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


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

Who's Online
0 registered (), 224 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
Today at 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Topic Options
#54310 - 08/24/15 05:55 AM God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
God particles - without Nobel Prize. / by Socratus/
==..
To discover so-called God - particle ( Nobel Prize in 2013)
was needed two conditions : deep vacuum and high energy.
But if the vacuum were deeper and energy were higher then
it would be possible to discover some kind of a new God – particles.
Question: what is the deepest vacuum in the Universe?
My answer:
the deepest vacuum in the Universe is the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K.
Question: what can be the highest energy?
My answer:
the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K continuum is itself some kind
of infinite energy continuum.
Using these parameters, I say that the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K
can create primary God – particles and their names are
"potential molar –masses (k) particles."
==..
Question:
Why potential molar – masses (k) particles are primary God particles?
Because:
a)
Heat is result of some kind of chaotic movements of particles.
In thermodynamics the heat is explained by the formula: E=kT (logW)
It means that chaotic movements of molar-mass (k) particles create heat.
b)
In 1905 Einstein wrote "quantum of action" as: h=kb
It means that molar-mass (k) particles know some kind of another
movement which can create "quantum of action" with energy E=(kb)*f.
My conclusion.
Without heat the Universe is an Absolute Cold Kingdom.
Without "quantum of action" the Universe is dead continuum.
The molar-mass (k) particles can take part in these two phenomenons:
E=kT (logW) and E= (kb)*f. And therefore the molar-mass (k)
particles are primary elements from the First Instant (T=0K) of the
Universe’s creation. Not " the famous Higgs Boson" (with the low
energy and prestige Prize) but the old and modest well-known
molar-mass k-particles are real "God particles"
#
k-particles have two forms of modifications: as a heat E=kT (logW)
and as an energy E=(kb)*f . The interaction between energy and heat
created everything in the Universe but . . . . but until today nobody
explained the interaction between E= (kb)*f and E=kT (logW).
=====….
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
========….

Top
.
#54327 - 08/26/15 10:43 AM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: socratus]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
THEORY :
James Clerk Maxwell, in 1861–64, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.

SI units :
ENERGY/SPACE = [ Joul / cubic meters = Newton *meter / cubic meters = N/m^2 ]






DEEP VACUUM = PLACE IN SPACE WHERE NOT EXIST ENERGY !











Top
#54380 - 08/31/15 04:19 AM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: socratus]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
It is amassing that the primary and general principle of correlation
between heat and energy is basis for creation everything in the Universe.
==..

Top
#54427 - 09/08/15 02:58 AM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: socratus]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: socratus
It is amassing that the primary and general principle of correlation between heat and energy is basis for creation everything in the Universe.
Socratus! Or is it Orac? Both/and? Or either/or? Taking me by the hand, you will need to walk me through this, OK? Have you overlooked the 'light' factor?
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#54434 - 09/10/15 03:54 PM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: Revlgking]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
DOUBLE SLITS SECRET !

THEORY :
James Clerk Maxwell, in 1861–64, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.

SI units :
ENERGY/SPACE = [ Joul / cubic meters = Newton *meter / cubic meters = N/m^2 ]



HOW HEAVY IS 1 kg ???













OPTION no 3 !!!



PLEASE EVALUATE ENERGY's DENSITY NEAR EARTH and ABOVE EARTH










Edited by newton (09/10/15 03:56 PM)

Top
#54435 - 09/10/15 03:57 PM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: newton]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209



Top
#54438 - 09/14/15 08:05 AM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: newton]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
Marosz, you are getting off topic again. I don't see how what you have posted has anything to do with god particles or Higgs bosons. Please try to remain on topic. I have been dealing with some rather intense personal business lately and have neglected the forum somewhat, but I need you to keep your posts on topic. You have posted things here that as I interpret them have to do with gravity more than anything else. Why not start a thread on gravity and leave the others alone with their topics instead of butting in and hijacking the threads that are already dedicated to something other than your interests? Please be kind to the other posters, they don't appreciate your hijacking threads with a lot of confusing diagrams. The paper poster is much better than the chalkboard. It still is confusing when you have several things all at once. Less clutter might lead to more understanding.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#54441 - 09/15/15 08:40 AM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: socratus]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
Why the interaction between E= (kb)*f and E=kT (logW) wasn’t explained?
These k-particles belong to “ the theory of ideal gas” and this theory was
not enough seriously accepted by theoretical physics because from the school
we studied that “ The theory of Ideal gas” is an abstract theory.
And in my opinion “ The theory of Ideal gas” (with the temperature T=0K)
is an ideal model for Zero Vacuum and it is possible to use all laws and
formulas of “ideal gas” to understand processes in the zero vacuum: T=0K.
(of course with the help of QT / SRT / QED )
===…

Top
#54452 - 09/19/15 04:24 PM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209

IDEAL GAS = EM RADIATION !!!



THEORY :
James Clerk Maxwell, in 1861–64, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.

SI units :
ENERGY/SPACE = [ Joul / cubic meters = Newton *meter / cubic meters = N/m^2 ]



LIGHT = many many very small bals !
[img]
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jLcE4uLr5bQ/Vdomv2HebwI/AAAAAAAACd8/lLxGwW8n_bM/s1600/ball.jpg[/img]


WE MUST USE IDEAL GAS TO DESCRIBE MANY FACTS IN UNIVERSE !!!


Top
#54453 - 09/19/15 04:27 PM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: newton]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209







Edited by newton (09/19/15 04:30 PM)

Top
#54454 - 09/20/15 10:55 AM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: newton]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
LIGHT (EM wave) = IDEAL GAS !!!


EM waves are pushing objects
IT IS PASCAL !!!






MICHELSON MORLEY ???
BUT PLEASE ASK ABOUT DYNAMICA !!!!


How big force is registering left /right wall ( intensity ? )
1 NOT EXIST C+V !
2 where 3D signal started?
3 where are walls ?





EVIDENCE THAT LIGHT = MANY SMALL BALLS !!!



DOUBLE SLITS ?!


Single Electron is moving Em Waves are hiting single Electron
EM waves stoping or changing Electron's direction




EM waves is faster than ELECTRON
and EM waves chznging Electron's P=MV



NOBODY PROVED THAT LIGHT = MANY SMALL BALL !!!
BELOW MODEL IS VERY VERY LOGIC





Edited by newton (09/20/15 11:48 AM)

Top
#54457 - 09/23/15 06:01 AM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: socratus]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
@Science a Go – Go - Go's . . . Physics Forum
Question:
Can a frog imagine the sizes of the Pacific Ocean?
===…

Top
#54463 - 09/24/15 05:42 PM Re: God particles, without Nobel Prize. By Socratus [Re: socratus]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
THEORY :
James Clerk Maxwell, in 1861–64, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.

SI units :
ENERGY/SPACE = [ Joul / cubic meters = Newton *meter / cubic meters = N/m^2 ]

HOW BIG FORCE (preasure ) is registering astronomer A and A'





MICHELSON - MORLEY
(DYNAMICA EDITION 2012 Poland)

How big force is registering left /right wall ( intensity ? )
1 NOT EXIST C+V !
2 where 3D signal started?
3 where are walls ?




Galilean relativity - fundament for modern physics
source : http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node47.html

******************************************************************
Imagine a person inside a ship which is sailing on a perfectly smooth lake at constant speed. This passeneger is in the ship's windowless hull and, despite it being a fine day, is engaged in doing mechanical experiments (such as studying the behavior of pendula and the trajectories of falling bodies). A simple question one can ask of this researcher is whether she can determine that the ship is moving (with respect to the lake shore) without going on deck or looking out a porthole.
Since the ship is moving at constant speed and direction she will not feel the motion of the ship. This is the same situation as when flying on a plane: one cannot tell, without looking out one of the windows, that the plane is moving once it reaches cruising altitutde (at which point the plane is flying at constant speed and direction). Still one might wonder whether the experiments being done in the ship's hull will give some indication of the its motion. Based on his experiments Galileo concluded that this is in fact impossible: all mechanical experiments done inside a ship moving at constant speed in a constant direction would give precisely the same results as similar experiments done on shore.
The conclusion is that one observer in a house by the shore and another in the ship will not be able to determine that the ship is moving by comparing the results of experiments done inside the house and ship. In order to determine motion these observers must look at each other. It is important important to note that this is true only if the ship is sailing at constant speed and direction, should it speed up, slow down or turn the researcher inside can tell that the ship is moving. For example, if the ship turns you can see all things hanging from the roof (such as a lamp) tilting with respect to the floor
Generalizing these observations Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis:

any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments
(it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).
In pursuing these ideas Galileo used the scientific method (Sec. 1.2.1): he derived consequences of this hypothesis and determined whether they agree with the predictions.
This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving . The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (``are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity.

Top



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

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