|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ranando King
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 129
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:20 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119687732.670965.326250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Ranando King wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119597986.129848.87920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
it needs badly trimming.....
----------
issue
You may not think so, but you have to understand that whether or not a
photon has mass is in fact very much critical to the discription you've
given below.
not at all
having momentum is good enough for our issue!!
|
Only if you insist on pool-table mechanics.
| Quote: | -------------
snipped
This is the description I'm talking about. You're right in that no one
disputes a photon has momentum. However, the rest of your description
about
momentum transfers only occuring along straight line paths is highly
dependant on inertia,
no Sir
momentum as well has direction
and you cant take a given direction and fiddle it
to your needs if it has an initial direction
the output of that momentum will have the same overall direction
if there is a collition of the object that has momentum
with another one
one will recoil while the other will move in the direction
of the original collider.
---
|
That's pool-table mechanics, right there.
If you reduce the description of one of those objects to a wave, then the
impact on the second wave could transfer momentum that brings the second
object closer to the source of the wave. That's EM waves. Remember though, a
"photon" isn't even the EM wave; a "photon" is just the impact event on
another particle.
| Quote: | i.e. mass. If a photon has mass, then your description
is possible. But if a photon does not have mass, then your discription
is
not necessary, and in fact, very much incorrect. So then it becomes
critical
to determine whether or not a photon has mass in order to validate the
basis
of your conjectures.
i told you
momentum is enough to keep directions
|
Actually, it's not. Not even in pool-table mechanics. Have you actually ever
played 9-ball? If you put some english on the cue (striking the cueball off
center to create additional spin on the cue) then you can cause the cueball
to continue it's motion after impact with another ball in directions not
allowed by only considering the momentum of the cue directly preceeding that
impact. You can even affect the direction of the impacted ball. The point is
that momentum alone doesn't tell the whole story.
| Quote: | --------
Did you not know that waves can transfer momentum in directions opposite
of
their own?
very nice
but that i snot because em waves are done by photons
but rather because of the curved pass of that something that makes
the electric field (or magmentic)
----------
|
Again. A "photon" is an **impact event** in an EM wave. A "photon" is not
the EM wave. A "photon" does not constitute the EM field.
| Quote: | As such, an EM wave can transfer momentum to an object such that
the object begins moving toward the source of the wave.
not at all
only a *field* can do it not an em wave
you keep on mixing and em wave and a *field that makes em waves*!!
---------
|
A wave is a modulation in the field. Any moving charged partice will emit EM
waves.
| Quote: | This is a well known
function in wave mechanics. There is no need for your Circlons unless
you
can prove that photons have mass.
that is the qm nonsense explanation
and that is exactly the issue that is challenged.
|
So you're challenging the well proven field of wave mechanics? Good luck.
You'll need it.
| Quote: |
it is because of .....
lost of *veleocity*!!
All energy is mass in motion? Did you forget about "POTENTIAL ENERGY"?
You
have a certain amount of potential energy just sitting in the chair at
your
desk. You convert that energy into kinetic energy if you happen to fall
out
of your seat. Potential energy is mass at rest under the stress of
opposing
forces. There's more to energy than just mass in motion. That is merely
1
form.
some news fo ryou about wah it potential ebnergy:
potential energy is not done by the objest itself
it is done by the object + the field around it .
now the field around is the main hero here
while (listen carefully)
that field is mass in motion including circular movement
of those unknown agents that make it
while that movement is a nonstop movement - but circular!!
)(reversible circular see my appendix of my site
did you daw it ??)
|
Ok. Maybe I should be asking you if you're an aether theorist. You keep
presuming that all fields are constituted of some "unknown agents". Some qm
physicists think that those things are Z for strong, W for weak, photons for
EM, and (speculatively) gravitons for gravity. You wish to claim that these
are all instead, your circlon? Good luck proving it. You'll need it.
| Quote: |
----------------
So prove photons have mass!
no need to prove that the photon has mass
it has momentum
and a directinal momentum
|
The direction of momentum does not necessarily correspond with the direction
of motion of the object carrying the momentum.
| Quote: | That's all I'm saying. With the statement above
that you call hand-waving, I actually suggested an experiment you can
try to
test and see if your initial assumption (photons have mass) is actually
correct or not.
as far as i remember your 'experiment' was 'not to the point'
|
It was to the point you seem to insist on dismissing, a point which is
mathematically, and empirically verified.
| Quote: |
Electrically charged particles interact with EM fields.
an event. The force producer is the EM field.
----------------
so you see what happned
we argeed just from the beginning that photons are not the
EM *feild* makers ans went on disputing and disputing
while my main goal was just to make it clear the above:
That's right. "Photons" are NOT the EM field makers.
"Photons" are EVENTS in the EM field.
'events in the em field is nice for
literature not for scince
or may be for lawyers .....
----------
|
If you insist. Funny how it's worked for all these decades...
| Quote: |
Events do NOT have mass,
events do not have mass??
they do not have pants as well!! (
----------
|
That's nice. Your point?
| Quote: | only a 4D coordinate in Minkowski space.
Therefore circlons are NOT required.
----------
that is another private theory
why shoulod i accept it ??
why should i beleive in 4d while i can mannage nicely with 3d??
|
There is space (3d) and there is time (1d). Minkowski space is just one of a
number of convenient ways of handling both at the same time. A single
location in 3d space occurring at a specific 1d time as plotted in Minkowski
space is a single point. If you're only working with 3D space, then you're
ignoring time altogether. Unless you also wish to assert that time is
irrelevant, I suggest you begin dealing with 4d spacetime. Otherwise, your
equations for your theory are going to get painfully complicated.
| Quote: | Ocams razor remember ??
-----------
-------
(:-)
The only problem is that the basis of your theory is dubious at best.
You
may not see or understand it, but your whole theory is dependant on
photons
having mass. I suggested an experiment you can try to test this idea.
Good
luck.
------------------
see above you keep on basing youself on youself
|
Everything I've stated is based on known mathematical and empirical fact.
What is the basis for your statements?
| Quote: | , > ocean to
move further apart.
----------
i think i located the 'problem' with your methaphore:
in your mathaphore the 'ocean' is actually spreads infinitely
around your boat and evenly dispersed all around and all along
Wrong again. Oceans are neither infinite in size nor consistant in
density.
--
they are infinit compaired to your ship or whatever
|
Still wrong. Need I do the math? No matter how you do it, no infinities were
involved. Nice attempt at escaping the point though.
| Quote: | in the field case it is not like that:
it is not infinitly all around
and not least: not evenly dispersed all laround
the field for instance becomes deluded withdiatnce!!
Actually, that's wrong too! All fields for the 4 fundamental forces
exist
simultaneously everywhere across spacetime at consistant densities
---------
why should i beleive you with that ??
|
Maybe because it's part of the accepted definitons for the fundamental
fields. But you don't have to believe them either. Be my guest. Prove the
definitons wrong.
| Quote: |
in the
absense of energy of any kind (mass included). The effect of an
electrically
charged particle in the EM field is a change in the density of the EM
field
local to that particle, the effective density change dissapates with
distance away from the particle.
but you dont have and field without some particle to make it!!
even if that particle' migh tbe very far away say like the sun
away from us ...
sometimes it is so far that you forget the sourse of it !!!
|
Nice assertion. Aether physicists are inclined to agree with you. Now all
you need is the proof and a mathematical model to explain it. Preferably,
one that isn't inconsistant with currently available data.
| Quote: | ------------
snipped
both of us agree that 'something has to be added
tothe dead end physics situation
indeed myself had to invent the 'Circlon'
but inho it solves problems much simpler.
-----------
Few who read this thread or anything in this newsgroup, or for that
matter,
dabble in scientific matters would dare describe anything in physics as
complete on a grand scale. There's still too much that hasn't yet been
explained.
you will be surprisd about how much vanity is in that NG
and not only in this ng!!!
-----------
|
Somehow, I doubt that this NG represents the whole of the scientific
community.
| Quote: |
i have another facts .....
What you have are assumptions. The difference is that the fact that I
stated
is confirmed by scientific experiments.
thats what *you say*
|
If you don't wish to listen to me, then just go
http://my.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?course=fas-phys16&pageid=tk.page.phys16.dir.7f829e3adaebcfa703b7db42e0201022
and start reading, then google around and do some more reading. You don't
have to listen to anything I've told you, but at some point, you do need to
face the facts.
| Quote: |
It's not good to target semantics in a metaphor. The semantics will
always
prove inconsistant. The point here was that the field and the particle
exist
whether or not there are waves.
wrong
ther is no field without a particle!!
it is a particle that makes a field
as i saies sometimes it looks like what you saies but it is only
because the
amterialistic source of the field is far away!!
|
Prove it. When you do, I'd love to see the proof. I'd consider that a great
discovery.
| Quote: | in any case we agree about my O P claim
that photons are not the field makers right ??
so at least we did some advance....
-----------
|
As I've stated before, yes we agree on that 1 point only.
| Quote: |
So waves cannot be stated as the cause of
the field.
|
Correct. Waves occur in the field, so the waves cannot be the cause of the
field.
| Quote: | i didnt say that see just above.
Likewise, our daughters and the bathwater exist even if the water
doesn't have waves. The waves do not create the water.
your methaphoric example is not hitting our point
---------
|
For your sake I'll lay off the metaphors. You don't seem to understand them
too well yet.
| Quote: | all the best
Y.Porat
----------------
|
R. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:12 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Ranando King wrote:
| Quote: | "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119687732.670965.326250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
not at all
having momentum is good enough for our issue!!
Only if you insist on pool-table mechanics.
|
it happened agian
i was working on a response for about half an hour
and got ..... 'a server error'
ie got lost not because of my fault!
though life Eh??
so lets make it as short as possible:
----------------
| Quote: |
-------------
one will recoil while the other will move in the direction
of the original collider.
---
That's pool-table mechanics, right there.
If you reduce the description of one of those objects to a wave,
are we aloud to do it in our case?? |
then the
| Quote: | impact on the second wave could transfer momentum that brings the second
object closer to the source of the wave.
that is nice wishful thinking |
it canhappen in your pool not around a particle.
the pool has bounderies that are different from those
of a charged particle.
its field is not constant inintensity
and disapear it it is far enough from the particle.
----------
-----
That's EM waves. Remember though, a
| Quote: | "photon" isn't even the EM wave; a "photon" is just the impact event
the photon is not an event |
the photon is a physical ently
events are only in lawyers discussions.
--------------
on
| Quote: |
Actually, it's not. Not even in pool-table mechanics. Have you actually ever
played 9-ball? If you put some english on the cue (striking the cueball off
center to create additional spin on the cue) then you can cause the cueball
to continue it's motion after impact with another ball in directions not
allowed by only considering the momentum of the cue directly preceeding that
impact. You can even affect the direction of the impacted ball. The point is
that momentum alone doesn't tell the whole story.
--------
Did you not know that waves can transfer momentum in directions opposite
of
their own?
|
yes because they are created by Circlons
-----
| Quote: | very nice
but that i snot because em waves are done by photons
but rather because of the curved pass of that something that makes
the electric field (or magmentic)
----------
Again. A "photon" is an **impact event** in an EM wave. A "photon" is not
the EM wave. A "photon" does not constitute the EM field.
|
----------
very nice !!
thats is all the message that i whanted to deliver in my thread!!
so we have no differences about it!1
you should be aware that that is not *the common understanding*!!!
that is an innovation.
---------
----------
| Quote: |
As such, an EM wave can transfer momentum to an object such that
the object begins moving toward the source of the wave.
not at all
only a *field* can do it not an em wave
you keep on mixing and em wave and a *field that makes em waves*!!
---------
A wave is a modulation in the field. Any moving charged partice will emit EM
waves.
|
not any modulation'
there is a minimal energy level!!
----------
| Quote: |
This is a well known
function in wave mechanics. There is no need for your Circlons unless
you
wrong !! |
the existing mecahnics does not explain *how * the field
is creating attraction!
the common parroting that is just acompaning words
is that it is done by ..... photon exchange
and we aleray agreed that it is wrong isnt that??
----------
| Quote: | can prove that photons have mass.
that is the qm nonsense explanation
and that is exactly the issue that is challenged.
So you're challenging the well proven field of wave mechanics? Good luck.
You'll need it.
|
just give me a break with that demagogic 'well proven'
i expalined that it is not well proven
it is just acompaning *words* of wish ful thinking.
----------
| Quote: |
some news fo ryou about wah it potential ebnergy:
potential energy is not done by the objest itself
it is done by the object + the field around it .
now the field around is the main hero here
while (listen carefully)
that field is mass in motion including circular movement
of those unknown agents that make it
while that movement is a nonstop movement - but circular!!
)(reversible circular see my appendix of my site
did you daw it ??)
Ok. Maybe I should be asking you if you're an aether theorist.
|
not at all
i dont need it.
-------
You keep
| Quote: | presuming that all fields are constituted of some "unknown agents". Some qm
physicists think that those things are Z for strong, W for weak,
|
--
if you like to accept a mesenger W that is 90 times bigger than its
mother --
welcome...
--------
photons for
| Quote: | EM, and (speculatively) gravitons for gravity. You wish to claim that these
are all instead, your circlon? Good luck proving it. You'll need it.
|
see above
i dont have messengers that are 90 times bigger thn their mother!1
-------
| Quote: |
'events in the em field is nice for
literature not for scince
or may be for lawyers .....
----------
If you insist. Funny how it's worked for all these decades...
if you are happy |
i am happy as well for you !!!....
-----------
| Quote: |
Events do NOT have mass,
events do not have mass??
they do not have pants as well!! (
----------
That's nice. Your point?
|
you hand wave with abstrat claimes
that s very 'efficient' (event)
your trick is that it is so anstract that you can wait long enough
untill someone will find some good physics finding
and than you will jump and say
hurray i told you that the 'event' is what Mr X just has found....
---------------
| Quote: | why should i beleive in 4d while i can mannage nicely with 3d??
There is space (3d) and there is time (1d). Minkowski space is just one of a
number of convenient ways of handling both at the same time. A single
location in 3d space occurring at a specific 1d time as plotted in Minkowski
space is a single point. If you're only working with 3D space, then you're
ignoring time altogether. Unless you also wish to assert that time is
irrelevant, I suggest you begin dealing with 4d spacetime. Otherwise, your
equations for your theory are going to get painfully complicated.
|
i dont what to get in now withthe time issue
Time is not an independant physics entity
Time is just replacement comparison
to some chosen dispalcement reference!!
it is a humn (quite convenient ) invention
it is just motion dependant
anyway that is not our topic.
------------
| Quote: | ---------
why should i beleive you with that ??
Maybe because it's part of the accepted definitons for the fundamental
fields. But you don't have to believe them either. Be my guest. Prove the
definitons wrong.]
|
it ias the explanations =the interpretations of the attractin
phenomena that is wrong
| Quote: |
in the
absense of energy of any kind (mass included). The effect of an
electrically
charged particle in the EM field is a change in the density of the EM
field
local to that particle, the effective density change dissapates with
distance away from the particle.
but you dont have and field without some particle to make it!!
even if that particle' migh tbe very far away say like the sun
away from us ...
sometimes it is so far that you forget the sourse of it !!!
Nice assertion. Aether physicists are inclined to agree with you. Now all
you need is the proof and a mathematical model to explain it. Preferably,
one that isn't inconsistant with currently available data.
|
before mathematics
the physics foundations must be sound and logic
and that is what i tryto do
and we saw that you agree with me that it is not the photon
that is doing attracton.
---------
| Quote: |
Prove it. When you do, I'd love to see the proof. I'd consider that a great
discovery.
see above |
first the physics logic base
----------
| Quote: |
in any case we agree about my O P claim
that photons are not the field makers right ??
so at least we did some advance....
-----------
As I've stated before, yes we agree on that 1 point only.
|
thats all i wanted .
it i s good enough for me i am not too greedy...
-----------
sory i thing i snipped your 'billiard' methaphore
inthat case just remember
thebilliard table is matter that exerts force
reactional force
to thats the trick of circular path
njot simlar to the field of a particle
even if you take a boomerang
it will not move in curve ---- in *vacum**
--------
so to sum up
we agree withthe unconventional claim
that it is not the photon that makes the attraction
and that is a nice step forwards
'Rome was not built in one day' .....
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------
> R. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ranando King
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:27 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119949977.772967.202090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Ranando King wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119687732.670965.326250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
snipped
one will recoil while the other will move in the direction
of the original collider.
---
That's pool-table mechanics, right there.
If you reduce the description of one of those objects to a wave,
are we aloud to do it in our case??
|
Yes, considering that your cue-ball in this case is a photon.
| Quote: | then the
impact on the second wave could transfer momentum that brings the second
object closer to the source of the wave.
that is nice wishful thinking
it canhappen in your pool not around a particle.
the pool has bounderies that are different from those
of a charged particle.
its field is not constant inintensity
and disapear it it is far enough from the particle.
|
Water waves are not constant in intensity either. Maybe you need to go grab
a text book on fluid mechanics and refresh your memory. It seems you've
forgotten more than I remember. A wave in a fluid dissapates with the square
of the radius from the source.
| Quote: | ----------
-----
That's EM waves. Remember though, a
"photon" isn't even the EM wave; a "photon" is just the impact event
the photon is not an event
the photon is a physical ently
|
Proof?
| Quote: |
Actually, it's not. Not even in pool-table mechanics. Have you actually
ever
played 9-ball? If you put some english on the cue (striking the cueball
off
center to create additional spin on the cue) then you can cause the
cueball
to continue it's motion after impact with another ball in directions not
allowed by only considering the momentum of the cue directly preceeding
that
impact. You can even affect the direction of the impacted ball. The
point is
that momentum alone doesn't tell the whole story.
--------
Did you not know that waves can transfer momentum in directions
opposite
of
their own?
yes because they are created by Circlons
|
Proof?
| Quote: | -----
very nice
but that i snot because em waves are done by photons
but rather because of the curved pass of that something that makes
the electric field (or magmentic)
----------
Again. A "photon" is an **impact event** in an EM wave. A "photon" is
not
the EM wave. A "photon" does not constitute the EM field.
----------
very nice !!
thats is all the message that i whanted to deliver in my thread!!
so we have no differences about it!1
you should be aware that that is not *the common understanding*!!!
that is an innovation.
---------
----------
|
Although my answer to your initial questions are in agreement with you, we
still differ on the finer points of your idea.
| Quote: |
As such, an EM wave can transfer momentum to an object such that
the object begins moving toward the source of the wave.
not at all
only a *field* can do it not an em wave
you keep on mixing and em wave and a *field that makes em waves*!!
---------
A wave is a modulation in the field. Any moving charged partice will
emit EM
waves.
not any modulation'
there is a minimal energy level!!
|
Ok. Now all you have to do is calculate that minimum energy level. I.e.
Proof?
| Quote: | ----------
This is a well known
function in wave mechanics. There is no need for your Circlons
unless
you
wrong !!
the existing mecahnics does not explain *how * the field
is creating attraction!
|
Here we agree. The existing mechanics does not explain the *how* of a lot of
issues, but oddly physicists think it does. I think they've gotten too
accustom to justification by mathematics supplanting the *how* explanations.
| Quote: | the common parroting that is just acompaning words
is that it is done by ..... photon exchange
and we aleray agreed that it is wrong isnt that??
|
Yes and no. In a purely particle based sense, it is wrong. Considering that
a photon is an *impact event* of a wave in an EM field, then it is correct.
| Quote: | ----------
can prove that photons have mass.
that is the qm nonsense explanation
and that is exactly the issue that is challenged.
So you're challenging the well proven field of wave mechanics? Good
luck.
You'll need it.
just give me a break with that demagogic 'well proven'
i expalined that it is not well proven
it is just acompaning *words* of wish ful thinking.
|
Wave mechanics is a subset of fluid mechanics, a thoroughly studied
classical field. If you wish to assert that wave mechanics is incorrect,
then you're going to have to re-work a major portion of fluid mechanics.
| Quote: | ----------
some news fo ryou about wah it potential ebnergy:
potential energy is not done by the objest itself
it is done by the object + the field around it .
now the field around is the main hero here
while (listen carefully)
that field is mass in motion including circular movement
of those unknown agents that make it
while that movement is a nonstop movement - but circular!!
)(reversible circular see my appendix of my site
did you daw it ??)
Ok. Maybe I should be asking you if you're an aether theorist.
not at all
i dont need it.
-------
You keep
presuming that all fields are constituted of some "unknown agents". Some
qm
physicists think that those things are Z for strong, W for weak,
--
if you like to accept a mesenger W that is 90 times bigger than its
mother --
welcome...
--------
|
If by "bigger" you mean "more massive" then I agree that there is a bit of
absurdity going on there. I have yet to see the answer for where the excess
energy comes from to create such a massive particle and give it motion as
well. Not to mention the fact that any impact from a massive particle should
indeed follow pool-table mechanics.
| Quote: |
photons for
EM, and (speculatively) gravitons for gravity. You wish to claim that
these
are all instead, your circlon? Good luck proving it. You'll need it.
see above
i dont have messengers that are 90 times bigger thn their mother!1
-------
'events in the em field is nice for
literature not for scince
or may be for lawyers .....
----------
If you insist. Funny how it's worked for all these decades...
if you are happy
i am happy as well for you !!!....
-----------
|
I'm far from happy with the current state of physics, but you have to admit
that it's a steep hill to affecting any changes without a coherent model
that gives new predictions that can be tested.
| Quote: |
Events do NOT have mass,
events do not have mass??
they do not have pants as well!! (
----------
That's nice. Your point?
you hand wave with abstrat claimes
that s very 'efficient' (event)
your trick is that it is so anstract that you can wait long enough
untill someone will find some good physics finding
and than you will jump and say
hurray i told you that the 'event' is what Mr X just has found....
---------------
|
Stating that 'a "photon" is an *impact event* of an EM wave on an EM
participating particle' is far from abstract. In fact, that's about as clear
as it gets.
| Quote: | why should i beleive in 4d while i can mannage nicely with 3d??
There is space (3d) and there is time (1d). Minkowski space is just one
of a
number of convenient ways of handling both at the same time. A single
location in 3d space occurring at a specific 1d time as plotted in
Minkowski
space is a single point. If you're only working with 3D space, then
you're
ignoring time altogether. Unless you also wish to assert that time is
irrelevant, I suggest you begin dealing with 4d spacetime. Otherwise,
your
equations for your theory are going to get painfully complicated.
i dont what to get in now withthe time issue
|
If you're trying to define your cirlcons as field mediators, then you're
either dealing with time or doomed to failure. Effects in a field take time
to propagate. That means your circlons take time to pass the effect along...
| Quote: | Time is not an independant physics entity
Time is just replacement comparison
to some chosen dispalcement reference!!
|
If you're saying that you need a coordinate system to deal with time, then I
agree and I suggest you use Minkowski space to start. :-)
| Quote: |
it is a humn (quite convenient ) invention
it is just motion dependant
anyway that is not our topic.
|
Bold assertion. Any proof?
| Quote: | ------------
---------
why should i beleive you with that ??
Maybe because it's part of the accepted definitons for the fundamental
fields. But you don't have to believe them either. Be my guest. Prove
the
definitons wrong.]
it ias the explanations =the interpretations of the attractin
phenomena that is wrong
|
So far, the data and math supports them. Good luck proving otherwise.
| Quote: |
in the
absense of energy of any kind (mass included). The effect of an
electrically
charged particle in the EM field is a change in the density of the
EM
field
local to that particle, the effective density change dissapates with
distance away from the particle.
but you dont have and field without some particle to make it!!
even if that particle' migh tbe very far away say like the sun
away from us ...
sometimes it is so far that you forget the sourse of it !!!
Nice assertion. Aether physicists are inclined to agree with you. Now
all
you need is the proof and a mathematical model to explain it.
Preferably,
one that isn't inconsistant with currently available data.
before mathematics
the physics foundations must be sound and logic
and that is what i tryto do
and we saw that you agree with me that it is not the photon
that is doing attracton.
---------
|
Ok. So if you think your logic is sound, then it's time to move on to the
second step: developing a mathematical model. You'll find that the steps in
the scientific process overlap a bit. Sometimes developing the mathematical
model will help smooth out the logic of your hypothesis.
| Quote: |
Prove it. When you do, I'd love to see the proof. I'd consider that a
great
discovery.
see above
first the physics logic base
----------
in any case we agree about my O P claim
that photons are not the field makers right ??
so at least we did some advance....
-----------
As I've stated before, yes we agree on that 1 point only.
thats all i wanted .
it i s good enough for me i am not too greedy...
-----------
sory i thing i snipped your 'billiard' methaphore
inthat case just remember
thebilliard table is matter that exerts force
reactional force
to thats the trick of circular path
njot simlar to the field of a particle
even if you take a boomerang
it will not move in curve ---- in *vacum**
|
Actually, close enough to a neutron star with your back to the star and
throw the boomerang away from the star on a path that is not along the
radial from the star through you and watch what happens. The boomerang will
curve and come back to the star (just at a different location). In fact,
plotted in Minkowski (M)space, even if you throw the boomerang along the
radial, the path in M-space is a curve. The point is that fields apply
forces on objects. So your attempt to explain away the metaphor I used is
ineffective.
R.
| Quote: | --------
so to sum up
we agree withthe unconventional claim
that it is not the photon that makes the attraction
and that is a nice step forwards
'Rome was not built in one day' .....
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------
R.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:17 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Ranando King wrote:
| Quote: | "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119949977.772967.202090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ranando King wrote:
If you reduce the description of one of those objects to a wave,
are we aloud to do it in our case??
Yes, considering that your cue-ball in this case is a photon.
|
???????
words!
----------
| Quote: |
of a charged particle.
its field is not constant inintensity
and disapear it it is far enough from the particle.
Water waves are not constant in intensity either. Maybe you need to go grab
a text book on fluid mechanics and refresh your memory. It seems you've
forgotten more than I remember. A wave in a fluid dissapates with the square
of the radius from the source.
|
i dont need to grab a textbook to know
that the say electric field is gardually faiding down
even mathematically with the inverse R exp2 distance
that is not the case in your pool
2 the field is applying force constantly
your wave in the pool is dependat in a cnstant need
for agitation ie
external suply of energy
the electric field does not need a constant extral suply
in order of producing force!1
3
the elctric field is 3d
your pool is 2d .
etc etc i didnt even cover all the differences
--------
-----
| Quote: |
----------
-----
That's EM waves. Remember though, a
"photon" isn't even the EM wave; a "photon" is just the impact event
the photon is not an event
the photon is a physical ently
Proof?
|
not a physical entity ? than waht
a spiritual entity?? do we discuss it in a ng that is called
sci.*physics* ??
----------
| Quote: |
yes because they are created by Circlons
Proof?
time will say |
it is a postulate ( a good one .....(
----------
| Quote: |
-----
you should be aware that that is not *the common understanding*!!!
that is an innovation.
---------
----------
the existing mecahnics does not explain *how * the field
is creating attraction!
Here we agree. The existing mechanics does not explain the *how* of a lot of
issues, but oddly physicists think it does.
|
---------
so ?? if a lot of physicists beleive that the sun orbits the earth
shell i as well, join them just becasue they are (now) the majority?
I think they've gotten too
| Quote: | accustom to justification by mathematics supplanting the *how* explanations.
|
ok well saied !!
now we agree about another thing......
| Quote: |
the common parroting that is just acompaning words
is that it is done by ..... photon exchange
and we aleray agreed that it is wrong isnt that??
Yes and no. In a purely particle based sense, it is wrong. Considering that
a photon is an *impact event* of a wave in an EM field, then it is correct.
|
now we have to buy your merchandise
but before that we have to be conviced!!
that you are not selling us just hot air.....
----------
| Quote: |
just give me a break with that demagogic 'well proven'
i expalined that it is not well proven
it is just acompaning *words* of wish ful thinking.
Wave mechanics is a subset of fluid mechanics, a thoroughly studied
classical field. If you wish to assert that wave mechanics is incorrect,
then you're going to have to re-work a major portion of fluid mechanics.
---------- |
wave mechanics might work but doe snot explain how it i sdone
in case of the attraction forces of elctric and magnetic fields.
ie it i not understood to the scratch
it does some mathematical extrapolations.
----------
| Quote: |
----------
not at all
i dont need it.
-------
--------
If by "bigger" you mean "more massive" then I agree that there is a bit of
absurdity going on there.
|
ok nice advance!!
I have yet to see the answer for where the excess
| Quote: | energy comes from to create such a massive particle and give it motion as
well. Not to mention the fact that any impact from a massive particle should
indeed follow pool-table mechanics.
|
if your 'pool table means abstarctly to extract matter from the
environment
(and other particles surprise:
i agree with you!1
actually i sayed it long ago
that the w is actually a pile of many other input particles
running there in th ehuge accelerator!!
--
| Quote: |
That's nice. Your point?
you hand wave with abstrat claimes
that s very 'efficient' (event)
your trick is that it is so anstract that you can wait long enough
untill someone will find some good physics finding
and than you will jump and say
hurray i told you that the 'event' is what Mr X just has found....
---------------
Stating that 'a "photon" is an *impact event* of an EM wave on an EM
participating particle' is far from abstract. In fact, that's about as clear
as it gets.
|
not for me !!
| Quote: | Time is just replacement comparison
to some chosen dispalcement reference!!
If you're saying that you need a coordinate system to deal with time, then I
agree and I suggest you use Minkowski space to start.
|
i dont need Minkowski space
fo rmr dpace is nothing
has no properties beside hosting masses and particles
i can manage nicely without that human invention.
--
| Quote: |
it is a humn (quite convenient ) invention
it is just motion dependant
anyway that is not our topic.
Bold assertion. Any proof?
no need to prove just simple thinking |
i did it while i was 16 years old:
immagine that all motion in our universe *(all motion in the whole
universe
stiops for say 1 billion years at once
and than at once starts again
will you notice it ??
just to make it clear:
if all motion stops it means th eelectrons and photons in your brain
as well.
!!!
so think about it a while ....
about waht does it mean it means a lot!!
-----------
----------
| Quote: | that is doing attracton.
---------
Ok. So if you think your logic is sound, then it's time to move on to the
second step: developing a mathematical model. You'll find that the steps in
the scientific process overlap a bit. Sometimes developing the mathematical
model will help smooth out the logic of your hypothesis.
|
i did a lot of it in my book
yet my method was an iteration numeric method
which in some cases where the unknowns are too much
it is the only system to make some advance
so it involved a huge number of trial and error calculations.
amd you will be surprised:
a modern huge computer does the same
ie approaching the solutuion in an iteration of trial and error
of simple calculations!!
-------------
| Quote: | even if you take a boomerang
it will not move in curve ---- in *vacum**
Actually, close enough to a neutron star with your back to the star and
throw the boomerang away from the star on a path that is not along the
radial from the star through you and watch what happens. The boomerang will
curve and come back to the star (just at a different location).
|
if there is just gravitation and not matter in that envirinment
it will not curve
it will just fall back to the star
and you dont need a beutron star for it
it will be the same in a regular star:
if you throw a boomerang say on th e moon
it will curve only a bit because of the very deluted atmosphere there!!
----------
In fact,
| Quote: | plotted in Minkowski (M)space, even if you throw the boomerang along the
radial, the path in M-space is a curve. The point is that fields apply
forces on objects. So your attempt to explain away the metaphor I used is
ineffective.
---------- |
you say minkovski
i say Porats Circlon!!
the result will be the same the physical entity
will be different
and wide outcoming results that will be different.
all the best
Y.porat
----------------
| Quote: |
R.
--------
so to sum up
we agree withthe unconventional claim
that it is not the photon that makes the attraction
and that is a nice step forwards
'Rome was not built in one day' .....
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------
R.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ranando King
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:49 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1120195072.466985.24730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Ranando King wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119949977.772967.202090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ranando King wrote:
If you reduce the description of one of those objects to a wave,
are we aloud to do it in our case??
Yes, considering that your cue-ball in this case is a photon.
???????
words!
----------
|
Not words, expansion of the metaphor being used. In this case, you state
that a photon leaving particle A, upon impacting particle B, should impart
momentum to particle B consistant with the direction of motion of the
photon. That's pool table mechanics. The photon is the cue ball leaving
particle A (the cue stick) and hitting particle B (the 8 ball). What I'm
saying is that treating the photon as a wave makes the rules change. Despite
the fact that the wave traced a path between the cue stick and the 8 ball,
it does not require that the 8 ball be pushed in the direction of motion of
the wave. The wave could also cause the 8 ball to move toward the cue stick.
| Quote: |
of a charged particle.
its field is not constant inintensity
and disapear it it is far enough from the particle.
Water waves are not constant in intensity either. Maybe you need to go
grab
a text book on fluid mechanics and refresh your memory. It seems you've
forgotten more than I remember. A wave in a fluid dissapates with the
square
of the radius from the source.
i dont need to grab a textbook to know
that the say electric field is gardually faiding down
even mathematically with the inverse R exp2 distance
that is not the case in your pool
|
Actually it is. Precisely the same.
| Quote: | 2 the field is applying force constantly
your wave in the pool is dependat in a cnstant need
for agitation ie
external suply of energy
the electric field does not need a constant extral suply
in order of producing force!1
|
Not true. 1 burst of energy in the water is good enough to produce a wave.
Supplying more energy just creates more waves. Also, remember that EM
participating particles are almost always in motion. If there is an EM field
that is not their own nearby, it causes them to move. The result is more EM
waves. About the only conditions that I can come up with for charged
particles not producing EM waves is electrons in their shells and single
charged particles stationary in a vacuum without any other magnetic moment
producing particles around. Only under those 2 conditions will there be no
EM waves. The rest of the time, everything is constantly causing everything
else to move... somehow.
| Quote: |
3
the elctric field is 3d
your pool is 2d .
|
I could do the exact same thing with an explosive discharge as the wave
emitter 1/2 a mile down in the ocean. That's 3D enough.
| Quote: | etc etc i didnt even cover all the differences
|
All you're really doing is nitpicking a metaphor because the comparison
doesn't match what you want it to say. The only details of the metaphor that
matter are the parts I'm comparing, and that is the effect of a wave on an
object that it impacts upon. Whether the wave is 2D or 3D is irrelevant.
Whether the wave is a single pulse or continuous is irrelevant. And there's
a good chance that all the differences you didn't cover are equally
irrelevant. Please, focus.
| Quote: | --------
-----
----------
-----
That's EM waves. Remember though, a
"photon" isn't even the EM wave; a "photon" is just the impact event
the photon is not an event
the photon is a physical ently
Proof?
not a physical entity ? than waht
a spiritual entity?? do we discuss it in a ng that is called
sci.*physics* ??
|
Wow. Interesting attempt at sarcasm. Anyway, if you think the photon is a
physical entity, then you have to prove it. As it currently stands, a photon
is merely a packet of delivered energy. It has no mass. It has no charge.
The only time you notice one is when it interacts with something. So how do
you prove that it is an actual entity?
Consider this. Quantum physics is the physics of detection. That means that
quantum physics says very little about anything that does not encounter a
measuring device. Put simply quantum physics is the physics of energy,
fields, and events (interactions). Measurement (the process of recording
events) is used to tell us about the energy and fields involved in that
event. Unlike electrons, protons, and neutrons, photons are the only "stable
particle" that can't be shown to exist outside of the detection event. And
even then, calling what is detected a photon is really just a matter of
interpretation. Consider that unlike the other stable particles, a "single
photon" can have ANY energy level. The energy of a photon is NOT quantized.
If it were, certain EM frequencies would be impossible.
| Quote: | ----------
yes because they are created by Circlons
Proof?
time will say
it is a postulate ( a good one .....(
----------
|
Ok. So you're claiming this to be a postulate? Then there should be *new*
testable predicitions that come as a result of this postulate. If there is
nothing *new* about the predictions created from your postulate, then
scientists will simply throw it out as unnecessary. If the predictions are
new but unverifyable, then your postulate will be deemed false and likewise
thrown out.
| Quote: |
-----
you should be aware that that is not *the common understanding*!!!
that is an innovation.
---------
----------
the existing mecahnics does not explain *how * the field
is creating attraction!
Here we agree. The existing mechanics does not explain the *how* of a
lot of
issues, but oddly physicists think it does.
---------
so ?? if a lot of physicists beleive that the sun orbits the earth
shell i as well, join them just becasue they are (now) the majority?
|
No. I'm just stating the sad state of affairs in physics these days.
| Quote: | I think they've gotten too
accustom to justification by mathematics supplanting the *how*
explanations.
ok well saied !!
now we agree about another thing......
the common parroting that is just acompaning words
is that it is done by ..... photon exchange
and we aleray agreed that it is wrong isnt that??
Yes and no. In a purely particle based sense, it is wrong. Considering
that
a photon is an *impact event* of a wave in an EM field, then it is
correct.
now we have to buy your merchandise
but before that we have to be conviced!!
that you are not selling us just hot air.....
|
Actually, you don't have to buy a word I've said. All you really need to do
is to find the testable predictions that come as a result of your postulate
above and test them. If they fail, then you'll know that you're not correct,
thus verifying much of what I said about what I consider to be the flaws in
your theory.
<snipped>
| Quote: | Time is just replacement comparison
to some chosen dispalcement reference!!
If you're saying that you need a coordinate system to deal with time,
then I
agree and I suggest you use Minkowski space to start. :-)
i dont need Minkowski space
fo rmr dpace is nothing
has no properties beside hosting masses and particles
i can manage nicely without that human invention.
|
It doesn't matter which coordinate system you use, you still need one. Space
has 2 properties that you're not accounting for by claiming space is
nothing. Space has expanse, a volume. Space also has motion through time.
You could also say that time has motion through space. Works the same either
way. The motion of space relative to the motion of time is c. Those two
facts require you to use a coordinate system in order to map out events.
| Quote: | --
it is a humn (quite convenient ) invention
it is just motion dependant
anyway that is not our topic.
Bold assertion. Any proof?
no need to prove just simple thinking
i did it while i was 16 years old:
immagine that all motion in our universe *(all motion in the whole
universe
stiops for say 1 billion years at once
and than at once starts again
will you notice it ??
just to make it clear:
if all motion stops it means th eelectrons and photons in your brain
as well.
!!!
so think about it a while ....
about waht does it mean it means a lot!!
|
Actually, it only means 1 thing. The entire universe fell to 0 energy all at
once. Everything in the universe would suddenly vanish. The reason for this
is simple. It is the fields that keep everything in motion. So to stop all
motion you have to remove all fields. If you remove all fields, matter can
no longer exist since there would be nothing to keep the energy bound
together. Without matter, the only form that energy can take is EM, but EM
requires fields. So all energy vanishes. Bye-bye universe.
| Quote: | -----------
----------
that is doing attracton.
---------
Ok. So if you think your logic is sound, then it's time to move on to
the
second step: developing a mathematical model. You'll find that the steps
in
the scientific process overlap a bit. Sometimes developing the
mathematical
model will help smooth out the logic of your hypothesis.
i did a lot of it in my book
yet my method was an iteration numeric method
which in some cases where the unknowns are too much
it is the only system to make some advance
so it involved a huge number of trial and error calculations.
amd you will be surprised:
a modern huge computer does the same
ie approaching the solutuion in an iteration of trial and error
of simple calculations!!
|
Wouldn't surprise me at all. I write software as matter of daily practice.
If you're comming up with unknowns that don't fit then that's a hint that
there's an error in your model.
| Quote: | -------------
even if you take a boomerang
it will not move in curve ---- in *vacum**
Actually, close enough to a neutron star with your back to the star and
throw the boomerang away from the star on a path that is not along the
radial from the star through you and watch what happens. The boomerang
will
curve and come back to the star (just at a different location).
if there is just gravitation and not matter in that envirinment
it will not curve
it will just fall back to the star
and you dont need a beutron star for it
it will be the same in a regular star:
if you throw a boomerang say on th e moon
it will curve only a bit because of the very deluted atmosphere there!!
|
Incorrect. Remember, I said thrown on a path not following the radial away
from the star. Since the path of the boomerang would not be the shortest
path out of the gravity well, the path of the boomerang would bend.
| Quote: | ----------
In fact,
plotted in Minkowski (M)space, even if you throw the boomerang along the
radial, the path in M-space is a curve. The point is that fields apply
forces on objects. So your attempt to explain away the metaphor I used
is
ineffective.
----------
you say minkovski
i say Porats Circlon!!
the result will be the same the physical entity
will be different
and wide outcoming results that will be different.
|
The catch here is that Minkowski space is just a coordinate system that
allows you to plot time as an axis in the same way you do with space. An
object being accelerated produces a curved path. I could plot the same thing
with 2D or 3D cartesian coordinates if I substituted one of the spacial axes
with time. There's no new anythings in coordinate systems that Euclid hadn't
figured out.
Your circlons, however, change the rules. There should be testable
predicitons that come as a result of them. Find them. Test them. Prove
yourself right in a reproducable fashion, and the world will beat a path to
your doorstep.
R. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:11 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Ranando King wrote:
| Quote: | "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1120195072.466985.24730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.
???????
words!
----------
Not words, expansion of the metaphor being used. In this case, you state
that a photon leaving particle A, upon impacting particle B, should impart
momentum to particle B consistant with the direction of motion of the
photon. That's pool table mechanics. The photon is the cue ball leaving
particle A (the cue stick) and hitting particle B (the 8 ball). What I'm
saying is that treating the photon as a wave makes the rules change. Despite
the fact that the wave traced a path between the cue stick and the 8 ball,
it does not require that the 8 ball be pushed in the direction of motion of
the wave. The wave could also cause the 8 ball to move toward the cue stick.
---------
you are still fiddling withwords |
one ball ... many balls ... as you like it
for your -goal
no junglaring will let you out of the basic physics
that something that moves in a stright line
has the overall momentum in that stright line!!
we are not on abilliard table
we are in vacum and nothing behind our sceen of action-
ie no background around it
it is only our particles playing the game
i have a strange feeling that you keep always in your mind
the 'Aether' that is filling all space ! right ??
for me there is no aether
i manage nicely without it (and not only me)
--------------
---------------
| Quote: |
external suply of energy
the electric field does not need a constant extral suply
in order of producing force!1
Not true. 1 burst of energy in the water is good enough to produce a wave.
Supplying more energy just creates more waves.
|
but without external energy
your pool is unable to make any force!!
unlike the electrric field.
Also, remember that EM
| Quote: | participating particles are almost always in motion.
|
so that is exacly another difference to your mathaphore!!
If there is an EM field
| Quote: | that is not their own nearby, it causes them to move. The result is more EM
waves. About the only conditions that I can come up with for charged
particles not producing EM waves is electrons in their shells and single
charged particles stationary in a vacuum without any other magnetic moment
producing particles around. Only under those 2 conditions will there be no
EM waves. The rest of the time, everything is constantly causing everything
else to move... somehow.
|
and that is not the situation with your water pool
--
| Quote: |
3
the elctric field is 3d
your pool is 2d .
I could do the exact same thing with an explosive discharge as the wave
emitter 1/2 a mile down in the ocean. That's 3D enough.
|
still different from thr electric field
that *does not need 'an explotion somewhere' in order to create force!!
---
| Quote: |
etc etc i didnt even cover all the differences
All you're really doing is nitpicking a metaphor because the comparison
doesn't match what you want it to say. The only details of the metaphor that
matter are the parts I'm comparing, and that is the effect of a wave on an
object that it impacts upon. Whether the wave is 2D or 3D is irrelevant.
Whether the wave is a single pulse or continuous is irrelevant. And there's
a good chance that all the differences you didn't cover are equally
irrelevant. Please, focus.
|
see above
it belogs to the 'core and crux' of understanding the field
mecahnism
much different from your pool .
if we dont get forwads and anyone stickes in his 'ditch'
lets leave it and go to other issues because
just repeating ouselves is a wast of time....
----------
| Quote: |
not a physical entity ? than waht
a spiritual entity?? do we discuss it in a ng that is called
sci.*physics* ??
Wow. Interesting attempt at sarcasm. Anyway, if you think the photon is a
physical entity, then you have to prove it. As it currently stands, a photon
is merely a packet of delivered energy. It has no mass. It has no charge.
The only time you notice one is when it interacts with something. So how do
you prove that it is an actual entity?
|
you and some others say without mass
one day you will realise my first postulate is right!!
| Quote: |
Consider this. Quantum physics is the physics of detection. That means that
quantum physics says very little about anything that does not encounter a
measuring device. Put simply quantum physics is the physics of energy,
fields, and events (interactions).
|
interactions can be don in physics only by materialistic enetities!1
----------
Measurement (the process of recording
| Quote: | events) is used to tell us about the energy and fields involved in that
event. Unlike electrons, protons, and neutrons, photons are the only "stable
particle" that can't be shown to exist outside of the detection event. And
even then, calling what is detected a photon is really just a matter of
interpretation. Consider that unlike the other stable particles, a "single
photon" can have ANY energy level. The energy of a photon is NOT quantized.
If it were, certain EM frequencies would be impossible.
----------
that sexactly waht i claim inmy title: |
the photon is not the EM creator
btw there is now another tread by an electric engineer that i gorgot
his name
that sayed what you saied above
it seems that you just quoted him without mentioning his mane
(not nice.... (
and as i sayed that is exactly waht i sayed
and i have some sucpicion that this Engineer
started his thred under th einfluence of my current thread!!
as if i just 'ingited' his thoughts in this direction
and before that he had not the currage to go out with it!!
(not modest from my side Eh..... (
-------------------
| Quote: | ----------
Ok. So you're claiming this to be a postulate? Then there should be *new*
testable predicitions that come as a result of this postulate. If there is
nothing *new* about the predictions created from your postulate, then
scientists will simply throw it out as unnecessary. If the predictions are
new but unverifyable, then your postulate will be deemed false and likewise
thrown out.
|
---------
photon having mass is a direct prediction of my postulate !!!
can you immagine how much time and energy of endless disputes
that postulate could save ??
----------
| Quote: | that you are not selling us just hot air.....
Actually, you don't have to buy a word I've said. All you really need to do
is to find the testable predictions that come as a result of your postulate
above and test them. If they fail, then you'll know that you're not correct,
thus verifying much of what I said about what I consider to be the flaws in
your theory.
the same with me |
you have to buy nothing from me.
just good physics intuition to 'smell' some good merchandise....
or not having that intuition.....
---------
| Quote: | i can manage nicely without that human invention.
It doesn't matter which coordinate system you use, you still need one. Space
has 2 properties that you're not accounting for by claiming space is
nothing. Space has expanse, a volume. Space also has motion through time.
|
ok call it motion
i called it relative displacement
it is just relative displacement.nothing mysterious
or untabgile behind it
----------
| Quote: | You could also say that time has motion through space. Works the same either
way. The motion of space relative to the motion of time is c. Those two
facts require you to use a coordinate system in order to map out events.
----------
the coordinates are jst human aides |
so we agree that the physicsl entity behind it
is just motion or displacement
yet it depends only on some motion reference!!
fo rinstance if that motion reference will slow down
your 'time' awill slow down as well
so nothing 'universal ' and constant behind it !!
antway
far from our orriginal topic !1
----------
| Quote: | so think about it a while ....
about waht does it mean it means a lot!!
Actually, it only means 1 thing. The entire universe fell to 0 energy all at
once. Everything in the universe would suddenly vanish.
i am not sure of vanish |
that is against the conservation lawas of say - mass.
The reason for this
| Quote: | is simple. It is the fields that keep everything in motion. So to stop all
motion you have to remove all fields. If you remove all fields, matter can
no longer exist since there would be nothing to keep the energy bound
together.
|
but you forgot *your rules of the game*
if there is no motion
so nothing will not 'fall apart'
----------
Without matter, the only form that energy can take is EM, but EM
i dont think Em is th eonly kind of field
ther is as well the gravitational field
imho it is also done by the ..... Circlon....
| Quote: | requires fields. So all energy vanishes. Bye-bye universe.
i did a lot of it in my book
yet my method was an iteration numeric method
which in some cases where the unknowns are too much
it is the only system to make some advance
so it involved a huge number of trial and error calculations.
amd you will be surprised:
a modern huge computer does the same
ie approaching the solutuion in an iteration of trial and error
of simple calculations!!
Wouldn't surprise me at all. I write software as matter of daily practice.
If you're comming up with unknowns that don't fit then that's a hint that
there's an error in your model.
-------------
even if you take a boomerang
it will curve only a bit because of the very deluted atmosphere there!!
Incorrect. Remember, I said thrown on a path not following the radial away
from the star. Since the path of the boomerang would not be the shortest
path out of the gravity well, the path of the boomerang would bend.
|
thats the 'bed spacetime
it is not my understanding
thats exactly our differences.
i dont believe in curved spacetime!1
a strange man eh??who does not buy anything
even not from Einstien.
------
| Quote: | and wide outcoming results that will be different.
The catch here is that Minkowski space is just a coordinate system that
allows you to plot time as an axis in the same way you do with space. An
object being accelerated produces a curved path. I could plot the same thing
with 2D or 3D cartesian coordinates if I substituted one of the spacial axes
with time. There's no new anythings in coordinate systems that Euclid hadn't
figured out.
Your circlons, however, change the rules. There should be testable
predicitons that come as a result of them. Find them. Test them. Prove
yourself right in a reproducable fashion, and the world will beat a path to
your doorstep.
------- |
thats the differnce between a man of vision and peole
who eat just waht they are fed!! (
without some vision ther will be no advance
because after all the pompous pose
pioneering scince if just...
trial and error!!
----------
all the best
Y
--------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ranando King
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 5:56 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1120281113.345549.261710@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Ranando King wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1120195072.466985.24730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.
???????
words!
----------
Not words, expansion of the metaphor being used. In this case, you state
that a photon leaving particle A, upon impacting particle B, should
impart
momentum to particle B consistant with the direction of motion of the
photon. That's pool table mechanics. The photon is the cue ball leaving
particle A (the cue stick) and hitting particle B (the 8 ball). What I'm
saying is that treating the photon as a wave makes the rules change.
Despite
the fact that the wave traced a path between the cue stick and the 8
ball,
it does not require that the 8 ball be pushed in the direction of motion
of
the wave. The wave could also cause the 8 ball to move toward the cue
stick.
---------
you are still fiddling withwords
one ball ... many balls ... as you like it
for your -goal
|
It appears that you simply do not understand the concept of a metaphor. So
from this point on, I will do my best to address the physics directly
instead of reducing it to a metaphor easier for others to digest. To that
end, I will snip all further references to metaphors.
| Quote: | no junglaring will let you out of the basic physics
that something that moves in a stright line
has the overall momentum in that stright line!!
we are not on abilliard table
we are in vacum and nothing behind our sceen of action-
ie no background around it
it is only our particles playing the game
|
There are really only 2 particles involved, not 3. That's what I've been
telling you. Your statements assume that there is a source particle (maybe
an electron), a "photon" "particle", and a destination particle (maybe
another electron). The problem is that the "photon" IS NOT A PARTICLE. It's
not even a wave. A "photon" is nothing more than the scientific modeling
tool denoting the transfer of momentum and energy through an EM field. Put
simply, a "photon" is an energy transfer *EVENT*. The notion of a "photon"
as a particle comes from the fact that the event tends to exhibit both
*particle-like* and *wave-like* properties. That does not imply that a
"photon" is either a particle or a wave. To date, all experiments show that
"photons" act *wave-like* when tranferring momentum. As such, the notion of
"straight line!!" momentum transfers *DOES NOT APPLY*.
| Quote: | i have a strange feeling that you keep always in your mind
the 'Aether' that is filling all space ! right ??
for me there is no aether
i manage nicely without it (and not only me)
|
The funny thing about it is this: whether I think there is a luminiferous
aether or EM is self propagating is very much irrelevant to our discussion.
In either case, the effects are the same. Why you keep bringing this up is
quite beyond me.
| Quote: | --------------
---------------
external suply of energy
the electric field does not need a constant extral suply
in order of producing force!1
Not true. 1 burst of energy in the water is good enough to produce a
wave.
Supplying more energy just creates more waves.
but without external energy
your pool is unable to make any force!!
unlike the electrric field.
|
Think for a second. The "external energy source" for an electric field is
the charged particle generating it. Fields don't exist of their own
volition. There must be a particle causing the field.
<snipped>
| Quote: |
not a physical entity ? than waht
a spiritual entity?? do we discuss it in a ng that is called
sci.*physics* ??
Wow. Interesting attempt at sarcasm. Anyway, if you think the photon is
a
physical entity, then you have to prove it. As it currently stands, a
photon
is merely a packet of delivered energy. It has no mass. It has no
charge.
The only time you notice one is when it interacts with something. So how
do
you prove that it is an actual entity?
you and some others say without mass
one day you will realise my first postulate is right!!
|
I'll say it again for you to understand. You've made a postulate (a photon
has mass). This postulate, if correct, has consequences that should be
testable. Test them. If they fail, then your postulate is wrong. Currently,
anything implicated by photons having mass has been categorically dismissed
as is does not correspond in any which way, form, or fashion, with the
history of scientific data collected on that issue. So for the sake of your
postulate, good luck. You'll need it.
| Quote: |
Consider this. Quantum physics is the physics of detection. That means
that
quantum physics says very little about anything that does not encounter
a
measuring device. Put simply quantum physics is the physics of energy,
fields, and events (interactions).
interactions can be don in physics only by materialistic enetities!
|
Not true, unless you're claiming that a field is materialistic. If so, then
you're claiming the existance of an aether. Since you've stated quite
plainly that you fair well enough without aether, then your statement is
plainly false.
| Quote: | ----------
Measurement (the process of recording
events) is used to tell us about the energy and fields involved in that
event. Unlike electrons, protons, and neutrons, photons are the only
"stable
particle" that can't be shown to exist outside of the detection event.
And
even then, calling what is detected a photon is really just a matter of
interpretation. Consider that unlike the other stable particles, a
"single
photon" can have ANY energy level. The energy of a photon is NOT
quantized.
If it were, certain EM frequencies would be impossible.
----------
that sexactly waht i claim inmy title:
the photon is not the EM creator
btw there is now another tread by an electric engineer that i gorgot
his name
that sayed what you saied above
it seems that you just quoted him without mentioning his mane
(not nice.... (
and as i sayed that is exactly waht i sayed
and i have some sucpicion that this Engineer
started his thred under th einfluence of my current thread!!
as if i just 'ingited' his thoughts in this direction
and before that he had not the currage to go out with it!!
(not modest from my side Eh..... (
-------------------
|
Not to deflate your ego-trip, but you missed the point. In QM, all particles
are fully quantized. That means that any property of a particle is also
quantized. A photon's energy level is a property that is not quantized.
Therefore a photon is not fully quantized. Therefore a photon is not a
particle. Since a photon is not a particle, it cannot have mass. Your first
postulate is incorrect. All that I have said in this paragraph is a direct
consequence of QM definitions and the above paragraph that you were just
raving about and agreeing with.
| Quote: | ----------
Ok. So you're claiming this to be a postulate? Then there should be
*new*
testable predicitions that come as a result of this postulate. If there
is
nothing *new* about the predictions created from your postulate, then
scientists will simply throw it out as unnecessary. If the predictions
are
new but unverifyable, then your postulate will be deemed false and
likewise
thrown out.
---------
photon having mass is a direct prediction of my postulate !!!
can you immagine how much time and energy of endless disputes
that postulate could save ??
|
Wait. Are you saying that "photons have mass" is not the postulate? Oh well.
Doesn't matter. Your postulate is still incorrect if, as a direct
consequence of that postulate, photons must have mass. See my previous
paragraph for the reason.
| Quote: | ----------
that you are not selling us just hot air.....
Actually, you don't have to buy a word I've said. All you really nee |
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Particle
