Leaderboard

In a recent discussion here at science forums, in a thread related to a similar discussion I explained how some scientists consider all observable matter as just ''longer lived'' fluctuations of the vacuum. This article seems to be related to these kinds of discussions. Scientific American is no stranger to the discussion of virtual particles. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/?utm_content=bufferbfd4d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Ten Oz, Well Manafort and Gates were indicted on 12 counts of conspiracy against the U.S., wire fraud, tax evasion, money laundering and more. Gates and Manafort worked for a pro Putin Ukranian president and shady deals were done. Allegations of wrong doing bridge from 2005 right through the 2016 election cycle where Manafort was Trump's campaign chair in charge of delegate count and instrumental in the establishment of the Republican platform including Trump's stance on sanctions against Russia. Manafort and Gates were part of the money laundering scheme that included funneling money through off shore accounts (Cyprus I think) and then into real estate in the U.S. to hide the money from tax considerations and so on. This looks really bad for Trump, being a real estate guy who might have somehow been involved. Of course in this country we are innocent until proven guilty, but I apologize for putting my faith in Trump, and today feel he may have hornswaggled me...and 46 million others. Regards, TAR

Actually scary question for the scientifically uninitiated.

I have read a good few people complain that the rubber sheet or trampoline analogy is a bad one. Or rather perhaps what they say is that it is taken too literally and that it is not well enough described as simply an analogy and so, like all analogies breaks down at certain points. I want to ask at what points this analogy is actually accurate. For example ,if we actually drew grid lines on the rubber sheet and placed a metal object in the centre how accurately would the distorted parallelograms depict the spacetime graph lines that are actually used to model spacetime in the vicinity of massive or energetic object? Is there anything in fact about the analogy that is really accurate rather than broadly representational? I may have asked this before(or someone else may have) :Who came up with this analogy? Not Minkowski was it? Or perhaps Einstein in need of a little populist outreach?

This thread was inspired by a comment in a recent thread here on optics so I though I'd share my Wiki research on he subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement post#51

Repeating this when the multiple errors have been posted out more than once is just silly. Then how come you don't understand any of it? You have never admitted you are wrong despite the fact that every one of your threads are just full of errors and nonsense.

Yes, I admit that I do not understand this statement "We also know that mass is a form of energy. But that doesn't mean that energy has mass." that appears to be a contradiction and I certainly acknowledge that if I am wrong that it is a mistakes.

One problem is: what pulls the sheet down:

If the President of the United States of America violated the law to win election there is NO MIDDLE ground between him and democracy.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/27/16552458/trump-russia-clinton-steele-cambridge-analytica

Hey Moontanman, buddy...there's only white people in the video, you should know better than posting inappropriate stuff like that. On the non sarcasm side - I love the video, that's how I wanna feel all the time.

Actually, since the thing he's most famous for is showing the ether doesn't exist, that's as far as you need to read before you realise that the wall of text isn't worth reading. That's a common misconception. If I run a mile and back at 10 miles an hour it takes me a fifth of an hour. (A tenth of an hour each way) If I run on a "travelator" that's doing 1 mile an hour then, WRT the ground I run a mile at 11 miles an hour and a mile at 9 miles an hour. The first "half" takes 1/11 hours and the second half takes 1/9 hours Overall it takes 1/11+1/9 ie 20/99 or 0.202020 hours. That's not 0.2

Could??? I doubt it...I doubt it very much. But I do have an astronomer friend who works in this field, and I will certainly put this to him for a reaction and opinion. I have asked for evidence that shows primacy of matter before gravity. If you have this proof I would like to examine it. Without it, we cannot say that mass gives rise to gravity with any more certainty than we can say that gravity gives rise to mass. Mass and gravity appear simultaneously to each other. The idea of matter fields suggests that matter arises from fields (like the Higgs field). Changes in fields are associated with waves. It is the fluctuating wave that creates the matter. The idea of matter fields lends support to the idea of primacy of the wave before the matter. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/fields/chicken-and-egg-matter-and-field/ In his book Tales of the Quantum, Understanding Physic's Most Fundamental Theory, Art Hobson says (p95) "You'll soon see that both matter and radiation are made of quanta and and that each quantum is extended spatially and must be classified as a wave in a field." Fields fill the entire universe. So we have a field giving rise to matter. Here is an example of precedence. This is from the University of Cambridge "From Fields to Particles If you look closely enough at electromagnetic waves, you'll find that they are made out of particles called photons. The ripples of the electric and magnetic fields get turned into particles when we include the effects of quantum mechanics. But this same process is at play for all other particles that we know of. There exists, spread thinly throughout space, something called an electron field. Ripples of the electron field get tied up into a bundle of energy by quantum mechanics. And this bundle of energy is what we call an electron. Similarly, there is a quark field, and a gluon field, and Higgs boson field. Every particle your body --- indeed, every particle in the Universe --- is a tiny ripple of the underlying field, moulded into a particle by the machinery of quantum mechanics." http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/whatisqft.html But photons are the EMF. I'm sure you do not believe there is any evidence at all of matter not giving rise to gravity: There is none because matter giving rise to gravity is an everyday occurrence and readily evidenced. And I'm not sure your "simultaneously" answer is factual. Do gravitational waves appear at the exact moment of BH collision?? Or does the gravitational radiation stem from the source of the collision and the violence/force of the collision. Does the Lense Thirring effect begin at the precise moment angular momentum starts with a massive body? and does the same Lense Thirring effect speed up as angular momentum increases? No and yes I say, which is more evidence against your proposal. Yes the existence and effects of gravity when mass is present. Let me put it this way...gravity follows mass: eg: two BHs orbiting one another before colliding. Please show me anywhere where you move the gravity, (the spacetime curvature) and having the mass/matter magically follow it. I believe that onus rests on your shoulders.

I saw you posting this same gobbledygook on another forum. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GKFsH6lfaJ4J:https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/quantum-mechanics-xxx.929675/+&cd=1&hl=ro&ct=clnk&gl=nl What are your sources for this? What is your discovery exactly? That photons are mass-less? "light is composed by light particles" and Pepsi is composed of Pepsi particles.

Glad to be of assistance ☺

Heron's fountain? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron's_fountain

What's the best form of birth control after 50? -Nudity How many women does it take to change a light bulb? -None, they just sit there in the dark and b!tch. Why is it so hard for women to find men that are sensitive, caring, and good looking? -Because those men already have boyfriends. What do you call a smart blonde? -A golden retriever. A brunette, a blonde, and a redhead are all in third grade. Who has the biggest boobs? -The blonde, because she's 18. Which sexual position produces the ugliest children? -Ask your mom. Why don't bunnies make noise when they have sex? -Because they have cotton balls. What does a 75 year old woman have between her breasts? -Her navel. What's the difference between a porcupine and a BMW? -A porcupine has the pricks on the outside. What did the blonde say when she found out she was pregnant? -"Are you sure it's mine?" <deleted> What does it mean when the flag at the Post Office is flying at half mast? -They're hiring. Did you hear about the dyslexic Rabbi? -He walks around saying "Yo." <deleted> What's the difference between a Southern zoo, and a Northern zoo? -A Southern zoo has a description of the animal on the front the cage, along with a recipe.

A college professor had just finished explaining an important research project to his class. He emphasized that this paper was an absolute requirement for passing his class, and there would be only two acceptable excuses for being late: a medically certifiable illness or a death in the student's immediate family. A smartass in the back of the classroom asked, "But what about extreme sexual exhaustion, professor?" The class exploded in laughter. When the students finally settled down, the professor gave the student a long, appraising look. "Well", he responded, "I guess you'll just have to write with your other hand!"

I believe in the value-added approach! Actually, I tried to smiley my beastly sarcasm but it put the grin at the top of the post. A newlywed couple were spending their honeymoon in a remote log cabin resort up the mountains. They registered on Saturday but had not been seen for 5 days. An elderly couple ran the resort, and they were getting concerned about the welfare of these newlyweds. The old man decided to go and see if they were all right. He knocked on the door of the cabin and a weak voice from inside answered. The old man asked if they were OK. "Yes, we're fine. We're living on the fruits of love". The old man replied, "I see...well, would you mind not throwing the peelings out the window? They're choking my ducks!"

BOOM !

Everything that I post, the author is me. To measure the distance of a 4.22 ly star using the earth's orbital diameter as the parallax reference distance requires a telescopic resolution of .00126 arcsec which is 79 times more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec). The Hipparcos telescope is used to justify the measurement of the distance to a 4.22 light year star since the Hipparcos is described with a resolution of .001 arcsec but the Hubble's mirror diameter is 7.9 feet which is eight times larger than the Hipparacos mirror diameter (11 inches) yet the Hipparcos is 100 times more powerful than the Hubble which is not physically possible. I predict that the maximum resolution of an optical reflection telescope is .1 arcsec since the Webb has the resolution of .1 arcsec and has a mirror diameter of 21 feet. The most powerful telescope known to man is the Hubble. The maximum distance to a star calculated using the Hubble is, A/θ = B = (1.4 x 1010 m) (3600) / (.1 arcsec) = .5.04 x 1014m = .05327 light years....................115 The propagation of the Sun through the stellar universe is used to increase the value of the parallax reference distance A to form a Hubble resolution of .001 arcsec but parallax is based on the stars of the stellar universe that are stationary which also includes the Sun which proves the Hubble's resolution is .1 arcsec. Even with a resolution of .001 arcsecs the maximum distance to determine the distance to any of the stars of the celestial universe would be limited to 4.22 ly; consequently, if the distance to a 4.22 ly star cannot be determine than the distance to a star more than 350 light years from the earth also cannot be measured no matter what method is used. A dimming method is used to determine the distance to the 7,000 ly Eagle Nebula but the Hubble proves the intensity of a star does not vary. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The photographic images of the Eagle Nebula obtained using the Spitzer UV space telescope were created using computer induced images since to determine the distance to the 7,000 ly Eagle Nebula using the earth orbital diameter A and the distance to a 7,000 ly Eagle Nebula B would require a resolution of A/B = (1.4 x 1010 m) / (6.6 x 1019 m) = 2.12 x 10-10 degrees or 7.62 x 10-7 arcsec. Yet the Hubble has a resolution of .1 arcsec and the Spitzer has a resolution of 1 arcsec; consequently, astronomers cannot determine the distance to the 7,000 ly Eagle Nebula. A dimming method is used to determine the distance to the 7,000 ly Eagle Nebula but the Hubble proves the intensity of a star does not vary. If my derivation are incorrect that I wrote, I admit that I am wrong which is hope will help in the discussion.

Davisson–Germer (1927) electron scattering experiment is used to justify electron wave interference but the destruction of electrons to form the non-electron fringes of the electron scattering pattern represents the arbitrary destruction of electrons. de Broglie's electron matter wave is used to represent the structure of a Bohr atom's electron (fig 12) but de Broglie's continuous electron matter wave conflicts with the particle structure of an electron. Furthermore, protons with like charges cannot existing in the confinement of a nuclei to form a multi-electron atom. Neutrons are used to neutralize protons' electric fields which would also results in the elimination of the proton-electron force that forms the structure of a multi-proton atom. Furthermore, the atomic electron matter wave cannot be represented in a Cartesian, cylindrical or spherical coordinate system; consequently, the atomic electron matter wave is transformed into a particle-in-a-box electron matter wave (fig 13) and represented with Schrödinger's wave equation, -(h2/2m)∇"Ψ(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z)Ψ(x,y,z) = EΨ(x,y,z)...................................................58 Schrodinger's wave equation is used to derive a wave function Ψ = Σ c u exp[(2πEt/h + θ)i]............(Schrodinger, p. 1066)......................................................59 "The wave-function physical means and determines a continuous distribution of electricity in space, the fluctuations of which determine the radiation by laws of ordinary electrodynamics." (Schrödinger, Abstract). "The fluctuation of the charge will be governed by the Eq. 28, applied to the special case of the hydrogen atom. To find the radiation, that by electrodynamics will originate from these fluctuating charges, we have simply to calculate the rectangular components of the total electric moment by multiplying (28) by x, y, z respectively, then integrating over space, e.g." (Schrodinger, p. 1066). "1. The theory which is reported in the following pages is based on the very interesting and fundamental researches of L. de Broglie' on what he called "phase-waves" ("ondes de phase") and thought to be associated with the motion'of material points, especially with the motion of an electron or proton. The point of view taken here, which was first published in a series of German papers, is rather that material points consist of, or are nothing but, wave-systems. This extreme conception may be wrong, indeed it does not offer as yet the slightest explanation of why only such wave-systems seem to be realized in nature as correspond to mass-points of definite mass and charge. On the other hand the opposite point of view, which neglects altogether the waves discovered by L. de Broglie and treats only the motion of material points, has led to such grave difficulties in the theory of atomic mechanics —and this after century-long development and refinement— that it seems not only not dangerous but even desirable, for a time at least, to lay an exaggerated stress on its counterpart. In doing this we must of course realize that a thorough correlation of all features of physical phenomena can probably be afforded only by a harmonic union of these two extremes." (Schrödinger, p. 1049-50). "As an alternative, in 1926 German physicist Max Born sharply refined Schrodinger's interpretation of an electron wave, and it is his interpretation--amplified by Bohr and his colleagues--that is still with us today......He asserted that an electron wave must be interpreted from the standpoint of probability." (Greene, p. 105). "Just a few months after de Broglie's suggestion, Schrodinger took the decisive step toward this end by determining an equation that governs the shape and the evolution of probability waves, or as they came to be known, wave functions." (Greene, p. 107). "Schrodinger, de Broglie, and Born explained this phenomenon by associating a probability wave to each electron." (Greene, p. 109).how trimmed content Schrödinger is structurally representing an electron that has a particle structure and mass with a massless electric wave depicted with the wave function; consequently, Schrödinger's electric wave is transformed into an electron probability wave and represented in a spherical coordinate system but an electron position probability is not a wave structure since an electron position probability can only represent a positive value or zero and cannot depict a negative value that is required in representing destructive wave interference used to derive the equations of the atomic orbitals. Furthermore, the representation of a plane wave equation of the electric wave that has a constant maximum amplitude in a spherical coordinate system produces a mathematical catastrophe since the maximum amplitude of a spherical wave is not constant.

Lorentz alters the dimensions of Michelson's experimental apparatus to reverse the negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's ether, composed of matter, (Michelson, p. 120). "§ 9. Hitherto all quantities of the order p2x /V2 have been neglected. As is well known, these must be taken into account in the discussion of Michelson's experiment, in which two rays of light interfered after having traversed rather long paths, the one parallel to the direction of the earth's motion, and the other perpendicular to it. In order to explain the negative result of this experiment Fitzgerald and myself have supposed that, in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." (Lorentz, § 9). Lorentz is reversing the negative result of Michelson's ether experiment to justify the existence of the ether by contracting the length of the interferometer's armature in the x-direction using the constant magnitude of the earth's tangential velocity vector px but according to Michelson, initially the parallel light ray's velocity is increased by propagating in the direction of the ether wind but after the parallel light ray is reflected by the mirror, the parallel light ray is propagating in the opposite direction that would reduce the velocity of the parallel light ray and cancel the test of the ether wind. In Michelson-Morley ether experiment, numerous reflection by the parallel light ray are used to conceal the cancelation problem but the net result of all the reflections of Michelson-Morley experiment would also cancel the test of the ether wind. In addition, Michelson's experiment is based on Fresnel's diffraction effect but Fresnel's describes diffraction uses interfering light waves that produce a diffraction pattern projected on a diffraction screen yet Michelson's interference effect is viewed using a small telescope pointed at the beam splitter since the two light rays of Michelson's experiment cannot produce a diffraction pattern projected on a screen. Experimentally, when two laser beam's intensities are combined, no interference effect is formed on a diffraction screen since the formation of wave interference requires an ether, composed of matter, that does not physically exist. Plus, Michelson and Michelson-Morley ether experiments are testing for the existence of the ether but both experiments are also using the ether to form interfering light waves that are used to produced an interference effect that is used to test for the existence of the ether which is in violation of scientific method. Also, the velocity of light is four order of magnitude greater than the maximum velocity of the ether wind (Vmax = 30,462 m/s) formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions; consequently, the ether wind cannot produce the shift of the interference effect that is used to justify the existence of the ether. In addition, Michelson experiment is based on a constant magnitude of the ether wind but at the surface of the earth, the magnitude of the earth's tangential velocity vector px that produces the ether wind is not constant.. At 6:00 pm, the magnitude of the earth's tangential velocity px is 462 m/s (fig 11); at 7:00 pm, the magnitude of px increases to 5,077 m/s. At midnight, the earth's yearly tangential velocity vector px is 30,462 m/s; consequently, the earth's tangential velocity vector px that forms the ether wind increases from 462 m/s to 30,462 m/s (6:00 pm - 12:00 am) yet Lorentz's transformation is based on a constant magnitude of the ether wind since a varying ether wind as time increases would result in a shift of the interference effect. Time velocity _________________________________ 6:00 pm 462 m/s 7:00 pm 5,077 m/s 8:00 pm 10,154 m/s 9:00 pm 15,231 m/s 10:00 pm 20,308 m/s 11:00 pm 25,385 m/s 12:00 am 30,462 m/s Are the values of the velocities correct? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Strange, I take offense at that remark. Regards, TAR Disrespect your own president. Not mine. who is your president, by the way?