Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » So what do you think? » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused   BadOne  
Good Luck   More Crap   Wall Bang   Were Up   Were Down    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
Upside  - posted
Did they really find it or is it an imposter?
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
Help me out here upside, find what? Jobs?
 
glassman  - posted
the higgs boson?
 
IWISHIHAD  - posted
It hurts to do that

--------------------------
 
raybond  - posted
I would sure like to post here but I don't know what to post about.
 
The Bigfoot  - posted
Was there any hint of duck tape? If no then it might be real.
 
T e x  - posted
ducT tape> jeezbejeus...

Duct tape was an a/c hvc tool.

Ray?

Post about me, leading the free-world: not so happy with Obama, but definitely *hard* against Romney.
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
Where is Jimmy Hoffa?
 
Upside  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
the higgs boson?

Yep.
 
Upside  - posted
So if they have found it what does it mean? Are we limited to our current laws of physics? Was Einstein right about everything?

Sorry to stray from the political talk that this forum has devolved into, just thought that some new blood might be welcomed.
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
upside, lets bring some new blood in! We do get carried away with politics as if it were a politics forum. Lets mix it up!
 
T e x  - posted
As far as I can tell, *the scientists* are excited to be on a verge comparable to the frontier of vaccines. They don't really know what they've got, but it's a "tiger-by-the-tail" into insight about the structure of everything ("universe"), including, ahem, "dark matter."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455

Haven't found a "layman's terms" explanation.
 
BooDog  - posted
I found it!
Seems to be taking a bit longer to remember these days though!
[Big Grin] [Razz]

Cheers you guys, have a great week!

This is Monday right?
 
glassman  - posted
there isn't a laymans term explanation yet, and i suspect that's becuase whatever they found, they don't know what it is yet. Relativity was "elegant" which could be put into layamns terms very simply. Einstein put it into laymans terms himslef. You can buy the book and read it yourself.


Relativity: The Special and the General Theory [Paperback]
Albert Einstein (Author)
4.1 out of 5 stars See all reviews (95 customer reviews) | Like (1)
Price: $8.95 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
Special Offers Available


True Science is elegant. Sure it's hard to 'splain alot of it cuz brings so many variable together that you have to juggle at the same time to "see", but Elegance means that with some little training most anybody can grasp the basics.


The Big Bang *seems* elegant too. It even satisfies the modern concept of the Bible, since God should be able to "speak" the big bang, right? People latched onto it and it is even being mentioned alongside this new discovery they've made in the sense that "they" think they can now extrapolate what happened nanoseconds itno the big bang. The bigbang isn't really elegant tho; becuase there's a serious glaring flaw in the big bang theory that everyone wants to overlook or seems incapable of recognising.

it is this missing mass- the article Upside posted mentions it:

All the matter we can see appears to comprise just 4% of the Universe, the rest being made up by mysterious dark matter and dark energy.

A more exotic version of the Higgs could be a bridge to understanding the 96% of the Universe that remains obscure.


The deduction of this missing matter is done by caccklacking the mass required to satisfy a big bang and the constant resulting expansion of the universe.
So, rahter than question the big bang, or the observed cosntant expansion of the universe? Everyone is looking for ht e missing mass.

Now, i'm not here to say th big bang is wrong, but i do question this constant expansion theory and i do question why the missing mass is so hard to find.
Part of the reason the missing mass is so hard to find is that we are "swimming in it" all the time.
And i have serious issues about the mechanism of constant expansion. For instance? Why do we not see the galaxies closer to the center of the Universe traveling toward US at about the same speed we are travailing away form the center of the Universe?
In fact they seem to be to be traveling away from US at the same speed as everything elese is. That in and of istelf is screwed up.

Someoen tried to 'splain it away by saying we are all on th surface of some universe balloon that is expanding, and hence everything looks to be moving away from everything else at the same rate. Well thats bulchit.
That model don't work. So i began pondering this 15 years ago, and i came to the conclusion that the Universe can't really be expanding. We are seein' an artifact of gravity's force on light that makes it appear to be so.
Unfortuantely, i don't have a docotorate in physics, and the few times i have tried to ask these questions of real physicists they get upset and run away. It's not complicated, but it does take a lot of 'splainin'
Eisntein clearly showed that light is affected by gravity. It's called gravitational lensing. BUT we know light has no mass. Einstein then said that space is warped by gravity, rather than 'splain it? here's the graphic:

 -

so, if space is affected by gravity? then light traveling thru that space is following it's normal path thru space, but the space it distorted. Thats why we have the red shift in all light we observe form galactic distance and why we beleive they are all cosntantly expanding (see Hubbles work). it,s not really expanding, the gravitational effect on space the light travels thru is making it appear to be expanding when it is not.

This led me directly to *ASSUME* that space itsef has mass. All this with no math. It is elgant. Yet professioanl Physicists hate the notion. They continue ot search for the Higgs whn it seems rather obvious (to me) that the Higgs is space itself. So maybe they will come out witht his as the result. It takes away the proof s of balck hole and it also takes away the proofs of the big bang. I can 'splain those too but it takes even longer than this one does.
 
glassman  - posted
one thing to keep in mind, space does not "begin" when you leave the atmosphere. Space is actually "denser" here on earth and most dense at the center of the earht, it wouldbe even more dense at the center of the sun. Space is a True Superfulid. it has no viscosity and it actually occupies atoms.
It will be less dense outside the solar system, and it will be least "dense" in the areas between galaxies... that's why light gets redshifted as it travels between them.

It is prolly what gives them mass. Which would make it the Higgs Boson.

Lord kelvin desrcibed this matter-space realtuonship back before relativity but it was set aside in favor of the Bohr model of the atom. There has been alot historicla research lately into Bohr and and Eisntein and how Bohr works in quantum mechanics literally destroyed Eisnteins abiltiy to continue his work. Eisntein hated it, that's why he said God does not play dice. He couldn't acecept Heisenbergs uncertainty stuff which came directly off of Bohrs work.
 
glassman  - posted
just to bolster the notion? here's what Hubble imslef beleived even after his own proofs became widely accepted and he was famous for them:

Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

he came to beleive that no true expansin exists, yet he is credited with "proving" expansion and hence the big bang....

IMO, that curvature exists because space is a superfluid that has mass, and gravitatioanl effects on the mass of it cause the curvature. The curvatuee is more easily visualised as a change in the density..

like air, it gets less and less dense the furhter away from the surface of the earth, so too witht he density of space, until it is very very "thin" in between galaxies... that cuases the red shifts.
 
glassman  - posted
warning pagan: cut-n-paste

Models of the Atom

Michael Fowler, University of Virginia
Early String Theory

The first attempt to construct a physical model of an atom was made by William Thomson (later elevated to Lord Kelvin) in 1867. The most striking property of the atom was its permanence. It was difficult to imagine any small solid entity that could not be broken, given the right force, temperature or chemical reaction. In contemplating what kinds of physical systems exhibited permanence, Thomson was inspired by a paper Helmholtz had written in 1858 on vortices. This work had been translated into English by a Scotsman, Peter Tait, who showed Thomson some ingenious experiments with smoke rings to illustrate Helmholtz' ideas. The main point was that in an ideal fluid, a vortex line is always composed of the same particles, it remains unbroken, so it is ring-like. Vortices can also form interesting combinations -- A good demonstration is provided by creating two vortex rings one right after the other going in the same direction. They can trap each other, each going through the other in succession. This is probably what Tait showed Thomson, and it gave Thomson the idea that atoms might somehow be vortices in the ether.

Of course, in a non ideal fluid like air, the vortices dissipate after a while, so Helholtz' mathematical theorem about their permanence is only approximate. But Thomson was excited because the ether was thought an ideal fluid, so vortices in the ether might last forever! This was very aesthetically appealing to everybody - "Kirchhoff, a man of cold temperament, can be roused to enthusiasm when speaking of it." (Pais, IB page 177, source for this material). In fact, the investigations of vortices, trying to match their properties with those of atoms, led to a much better understanding of the hydrodynamics of vortices - the constancy of the circulation around a vortex, for example, is known as Kelvin's law. In 1882 another Thomson, J. J., won a prize for an essay on vortex atoms, and how they might interact chemically. After that, though, interest began to wane - Kelvin himself began to doubt that his model really had much to do with atoms, and when the electron was discovered by J. J. in 1897, and was clearly a component of all atoms, different kinds of non-vortex atomic models evolved.


this theory was prolly close to the truth but not spot on.


this is also where it all gets tricky. electrons are defintiley interacting direclty with the superfluid of space. visible light is emitted and collected when elctrons move from one position on the atom to another. "Permanence" is the problem...

when an elctron shifts in it's orbit onto another orbit at the other end of the Universe? a gazillion years later the light ( a single photon) made from it still exists in space and is still flying along (as a wave) looking for another electron to hit and be absorbed itno. This is assuming it doidn't hit anything yet.'

NOW, how does the photon (which is not a particle) maintain it's ebnergy across the whole universe? All of th elaws we understand show that it will just keep going. AT THE SAME SPEED!

the answer is that the wave of light we call a photon is being propagated in an and continuously energised by space. The interaction of one peice of space (possibly the Higgs) with another should in fact cost some energy/velocity , but it doesn't. (red shift is shown for this loss but not velocity).
Unless these peices of space that make up the universe have an internal energy like a spinning top that never stops they just can't keep exchangin information witout loss. This extra energy would be the C2 in Einsteins equations. So, because space has mass and it also holds a certain amount of energy ( C2 ) it can in fact carry the INFORMATION of one single electron orbit shift (light) across the whole universe with loss of its energy showing up as red shif tonly, not loss of velocity. This is where the conservation of energy is created. Space itself supplies the energy to the light and
these chunks of space also drive the electrons around in their orbits.
And we actaully can know where they are (despite what Heisenberg said) if we simply look at where they get their motion from....

[ July 16, 2012, 18:44: Message edited by: glassman ]
 
glassman  - posted
OK, here is Fermilabs (that's Chicago, not CERN which is in switzerland) description of what a Higgs Boson is....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIg1Vh7uPyw&feature=related

note that he uses water to describe the Higgs feild... this is much how i see space itself, the difference is that space permeates (and drives) all matter.

he says that "heavy" particles interact "more" with the Higgs feild than "lighter particles" and that makes them heavier. This seems backwards to me. The speed that particle get is "given" to tehm by this feild. So they are not interacting less by any measure.

My theory is very differnt. the faster particles are interacting just as much as the slower particles but we see them going faster because they are *able* to move faster. There is not less or more interaction. The interactions are equal and the energy is "communicated" differently.
The barracuda he show? It is interacting mightily with the water, just in a differnt way than a slower fish.
Mass and gravity are basically the same thing. When you say something has more mass, you are saying it has more gravitiational attraction to other objects. Somehow space itself communicates gravity between objects. This is where we will get the real benefits of this science. Understanding the realtionship between two objects that makes them want to come together. (gravity)
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
I watched that show today on tv with the ballon growing in the cube to describe the expansion of the universe. I wonder whats out there.
 
Upside  - posted
You bring up some points that I don't completely understand Glass, not for the first time of course.

If the Higgs field is a sort of cosmic sticky goo that's "out there" then it'll have an effect on everything that has mass, right? Massless particles will simply pass through it at the speed of light, it can't latch onto something that "isn't there". An object with mass though will be slowed down or governed by it's interaction with it. The more mass a particle has or the heavier it is, the slower it will go because it encounters more Higgs goo.

I realize that's extremely simplistic but that's my layman understanding of it. You seem to be saying something different though? That a Higgs field would have no effect on the speed of the particle, some are just inherently faster than others field or no field. Am I understanding you correctly?
 
glassman  - posted
that's my fault. If i were better at writing i could get his across more plainly. If i were any good at programming i could do a videe demo...

OK, to start, let's go back to what a superfluid is. It's not goo. And this where the problems start. Thats why i beleive they are looking at the Higgs upsidedown or bassakward.

sorry Pagan but i'm going to cheat again (i'zjus lazee)

Superfluid is a universal phenomenon which means the state of matter in which the matter behaves like a fluid with zero viscosity. While originally this phenomenon was discovered in liquid helium, recently it finds applications not only in the theory of liquid helium but also in astrophysics, high-energy physics and theory of quantum gravity. The phenomenon is related to the Bose-Einstein condensation but not identical: not all Bose-Einstein condensates can be regarded as superfluids and not all superfluids are Bose-Einstein condensates.

Beleive it or not, Jr is the one who clued me into this one.
We were watching a UFO show on TV and one of the yokels were saying they saw a superfluid from the space ship on the ground. Jr (who loves astral stuff even when he was 5) says to me, that's impossible, superfluids have no viscosity, they dissolve right into everything. A superfluid laying on the ground would just dissolve away in to the ground....

Don't ask me how a kid barely in high school knew this. I asked and he mumbled something about youtube physics classes. Then he pulled up a 50's demostraion of luiqid helium and showed it defying gravity and a few other odd things....

It seems wrong that we can have a frictionless fluid. It is counterintuitive. BUT when we look at atoms and their proportions? We find that atoms are mostly *space*. I have seen relative sizes explained as the size of penny, or a even an orange inside a baseball stadium. The penny or the baseball would be the nucleus and the electron would be traveling around at the stadium distance.

This is why space can flow into and out of the atoms so easily.

Something else is going on too. The electron is always traveling around the nucleus at high speed.

A hydrogen atom has an electron traveling around it at about 1000 miles per second. This not out in space. This right here on earth with all kinds of friction around. Theoretically the (negatively charged) electron is bound to travel in a circle by the positive charge in the nucleus. This only explains why the electron doesn't take off in straight line directon.
What i want to know is how the electron can go so fast even in an atmoshpere where there is alof friction. Not only go fast, but more or less go this fast forever.

There has got to be an accelerant force on it for this to happen. I propose that this is actaully what the peices of space that MIGHT be the Higgs are actually doing. Instead of adding mass, they add velocity to light and elctrons.

That is where the C2 that i mention out in space comes in here on earht. The space in between the electron and the nucleus has the enrgy and it drives the electron. So what you have is a superfluid that interacts intimatley with electrons. The superfluid is also th esource of their velocity in their orbits.

I helpd jr win the state science fair in physics this past year by using lasers to show that light behaves *EXACTLY* as if it is in a liquid. It was part o the Double slit expirement which is famous. it is shown in most every decent first year physics class.

They then go onto show that electrons are also acting like waves if you do the double slit expirement with them instead of light. This seems confusing because we know their exact mass. Hence they are particles and could not possibly be waves, right? The key here is that the electrons are *INTIMATE* with space. Somehow the elctrons are interacting with space itself even here on earth where there is no *SPACE*. It's simply too easy to forget that space is "underneath" everything. Space is not "displaced" like air and water are. It is "dissolved" into everything. We are immersed in it. It si so much apart of us that we cannot even sense it. Space is right here on earth and even in the center of it.
 
glassman  - posted
here's youtube of cornstrch and water being activated by sound waves. watch the "structure" of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4shodbQMcmM&feature=related

This is very much like what i am trying to 'splain about electrons. The energy MUST be continuously "pumped" into the system. In the video the energy is sound (vibrations). In the universe, the energy is electromagnetic radioatn (light and radiowave and x-rays etc)which are alos vibrations. The implications of having to pump energy into the Universe/system are hard to reconcile. We see the Universe as a closed system. I am not able to offer HOW the superfluid of space is energised. But i am saying that it MUST BE ENERGISED by something. That energy is defined as the speed of light2. So when Einstein says you cannot get enough energy together to break the speed of light? He is saying that the goo you speak of becomes ultimately viscous (has most friction) as you get to the speed of light.
 
glassman  - posted
I'm going to have to cheat again.

i hope this will make it all clearer:

Spin:
In quantum mechanics and particle physics, spin is a fundamental characteristic property of elementary particles, composite particles (hadrons), and atomic nuclei.

As the name suggests, spin was originally conceived as the rotation of a particle around some axis. This picture is correct so far as spins obey the same mathematical laws as quantized angular momenta do. On the other hand, spins have some peculiar properties that distinguish them from orbital angular momenta:

Spin quantum numbers may take on half-odd-integer values.
Although the direction of its spin can be changed, an elementary particle cannot be made to spin faster or slower.
The spin of a charged particle is associated with a magnetic dipole moment with a g-factor differing from 1. This could only occur classically if the internal charge of the particle were distributed differently from its mass.

Elementary particles

Elementary particles are particles for which there is no known method of division into smaller units. Theoretical and experimental studies have shown that the spin possessed by such particles cannot be explained by postulating that they are made up of even smaller particles rotating about a common center of mass (see classical electron radius); as far as can be determined, these elementary particles have no inner structure. The spin of an elementary particle is a truly intrinsic physical property, akin to the particle's electric charge and rest mass.


what i am proposing is that space is what supplies the spin. Einstein told us that space is warped by gravity, which literally means that space has mass.

Light waves are the most perfect translation of spin because the photons have no mass. Electrons being the next largest indivudual particle show us a less perfect but still intimate relationship with the spin that is supplied by space itslef. Each larger particle shows less and less abilty to interct directly with space, yet all particles do in fact interact direclty with it, they cannot escape space as far as we know. Black holes imply that space is "torn" around them (the event horizon) but if space is a superfluid? Then balck holes are going to have to be rethunk.

If i take a cue ball with a red dot on it and roll it across the pool table? What does the red dot alone look like? A wave. It will go up and down as it rolls ahead across the table.... That red dot is like a photon except that the cue ball is not rolling, there would billions of cue balls touching each other and the red dot is being transfered along it's line of travel from one to the next. There is no friction between the cue balls because they are the superfluid. The cue balls spin all the time whether or not light (the red dot) is on them.

an elementary particle cannot be made to spin faster or slower- that is the conservation of energy, the "chunks of space" (Higgs?) "cueballs" do not change their spin either. the only question is how intimately they can interact with any given particle.
 
glassman  - posted
The Mystery of Empty Space

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vKh_jKX7Q&feature=related

This is pretty long, but he covers why we are looking for the Higgs feild. I find the eplanations inelegant. I specifically do not like to hear that without the Higgs, we would "move too fast". I see the whole thing as reversed from that. We get motion from space, not restriction. And the notion of removing electromagnetism from space as if they are separate just does not compute.
 
The Bigfoot  - posted
Out here its duck tape glass. [Smile]
 
glassman  - posted
yeah but there's duck tape, and then there's duct tape. [Big Grin]
 
The Bigfoot  - posted
And you should never trust anything with duck tape on it. Duct tape actually works pretty good. [Smile] As to the Higgs Boson, I understand just enough to know it 'could' usher in a whole new age of scientific advancement. Exciting, but most people in our world aren't even going to get that much.
 
glassman  - posted
the hting is? they've spent five years and billions of dollars trying to find it. I don't beleive that pure research is ever wasted, but at some point you have to accpet that you got off the right trail and go back to where you had the proper scent and start over.

I realise that i have not been able to makeclear my case for why i beleive they are on the wrong trail. I listen to presentationas and read papers where the people who make a living at it don't make the explantions Elegant either, so i don't know what to do about it.

A simple question. How does an electron keep going around the nucleus forever even when it is hitting other elctrons head on? This should cancel them out and they should both stop. They don't.

Brownian motion demosntrates this:


 -

answer? the energy is supplied form soemthign else. besides the electron. It is not in the nucleus, that only hold the elctron in it's circular path, but doesn't "push" the elcton along.

The Higgs proponetns claim everything would move at teh speed of light if it were not for the Higgs feild, but i see it the opposite, everything would come to rest if not for hte energy inherent in space. Space is not empty it is not nothing, it is the source of the energy of everything.
 
glassman  - posted
Eisntein had us on the right track, he got derailed by Neils bohr-

it was Bohr who instigated the uncertainty pricple/observer pricinple/shrdoingers cat question.... of course heisenberg and schrodinger elaborated on Bohrs basic premise, but that's where we all got off-track in physics.


The 1927 conference on quantum mechanics was held to discuss how the many seemingly contradictory observations could be reconciled. Schrödinger and de Broglie showed up with their ideas. But the eight-hundred pound gorilla was Bohr. In what later came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohr proposed that wave equations described where entities like electrons could be, but, the entities didn't actually exist as particles until someone went looking for them. The act of observation caused existence. In Bohr's own words, the entities in question had no "independent reality in the ordinary physical sense."

Einstein wouldn't have any of it. An electron was an electron, and just because someone wasn't looking at it, it was still there — wherever "there" happened to be.



fast forward to 2005:

Scientists have filmed an electron in motion for the first time, using a new technique that will allow researchers to study the tiny particle's movements directly.

Previously it was impossible to photograph electrons because of their extreme speediness, so scientists had to rely on more indirect methods. These methods could only measure the effect of an electron's movement, whereas the new technique can capture the entire event.

Extremely short flashes of light are necessary to capture an electron in motion. A technology developed within the last few years can generate short pulses of intense laser light, called attosecond pulses, to get the job done.

"It takes about 150 attoseconds for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom. An attosecond is 10-18 seconds long, or, expressed in another way: an attosecond is related to a second as a second is related to the age of the universe," said Johan Mauritsson of Lund University in Sweden.

Using another laser, scientists can guide the motion of the electron to capture a collision between an electron and an atom on film.

The length of the film Mauritsson and his colleagues made corresponds to a single oscillation of a wave of light. The speed of the event has been slowed down for human eyes. The results are detailed in the latest issue of the journal Physical Review Letters.



now, i cannot figger out why anybody even bothers with those priciples since this proves them wrong...

my simple answer to the shroedingers cat problem was to see how dirty the litterbox was.... it was stupidity, in fact it was monumantal stupidity, it was so stupid that we lost 80-90 good years of research cuz of it....
 
glassman  - posted
note that lasers can 'guide" an electron now.

this i sbecause lasers are not simply a light emitter. They actaully 'coordiante" the space that the light travels on/in/thru.... That's why alser pointer can shine a dot on thewall instead lighting up the wall as a regualr light would do. The space the light travels in begins to become coherant or "line up"..

Electrons are also "intimate" with space. Hence they can be aligned or guided by the space the laser has "coordinated"..... it isn't th elight waves that push the elctron it is the space th elight is travilng in that pushes th electron.
 
Upside  - posted
So if I understand you right Glass, you believe that the Higgs field (or some other "thing) is acting as an accelerant, not as a governor of sorts? What limits us to the speed of light then?
 
glassman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Upside:
So if I understand you right Glass, you believe that the Higgs field (or some other "thing) is acting as an accelerant, not as a governor of sorts? What limits us to the speed of light then?

yes, that is what i'm saying, but it its not even really a feild. It's a superfluid. and we are "immersed" in it completely. It is the whole universe (assuming our corner of it is the same as the rest )

This superfluid -it has mass. Einstein told us that it should, and we've prvoven that.

we think of magnetic feilds as easiest to see, and then electric feilds as an extension of the magnetic feilds...

 -

only electrons and iron and a few other metals like cobalt react to a magnetic feild. Those are a real field in this superfluid we call space.

this question about magnetic feilds was my first real break from classical education. I asked my teacher what is this feild. And he got really mad and just kept repeating IT JUST IS IT JUST IS....

so i went to a really good friends parent who was a superfreak applied physicist 'consultant' -you know, one of those people that if he told you what he really did he'd have to kill you? and asked him. and he got even more upset. Fortuantely it was in private, and not in front of whole auditorium of people like my professor. That's when it occurred to me that these physicists don't really know WTF they are doing.


when you look at a magnetic feild? you are seeing it IN something else. That something else is space the superfluid.

The superfluid has mass, and it reacts with everything. it is inside all atoms and molecules.

It is what gives us the energy inherent in all things.

the speed limit of light? Think of light as not a particle but a very slight amount of "english" on cue balls. Remember that the "cue balls" that make up space are the fluid and they are all constantly rotating with internal energy at the speed of light. This is also the dark matter and dark energy that is missing from the equations the astrophysicists do.

How light happens:
an electron in a molecule (Light bulb filamnet) is momentarily "magnetised" by an electric current and jumps to a higher orbiting shell, when it does this a peice of space (cue ball) drops itno the elctrons old place between it and the rest of the molecule.
The megnetic feild collpases (elcric current turns off ) and then the electron returns to it's lower energy orbit. This forces the peice of space (cue ball) back OUT of the molecule. Giving it a UNIQUE spin as it does. This unique spin is how we analyse everything. It correlates to light waves as the spin is "shared" withthe res tof th eparticles that make up space. It is how we see, and distiguish betwen colers. Spectrophotometry can ID every single materials specific wavelength. The wavelength changes are waht we know of as light. When there is no english on the cue balls? We cannot see them even tho they are always spinning in place and have energy. That is waht Dark energy is. The space is not "at rest" it's just not sharing information with us that we can recieve.

This sharing of information is what triggers a "photon". However the photon is not a particle of light. It is actually a shift or "nudge" or "poke" of the "cue ball" (space particle, or Higgs) that was inside the shell that the electron had moved into when it jumped outward and then got displaced again when the electron went back. This is not an addition of MASS to the superfluid of space (the cue balls) it is simply a change in their *relative* position to each other which they then go on to share with all of the other peices of space (cue balls) that they are able to.

They just happen to be doing this exchange of informtion (nothing else) at the speed of light. Hence light in the vacuum (which is NOT a vacuum) is travelin at the speed of light. I cannot stress enough that this ONLY an exchange of information, not mass. All forms of electromagnetic radiation (light heat xrays radiowaves) are *only* one set of atoms or molecules exchanging information with one another using space as the transfer medium.

Someting to ponder? if information has no mass? Then what is information really? [Big Grin]


An electron can be acclerated to 99.999something of the speed of light.
BUT,
they cannot acheive the speed of light because the fluid they are traveling thru (space) is too dense. It is not nothing. It has mass.

It is the friction or viscosity of space that will stop soemthing form accelerating to the speed of light.

Eisntein expressed this as gaining infinite mass, i beleive he would have been able to change this part of his theories if he hadn't run into something so dumb as Bohrs claim that nothing is there until we look at it. DUMB! it makes me want to scream.

Acceleration is funny stuff. Aceceleration is the constant addition of energy itno soemthing. We know of acceleration as the feeling in your guts when you hit the gas, the reveres when you drop off the hill, or the feeling in your hand from recoil.
Eisnteins infinite mass idea was mathematical. he said that everyhing, energy, and matter has mass. What is Mass? mass is the gravitational attraction between any two things.

when we add velocity (energy ) to an elctron, we are incresing it's mass. That means that as we keep adding velocity (acceleration) we keep increasing the mass of the object, this extra mass requires even more energy to accelerate until we reach an infinite number (according to Einstein).
Mass is an affinity of one object to another. We tend to think of this as friction or resistance or some people even think of it as falling, but usually only if they are an astrohysicists or an astronaut.

so, according Relativty the more mass we add (by accelerating) the more force we need to keep accelerating. untill we reach the speed of light at which time we are not able to ad more energy....

Instead, think of it like this.

We drive a car thru air and we know that even tho we are burning more fuel and are thereby adding more energy, we reach a point where the car just won't go any faster. We can make it go faster by decreasing friction with the air but eventually that too just won't get us any faster.

In a space ship? we are traveling thru a superfluid which has no viscosity (opposite of air)

UNTIL we get near the speed of light we are fine. At some point? The superfluid is not able to flow thru the matter of us in our spaceship fast enough anymore.
because we have begun going so fast, we filled all of the matter that is US in the spaceship up with this superfluid, and time is now dilated for US. Time dialtion is the equivalent of being completely filled up with space (the superfluid) to the point where we begin to have to push space just like a car has to push air becuase we can not shed what we have acumulated fast enough.
Since this space has mass, and it is defintiley conntected to all other space we begin having to push it like the air, or even like snow on the plow. That is where all the extra mass we gain by accelerating comes from.


If we can figure our how NOT to accumulate the extra mass of space when we accelerate? Then we will not be limited by the speed of light. There are several other alternatives, but that is the basic problem with the speed limit of light.

So when the collider speeds those particles up to near light speed? They are actually collecting more peices of space into them. When they both hit each other inthecollision? They are hoping to see a Higgs boson released, but relativity seems to be telling us it is in fact space itself that has been collected, and it has mass, therefore it *cannot be a boson* because a boson has no mass by DEFINITION a boson is only a peice of information - (lightwaves are bosons)

i've been 'working" LOL if you call reading and imagining work, on this for a long time.

i have tried to envision what a peice of space (the individual cueball) should look like, and even tho some people would say i am simply restating superstring theory, i am very sure that i am not redescribing superstring theory, i need a name for this concept.

Since the shape of this thing doesn't seem to be a string and it has to be real mess? I think i will call it the Hairball Theory in memory of Scrodingers cat (who needs his litterbox changed) [Big Grin]

waves and particles are two entirely differnt things. there is no wave collapse. it is all just communication. wave-particle duality was a dead end.
 
glassman  - posted
maybe i should clarify the spaceship traveling thru space a little more.

at speeds we are familiar with? space (the superfluid) flows into and then back out of the ship and the contents with no problems.

as it begins to become relativistic? the inflow- outflow of the supeperfluid is what becomes the real problem... The ships matter will be "full" of space and pressure will build up inside the ship's matter. Space stops being a superfluid for the ships matter (only) and it's contents (only) at this point. Don't forget that ship and it's contents always had space within them too, just as everything else does. But it can only flow in an out at the speed the space owns (which is light speed).

relativity is all about perspective or frame of refernce. form outside the ship the ship will appear to be shorter to us watching off on the side because the light reflected form the front will reach us less and less before the light the that reaches us reflected form the back of the ship. Inside the ship? nothing changed in terms of how big the ship is in relationship to it's passengers. Time doesn't change inside the ship either. But the mass of the ship, the energy required to make it go faster has changed. That's because the ship has reached the speeds of "resonance" that is the energy of C2 of the surrounding space, and the ship now has to push space too becase it and the space it has within it no longer behaves like a superfluid anymore, the space inside the ship has also increased in it's mass, and is differnt fromthe space outside the ship...

It may end up being somethign as simple as a AAA battery laser tuned to the correct frequency that will make the space in front of the ship less viscous, and therefore shed the extra mass,allowing for FTL.
 



Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share