Ant Sinclair Posted July 24, 2016 Author Share Posted July 24, 2016 Your welcome Strange In the attached jpeg, would this be the correct way to calculate mass with 0 momentum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Your welcome Strange Really? Irony bypass? In the attached jpeg, would this be the correct way to calculate mass with 0 momentum? Without seeing the equations, it is hard to be sure. But it looks about right. Although you seem to be calculating the equivalent mass of a photon, and it isn't clear what the physical meaning of that is. The usual symbol is m, not M. But that means these objects are tiny. I doubt any radiation from them could be detected. How do you propose this radiation is generated, anyway? And why would objects have sizes that are a multiple of pi in arbitrary man-made units? Am I going to have to wait another month for the answers to these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted July 25, 2016 Author Share Posted July 25, 2016 Really? - Yes Strange, You know I have a special kind of fondness for You And why would objects....? - Look at Max Planck's quote on the bottom of each of my answers! How long you wait shall depend on how busy at the time I be ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 And why would objects....? - Look at Max Planck's quote on the bottom of each of my answers! So you think some higher consciousness designed the universe based on man-made units? How did it know in advance what the metre was going to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted July 25, 2016 Author Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) So you think some higher consciousness designed the universe based on man-made units? How did it know in advance what the metre was going to be?Like Planck, Heisenberg and others, Yes I believe in Intelligent Design, I know His name Thrice and His name meaning is;The Great One From Before The Beginning of time, The One with Great Intent Who ever gave the -1rep for my above comment it shall not bother I, I have now given 35 frequencies that can be checked in the CMB, I have also now given above the Particle List, as I said to Strange earlier - He who laughs last...... Edited July 25, 2016 by Ant Sinclair -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 Like Planck, Heisenberg and others, Yes I believe in Intelligent Design, I know His name Thrice and His name meaning is; The Great One From Before The Beginning of time, The One with Great Intent In which language does his name mean that? And why "his" and not "her" (or "its")? I have now given 35 frequencies that can be checked in the CMB These can't be checked because you haven't quantified by how much the spectrum will differ from a perfect black body. Just saying these frequencies will be present, when that is obviously true from the nature of the spectrum, is meaningless. I have also now given above the Particle List What particle list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 I have now given 35 frequencies that can be checked in the CMB By singling them out, you imply that you expect a discrete spectrum. Are you are claiming this or not? If not, what is the significance of these specific frequencies, as opposed to other frequencies that are present? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted July 25, 2016 Author Share Posted July 25, 2016 In which language does his name mean that? And why "his" and not "her" (or "its")? If you would like to discuss this any further I suggest you split it from this thread. What Particle List? - Come On Strange, keep on the ball! By singling them out, you imply that you expect a discrete spectrum. Are you are claiming this or not? If not, what is the significance of these specific frequencies, as opposed to other frequencies that are present? Yes SwansonT there is a discrete spectrum of Ra diences if I comprehend what you mean, there are more frequencies(HSRs) to be shown yet, there are a lot of frequencies that originate from matter - All Matter "Sings". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 Yes SwansonT there is a discrete spectrum of Ra diences if I comprehend what you mean, there are more frequencies(HSRs) to be shown yet, there are a lot of frequencies that originate from matter - All Matter "Sings". So why do we detect a continuum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted July 25, 2016 Author Share Posted July 25, 2016 So why do we detect a continuum? Please explain this to I SwansonT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 Please explain this to I SwansonT We don't observe a discrete spectrum, as you predict. We observe a continuous spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 In which language does his name mean that? And why "his" and not "her" (or "its")? If you would like to discuss this any further I suggest you split it from this thread. As you are so reluctant to answer questions, it would probably be a waste of time. And I am not really interested. What Particle List? - Come On Strange, keep on the ball! Nope. Looked again, still don't see a list of particles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted July 25, 2016 Author Share Posted July 25, 2016 As you are so reluctant to answer questions, it would probably be a waste of time. And I am not really interested. Nope. Looked again, still don't see a list of particles. If you're not really interested don't comment, after all no one is forcing you to, I think you should stick with things you comprehend Strange We don't observe a discrete spectrum, as you predict. We observe a continuous spectrum. Attached Swansont is a table of 81 frequencies, 72 of them higher frequencies and 9 low frequencies, are the 72 higher frequencies of High Spectral Ra dience, ie do they stand out/above other CMB frequencies?, this is to pave the way for descriptions to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 If you're not really interested don't comment, after all no one is forcing you to, I am interested. That is why I am asking. I have just searched for the word "particle" through both pages of this thread. I cannot find the list of particles you mention. Why can't you just tell me which post they are in? (Why do you always have to make things so hard!) Attached Swansont is a table of 81 frequencies, 72 of them higher frequencies and 9 low frequencies, are the 72 higher frequencies of High Spectral Ra dience, ie do they stand out/above other CMB frequencies?, this is to pave the way for descriptions to follow. By how much do you expect them to stand out? The CMB is almost a perfect black body spectrum, so there are no frequencies that stand out by a large amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 Attached Swansont is a table of 81 frequencies, 72 of them higher frequencies and 9 low frequencies, are the 72 higher frequencies of High Spectral Ra dience, ie do they stand out/above other CMB frequencies?, this is to pave the way for descriptions to follow. That would be something for you to investigate; it's your hypothesis. I'm not here to do your work for you. That's not how our informal peer review works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted July 26, 2016 Author Share Posted July 26, 2016 I am interested. That is why I am asking. I have just searched for the word "particle" through both pages of this thread. I cannot find the list of particles you mention. Why can't you just tell me which post they are in? (Why do you always have to make things so hard!) By how much do you expect them to stand out? The CMB is almost a perfect black body spectrum, so there are no frequencies that stand out by a large amount. Here is the list, the particle masses are on the right hand side ending with Kg. The masses are highlighted deliberately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Here is the list, the particle masses are on the right hand side ending with Kg. The masses are highlighted deliberately. Thank you. You didn't say that these were particles, previously. I assumed you were just working out the mass-equivalent of particular frequencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 Thank you. You didn't say that these were particles, previously. I assumed you were just working out the mass-equivalent of particular frequencies.Again you're welcome Strange, if you remember from an earlier post on this thread I said I would show you the Higgs/Bose Particles bigger brother, well here it is; if I divide 7.0319e-25 by 1.246e-27 I find it's approximately 564.358 times the mass size of the 1.246e-27 particle, if I then divide the 564.358 by 3 I get 188 times the mass of the 1.246e-27 particle.Does this mean the particle CERN found was just one third, one "string" of a whole, ie the actual Higgs/Bose Particle is in the range of 564 times the mass of the proton? And if so the Higgs/Bose Particle's bigger brother is the one marked in orange. Would you like to know what the other colour highlights allude to Strange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 if I divide 7.0319e-25 by 1.246e-27 I find it's approximately 564.358 times the mass size of the 1.246e-27 particle, if I then divide the 564.358 by 3 I get 188 times the mass of the 1.246e-27 particle. Where do these numbers come from and why are you dividing them in this way? Why do you divide by 3? How do these relate to the Higgs boson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 Oh come on please Strange, You have a rank of Genius and 1800+ rep points, You Should be able to work this out! -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Oh come on please Strange, You have a rank of Genius and 1800+ rep points, You Should be able to work this out! I don't know why you insist on making everything so hard. Even if I could, why should I try and decipher your cryptic notes? (Genius is just a silly forum title. I am certainly no genius is real life.) As far as I can tell you are just doing random operations on made up numbers. You need to explain what you are doing to convince me I am wrong. It is your idea, can't you walk us through it step by step. If you made a bit of an effort to communicate things would be so much easier. if I divide 7.0319e-25 ... where does 7.0319e-25 come from? by 1.246e-27 ... why do you divide by 1.246e-27? I find it's approximately 564.358 times the mass size of the 1.246e-27 particle ... is 564.358 a significant ratio? if so, why? if I then divide the 564.358 by 3 ... why do you divide it by 3? I get 188 times the mass of the 1.246e-27 particle ... is 188 a significant ratio? if so, why? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 <p>I don't know why you insist on making everything so hard. Even if I could, why should I try and decipher your cryptic notes? (Genius is just a silly forum title. I am certainly no genius is real life.) As far as I can tell you are just doing random operations on made up numbers. You need to explain what you are doing to convince me I am wrong. It is your idea, can't you walk us through it step by step. If you made a bit of an effort to communicate things would be so much easier. if I divide 7.0319e-25 ... where does 7.0319e-25 come from? by 1.246e-27 ... why do you divide by 1.246e-27? I find it's approximately 564.358 times the mass size of the 1.246e-27 particle ... is 564.358 a significant ratio? if so, why? if I then divide the 564.358 by 3 ... why do you divide it by 3? I get 188 times the mass of the 1.246e-27 particle ... is 188 a significant ratio? if so, why? Strange you skip between that many threads making comments, that it's like your in some sort of competition to as who makes the most number of posts, so how can I possibly expect you to follow this thread and keep on the ball with it, so; if you look at the jpeg above with "Mass Table" in it's top left corner, then look to the right hand column ending in Kg, these are the particle masses, then look down the right hand column ending in Kg until you get to the particle with a mass of 1.246e-27Kg, then follow the simple steps with that particle mass with the heavier one below it as described above, I hope this helps, really I do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 then look down the right hand column ending in Kg until you get to the particle with a mass of 1.246e-27Kg, then follow the simple steps with that particle mass with the heavier one below it as described above, I hope this helps, really I do 1. WHY do you perform those operations on the numbers? 2. WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE of your results? Talk about blood from a stone ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) The significance is maybe CERN could use this Mass Table as a guide to their work Strange ;-) Edited July 27, 2016 by Ant Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 The significance is maybe CERN could use this Mass Table as a guide to their work Strange ;-) Only if you can explain WHY you are doing apparently random arithmetic operations on apparently random numbers. And then explain what the results mean. And why they mean that. Otherwise, being sensible people, they will just go, "Oh no, yet another numerologist. Trash." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts