem ?
WHY ATOMIC CLOCK SLOWN DOWN ? OUR ATHOMS inside OUR OWN BODIES FEEL BELOW PROBLEM ON EARTH?
HOW LONG WE WILL LIVE ? = HOW LONG PERIOD OF ELECTRONS ? = HOW BIG ELLIPSE MADE SMALL ELECTRON IN SPACE HOW COOPERATE ELECTRON AND ATHOM CENTER ( apparent distance and motion ) ?
I can die I will don't know answers ?
I need test please help me and not F.. about this what was in past afer I made my test MM brightness version all will look different
Did Copernicus, a monk ... and there are others like him... have a degree in a science? Were there no self-taught scientists, ever? What about Benjamin Franklin?
I am sitting a the airport terminal waiting to catch the next flight reading your reply Rev. The networks bad it's cold and I am very tried so bear with me and I have had to write this offline while having a coffee.
The problem we have is when we look at very old history you could have someone with moderate intelligence and they could actually be very bright in there period. However it's important to realize with say Benjamin Franklin knowledge these days would actually be considered something like a school dropout today. The baseline of knowledge that needs to stay up with science increases every year, our children and grandchildren will need to learn things we may not even know right now.
Therefore when you are judging the overall ability to change science the point of reference to use is do they understand enough of what is already known to actually make a difference.
So let's look at some of these characters we have on our forum and it appears to be true of all science forums at least that you get a level of what I would call anarchist tendencies.
Your mate TT is a classic for that he has absolutely nothing useful or even remotely interesting to say infact you can boil almost all of anything he has to say as being contrarian ... if you call it white he will call it black. I showed in one of the threads it's quite funny because you can turn the whole argument back on him because he suffers the second problem they all have
MOST OF THESE GUYS ARE NOT REAL SMART AND MOST HAVE COMMUNICATION SKILL ISSUES
They actually assume and think they are smart and they are smarter than us poor plebs who frequent these forums because we actually have interest in the area.
Lets take our mate Maciej Marosz here he hasn't even worked out he has spoken to me on a number of sites because he posts on many sites .. the thought I doubt even crossed his mind.
Parts of the original idea was posted on the Lockheed Martin competition for a $25 000 prize which was open last year, here is his application
Andy at network54 actually did a reasonable job of hearing him out
Basically you name it he has posted or tried to get traction on this idea and how he has the persistence and energy for all this I admire and why I sort of waded thru this garbage.
The usual response which I actually felt sorry for him for was on google+
Best Answer Voter's Choice I have just nominated you for the Cretin of the Week Award.
So whats going on here why is Maciej Marosz regarded so badly by basically everyone why isn't he taken seriously.
There are basically two problems for Maciej Marosz
1.) He is missing understanding and knowledge on large important parts of science in the area he is trying to change.
Benjamin Franklin who you detailed above was basically a world leader in understanding of electricity when he was working on it. Franklin was instrumental in starting the University of Pennsylvania. Einstein and Feynman both worked with the leading scientists of there day.
A question that comes to mind has an real advance ever been made by someone who did not understand the leading theories in that area at the time. I actually doubt it because to effectively overturn a theory you have to understand it and I can't think of anyone who has done it.
2.) The second problem and I think it stems from the previous problem is he won't argue out a theory and accept the result of argument.
You watch footage of the discussions and lectures of Einstein and Feynman they didn't avoid questions or objections to there theory they actively went after them like rabid dogs. I watched footage of Einstein and Bohr going at it over atomic structure they were good friends but boy they argued hard.
=> Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science.
They will be remembered because they were brutal and honest science arguments.
So there you have my two requirements for being able to overturn the world of science
- You must understand the theory and implications you seek to overturn - You must be able to systematically and logically argue against the existing theory in favour of the new one answering all objections to it.
If you could get a layman able to meet those two requirements they probably could do it, the problem is would a layman ever develop those skills without a formal education to develop that ability ... I doubt it
So there you have my long and honest answer Rev and I have 20 min left to waste
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
THE CHALLENGE
It is up to all of us, as people--philosophers, including curious children, scientists (especially those here on SAGG) and all creative artists to show the way.
I tried Rev K but like you I do only have so much time to give to lost causes
The post ended up so long I doubt anyone will read it which is probably just as well
Last edited by Orac; 11/15/1308:47 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
ORAC 1.) He is missing understanding and knowledge on large important parts of science in the area he is trying to change.
Actual physics about motion
ORAC ( person who graduate high school ) + my strait questions about medium problem ( how many enegry light lost in medium above small box can be full of air or Vacuum )
LIGHT >>>> MEDIUM ---- sensor
Marosz - medium = machine that transport energy not exist machine that have 100% efficiency !!!
One Photon Enery Porion PROBLEM
Originally Posted By: newton
can we evaluate efficiency ?
Orac It is 100% efficient something you can't have in classic physics smile
Originally Posted By: newton
how many photon enerrgy will be exchange to work ?
Orac One
Originally Posted By: newton Can we warm medium by light ?
Of coarse you can haven't you ever sat out in the sun to warm yourself .. your skin is a media to light smile
Above questions we speak about Michelson Morley but Brightness of beam Version in 2012 in Poand I made first test in home
1930 Tolman surface brightness test ( Doppler + inverted Square Law )
My version ( about my own test ) Why camera 1 will register more brightness picture compare to camera 2
Bulb started wave 1 in point 1 ( not exist C+ 30 km/s or C-30 km/s EXIST ONLY C - fact confirmed many times ! )
Below doppler + inverted square law .
camera1 will register more brightness picture reason is that light is going to camera1 but camera1 also is going opposite to light.
camera 2 will register lower brighntess of bulb ( reason is that at one and the same time camera 2 escape from point 1 camrera1 is going opposite to point 1
Other Problem That I see is mediunm Medium = Air Medium = Water
Light exchange hot with medium !!!! we see that camra1-----Bulb >>>> 30km/s distance is shorter
we see that Bulb ------camera 2 distance is longer >>>> 30 km/s
first pictures ( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s ) http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg
I prepared Idea new tool how to measure velocity I need build 3d sensor ( many small photoelemens around master source of light ( Amm) + ( Volt) + stable big battery )
( I want to use "wodore" - hydrogen as a medium ?)
I think that on above picture we can see directly relation between electron position and Earth Motion ----> 30 km/s ? or 220 km/s
( Important is laboratory localization , picture time , and angle to velocity's vectors ) How fast is moving microscope during picture ? why we see ellipse ?
Other Problem That I see is mediunm
can we use analogy ?
physics like analogy ? electric wire = medium ?
ELECTRIC ENERGY >>> .........wire....... <<<EL. Energy
I not made above test but wire = medium for electric energy
HOW I STARTED THINK ABOUT AIRPLANE ( MR MACH's model)
NOT EXIST C + 400 km/h NOT EXIST C + 800 km/h
Airplanes started light in past in point 1 light need short time T for distance Point 1 ---- sensor inside airplane . during time T airplanes Escape from place where signal started
A1 ----> 400 km/s A2 ---------------> 800 km/h
P1
During one and the same time in one and the same space Airplane 2 made 2x longer distance compare to Airplane 1
FIRST STEP TO NEW MORE WIDE CLASSICAL MECHANIC
( exist motion not exist III Newton's Law - If velocity will be biger than Gravitation body's signal we can have perpetuum motion first type !!! ) Einstein not inform people that we can not cross gravitation velocity !!!
below example mass m velocity >Gravitation but the same problem we can measure for lower velocity 30 km/s /// 220 km/s
Mach - first engineer who describe Supersonic Speed problem
I have no intention of wasting more time on this .... I have told you a number of times I don't do classic physics arguments it's all wrong anyhow. The second part of that is you don't want to learn as you say "I don't want to learn you ORAC", you are happy with your level of science so be it.
I have given you what help I can, I know you believe you are right ... so go out an prove it I explained and helped with how.
Just please remember you have a wife and child and a job keep that in your mind at all times over the next few years.
You are unfortunately going to be very disappointed I suspect and most likely will get blocked from all the really good science sites. I know why they will do it but I hope you don't get bitter about it and think it is all a conspiracy ... science has actually been reasonably kind to you.
I understand you don't know why I say all that but all I can do is ask you to study more and be harder on your own ideas than you are currently being ... in science fooling oneself is the easiest thing to do.
I really do wish you well who knows you may be able to one day say that you showed ORAC to be a complete idiot who knows nothing of physics. If however I am right and in a few years from now come back and I will show you why no one took you seriously.
God speed and good luck on your journey BUT NEVER FORGET YOU HAVE A WIFE AND DAUGHTER and be good to then first and foremost.
Last edited by Orac; 11/15/1312:23 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
