Ant Sinclair Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 I wonder if it would be possible to devise an experiment to detect a theoretical super-luminal wave traveling between 360e6 km/s & 363e6 km/s at a frequency of 204.56 GHz with the wave pattern as shown in the attached drawing?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 Again for those that don't see, the same wave form with front view. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) may i suggest considering some of the ideas used to detect rogue ocean waves. surely some of the formulas will be fun to work with. there is open source software that can assist this in using your wave. Edited October 3, 2014 by davidivad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 With you being the second forum member to mention this I will take a look, thanks David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) With you being the second forum member to mention this I will take a look, thanks David. I have introduced waveguides , via a personal memo. I will copy it here : It sounds like you are addressing the faster than speed of light issue. This May or may not relate BUT I went to university a second tme in my life , in my 50's electronics satellite communications . When dealing with microwaves and waveguides , the lecturer our professor explained how the plane wave travelled down the waveguide at the speed of light . But IT TRAVELLED AT GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT ( ORTHOGANALLY) 90 degrees sideways from speed of light up to infinity. I made a note of surprise , but never persued it at the time. The only way I satisfied it myself . Was to imagine an incoming sea wave representing a plane wave straight forward . An ORTHOGANALLY directed wave COULD travel sideways as the wave broke ( depending on the angle 0 degrees straight forward = speed of forward wave , 90 degrees speed = infinity. .( the collapsing wave ) . Does this help at all with your problem ? Mike mike Edited October 3, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 Cheers Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Cheers Mike See above edit quote in post #55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) you should be able to create a new channel to show the rotational value of your frequency and add the same properties if needed. heck, there may be a filter.C will be a constant and is removable to get your theoretical wave.. just remember to look fo the nonsensical number. Edited October 3, 2014 by davidivad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 4, 2014 Author Share Posted October 4, 2014 Quark Formation Explaining How Elements Have The Density They Have From the attached drawing if you look at the three Quark Formations that make up three different atoms, Silicon, Iron & Mercury you see that distance between individual quark phases and the formation centre are different and the longer the distance the higher density. It appears there is a correlation between this distance and the distance of the dirac fields from the centre of the atomic nucleus. IE Irons dirac fields will be pushed further out than Mercurys, which keeps other Iron atoms from getting as close to each other as Mercurys atoms would be kept apart from each other and hence for the same amount of atomic space you can fit more Mercury atoms than iron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 8, 2014 Author Share Posted October 8, 2014 Quark Formations Explaining An Oxidation process The attached drawing shows a carbon atom(hexa-quark) and below it an O2 molecule(quad-quark). When you look at the oxygen molecule you see that at it's centre it has a green/green connection top and bottom between the two oxygen atoms. At this time I believe the green/green connection/bond to be the weakest colour connection/bond. Also on the drawing you'll notice that I've indicated energy flows through the O2 molecule(quark formations). In an ideal combustion the initial energy is supplied and the green/green bonds at the centre of the O2 molecule break leaving the two halves (2O) available to combine with the carbon atom. Also at this time with this being a WIP I THINK the oxygen atoms combine with the carbon atom in preference to rejoining with each other as there is a stronger energy flow in the hexa-quark than a quad-quark! As the O2 green/green bonds split I believe a good analogy would be akin to an electrical contactor opening with it's circuit still energised and the subsequent energy release in the form of an arc/flash! !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) Quark Formations Explaining An Oxidation process The attached drawing shows a carbon atom(hexa-quark) and below it an O2 molecule(quad-quark). When you look at the oxygen molecule you see that at it's centre it has a green/green connection top and bottom between the two oxygen atoms. At this time I believe the green/green connection/bond to be the weakest colour connection/bond. Also on the drawing you'll notice that I've indicated energy flows through the O2 molecule(quark formations). In an ideal combustion the initial energy is supplied and the green/green bonds at the centre of the O2 molecule break leaving the two halves (2O) available to combine with the carbon atom. Also at this time with this being a WIP I THINK the oxygen atoms combine with the carbon atom in preference to rejoining with each other as there is a stronger energy flow in the hexa-quark than a quad-quark! As the O2 green/green bonds split I believe a good analogy would be akin to an electrical contactor opening with it's circuit still energised and the subsequent energy release in the form of an arc/flash! !!! If we are viewing atomic nucii, say quarks . Then we have moved away from Super Symmetry, and the universal 'Gods Eye' Super Symmetric view of reality. If we are viewing via a Frame of reference that enables us to see Quarks in different colours , then we have broken symmetry, Which is fine. But we are not seeing reality, and thus will experience Gauge forces , by way of colour forces. Whether these Guage forces are the colour forces that you say are responsible for making the nuclii the shape they are...You may be right. Maybe thus we do not 'SEE' reality but only a broken symmetry version of reality. ? mike This May or may not have some bearing on the subject Mike Also this . Notice apart from the free standing vortex caused on the surface of the water , there is also a thread appearing , very faint but nonetheless less there . Pointed out both vortex and thread both formed on the 2 dimensional surface , this would surely be also true on a 3 dimensional surface ( 3D x,y,z space ) Edited October 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 10, 2014 Author Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Thanks for the above info/graphics Mike, they are not relevant to the "micro" end of this model but have triggered an insight for the bigger picture(Universe) and believe the model now has a very good explanation of Black Holes and they are NOT what they are currently accepted to be. Thank you! Edited October 10, 2014 by Ant Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) If we are viewing atomic nucii, say quarks . Then we have moved away from Super Symmetry, and the universal 'Gods Eye' Super Symmetric view of reality. If we are viewing via a Frame of reference that enables us to see Quarks in different colours , then we have broken symmetry, Which is fine. But we are not seeing reality, and thus will experience Gauge forces , by way of colour forces. Whether these Guage forces are the colour forces that you say are responsible for making the nuclii the shape they are...You may be right. Maybe thus we do not 'SEE' reality but only a broken symmetry version of reality. ? mike This May or may not have some bearing on the subject image.jpg Mikeimage.jpg Also this . Notice apart from the free standing vortex caused on the surface of the water , there is also a thread appearing , very faint but nonetheless less there . Pointed out both vortex and thread both formed on the 2 dimensional surface , this would surely be also true on a 3 dimensional surface ( 3D x,y,z space ) image.jpg The nature of space is surely fluid like . What with the early characteristics of electro-magnetism and ' quark like ' plasma/matter.Thus disturbances by whatever means , quantum fluctuations , or however ' could ' be interpreted as similar to the disturbances of water in the swimming pool illustration above ,. Here both circular , independent entities appear , and thread like structures appear. Be these illuminated ,in this case by light. Is this not what you are saying with your ' quarks' and ' formations ' ? Ant ? Oops ! We have cross contributed. ( posted ) I was thinking of the quark plasma ! At the early time in the universe ! However this was only an observation of how fluid can self organise at the MACRO scale . ( ie ) me in my swimming pool in Italy. Or rather the hose pipe water flow and the sunlight ! I have also observed : That on a sunny day the bottom of a disturbed swimming pool has exactly the pattern of the universe at large . Namely the web like structure of the galaxies as seen at a very ,very large scale . Namely The threads and voids . Structure as seen illuminated on the bottom of a swimming pool on a sunny day ! In bright white of course. Mike Edited October 10, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 11, 2014 Author Share Posted October 11, 2014 (edited) H2O & H2O2 Edited October 11, 2014 by Ant Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I'm sure you're not interested, but a couple of comments on that last diagram. 1. Water molecules have a V shape (an hydrogen is like two Vs joined). 2. Quarks are not involved in the bonding of atoms in molecules, it is a function of the electrons. I don't really know what you are trying to do in all these diagrams. But they all seem to be two dimensional, which isn't very realistic. (But that may be the least of your problems.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 11, 2014 Author Share Posted October 11, 2014 I don't know what your inferring strange but addressing waters shape I had made a note whilst I was looking at it; "what differences with quark alignments could there be having an energy flow and not having one make". Take a look at the attached drawing, are non energised connections pulling the quarks closer in via the +ve gluon/-ve gluon bond? All of the members posts on this thread have been answered on post or via pm, I resent the implied ignorance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 (edited) I don't know what your inferring strange Just that you appeared to show H2O as a linear structure, when it isn't. And that you appear to think quarks are responsible for how atoms combine, when they aren't. The strong nuclear force (gluons) does not act between atoms. That's all. Edited October 11, 2014 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 11, 2014 Author Share Posted October 11, 2014 Your missing something quite big here Strange in that THIS MODEL has no electrons, neutrons or protons! Can we clarify one more point on waters shape Strange, I presume that you are referring to waters steam-state in your post? See the attached drawing that shows H2Os' three states as prediced by the model. I'd like to point somethings out that the last drawing shows Strange; 1; It shows how water pipes burst in the spring thaw. 2; I think it could help indicate to how mass is "realised" at atomic level! Can you see them Strange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 i believe strange is referring to the observed geometry (tetrahedral) and bond angles (104.5 between H's). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 11, 2014 Author Share Posted October 11, 2014 I''ve just had a quick look and the model would suggest approximately a 117.5 degree angle Andy. I've never studied how or under what conditions these parameters have been arrived at, and the last few posts are what this model is showing me. I didn't particularly like the way Strange commenced his post on my thread and I hope I've shown that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Your missing something quite big here Strange in that THIS MODEL has no electrons, neutrons or protons! Oh. Then it is trivially wrong. See the attached drawing that shows H2Os' three states as prediced by the model. Further evidence your model is wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 13, 2014 Author Share Posted October 13, 2014 Strange in name and in nature it seems ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Strange in name and in nature it seems ........... Why? You have a model that says electrons, protons and neutrons do not exist. And yet they do. Therefore your model is wrong. Your model alos produces the wrong geometry for water molecules. I don't see why it is strange to point that out. Can you explain what you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 besides what strange has pointed out, you seem to discuss "electrical and magnetic energy" in one of your documents on page one and this doesn't make very much sense to me. how did you derive these quantities and how does it correspond to observation? how does chemistry work in this model? as one of my chemistry teachers used to say "electrons are where it's at yo." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted October 13, 2014 Author Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) My young daughters have been in my room and I can't find my protractor - could somebody oblige? Just so we are clear this is water (medium energy state). Edited October 13, 2014 by Ant Sinclair 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts