Questing

if we looked up coefficient of expansion for magma maybe we would get some idea. What would the average temperature of the Earth be?

found one site Thermal expansion coefficient of the magma

5·0 × 10^−5/°C http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/7/1295/T3.expansion

 

Is that in units of %/degree C? So what is the temperature change?

 

This notes gives us a summary http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/geology/inside-the-earth/geothermal-gradients

But I couldn't see any quick estimate of the average internal temperature.

 

But let's say it cooled by 3000 degrees does that equate to just 0.15% change in volume (if I have done it right) and the Earth's volume is quite enormous.

Thank you for going to some considerable effort. Ok so based on the magma expansion the volume difference is modest.

Are the elements and or molecules which prefer to be gaseous at those temperatures, which will bolster the Earths internal pressures, likely to contribute much by way of Earth volume expansion do you think? I ask this question with no prior personal opinion on the subject. I know nothing of these matters.

That would be the end result after billions of years if the Earth does not get swallowed by the expanding Sun. All tectonic plate movement would have stopped and I'm assuming you are referring to a time when the entire Earth is at room temperature.

It is virtually impossible to ever imagine this ever happening as there will always (well for many more billions of years) be some radioactivity in the Earth keeping it warm.

Thank you Robitty. Yes I'm aware of the details you have provided. I'm just curious how much diameter or volume is added to the Earth due to heat expansion?

Ok let's take a universe that changes, not in its fundamental laws. Our universe underwent several changes. Radiation dominant, matter dominant, Lambda dominant. Each phase involves one or more phase changes. (All of which follow thermodynamic and particle physics)

 

(Hint show how thermodynamic correlated particle physics correspond to your definition of an evolutionary universe). Good luck, I suggest taking your time and studying the material provided.

Is this a subject within your competence? Thermodynamic correlated particles.

So will you address this or not?

 

I have no idea if this claim is true, but for sure you have not presented any theory here nor provided any solid foundations.

 

So far it is not clear that you have achieved anything!

 

You have not presented a theory.

 

I have read the thread. I still claim that all you have done is throw words together. You have admitted you have no idea about quite fundamental parts of your loose idea.

 

The circumstance is that you do not have a theory and you have just thrown words together and that you lack incite into how to develop your lose ideas. You simply cannot address my points.

 

Agree... so what?

 

You have not done that here!

More empty shoot from the hip content. Or more superfluous than usual even. Who said practice doesn't make perfect.

The true and fundamental flaw is that you do not have any kind of mathematical model in order to start to make any sense of terms like 'fields reproducing' and so on. You have just thrown terms together, which makes it impossible to make sense of your claims.

Yes the math will be important, I iterate once again. Thank you for bringing that point up for its hundredth anniversary.

I do have something of a solid foundation in my theory, even if you cant or wont appreciate it. Infact it might even provide the explanation for why I have achieved something others haven't before now. There are those like yourself who look to numbers thinking they might reveal something profound about nature, and there are those arguably more pragmatic who simply look to nature. And in this respect the correlations of gravity, mass, time dilation, motion, gravitational potential, weight, etc all provide clues to the puzzles of nature and can be conceptualized in ways other than pure math despite your insistence, and you are blind too, even when placed before you. The fact my theory provides physical mechanisms that agree with the various correlations of nature, (not achieved before now) but also provides an evolutionary overall reason for how and why the mechanisms and universal structures have come to be as they are (not achieved before now).

And your best effort, quote "thrown terms together, which makes it impossible to make sense of your claims".

While you blame comprehensibility of my theory, I blame your comprehensibility. The problem as I see it, you've neither read the thread, nor care about the ideas presented. So your contribution to the thread is about as useful as one might expect under this circumstance.

There is no better strength a theory might have, than a match with observed correlations of nature. I have placed a larger number of the correlations of nature within a consistent framework than has been achieved before now. Snub your nose at it if you wish. As I see it, its your loss

This is a classical strawman argument. I have not claimed that fine tuning is not a problem, nor have I actually said that there cannot be any notion of 'biological evolution of fields'. All I have said is that you have not done nearly enough for the notion of 'biological evolution of fields' as you sort of try to define it, to be taken seriously. You are the one with the wild and loose claims, not I.

 

We would probably be more interested in how you came to the diagram than the actual diagram.

 

To be perfectly blunt, the quote attributed to Pauli comes to mind "not even wrong".

 

Rather generally, we have seen lots of very wild and loose claims made on this forum all of which lack any theoretical basis and experimental confirmation. Without some mathematical framework to really make calculation in and hopefully predictions that can be tested, it is impossible to point to very specific issues. You have a nice story and some pictures, but we cannot really work from just that.

Nothing of what you say really begs a response. Quotes "I'm more interested in how you came to the diagram" "not even wrong" "lots of wild and loose claims" "classical straw man argument" "You are the one with the wild and loose claims" etc etc etc.

The field doesn't undergo biological evolution. Its not biology silly. Darwinian!

You really are going on about nothing. A little tedious

 

The current standard model is an accumulation of theories of many different geologists, all of which being dependent to a certain degree on the accuracy of the earlier works. It’s like everything that makes up current theory is limited by its genetic background. I wanted to build from scratch and see what could develop. I would like to say up front that Arthur Holmes was a scientist that I really admire but I said “from scratch” and his mantle convection is the foundation of the current model. It set the course that brought us to these complexities that generate solutions like mantle plumbs and the long list of “fix’s” that keep plumbs viable. Mr. Holmes himself early on referred to his mantle convection as a speculation.

With this freedom I was able to take a fresh look at the evidence. What stood out to me are the obvious signs of contraction by way of subduction trenches and mountain ranges that are balanced by the evidence of expansionary movements in various planations and extreme extensional processes such as the Basin and Range area. I realized the curving and movement of the Island Arcs towards the trenches could also be part of this expansion/extension from surface tension pulling on the arcs. From this beginning I was able to add each example that is now shown in this model. From the breakup of continents to the current sea floor spreading, a model using a multi-million year thermal expansion mechanism is one part of a thermal cycle that provides multi-million year contraction that produces large degrees of subduction and mountain building. It is a very simple model based on the outer core having a thermal cycle encompassing tens of millions of years from forcing by a very small and gradual variable current amplitude.

Nice theory arc. Hats off to you for not placing assumptions on other peoples prior work. It can pay to rationalize things for ones self.

This is off topic, so its ok if youre not interested in answering, but I would genuinely be interested to know. How much would the Earth shrink if the core was room temp?

So you discard the conventional notion in biology that evolution requires replication with defects?

When did I say that?

Even asexual biological reproduction is a non perfect process, and so changes accumulate from generation to the next. It might be that change is inevitable.

Then advanced life forms developed sexual reproduction, which increased efficiency of genetic experimentation, enhancing genetic diversity.

And so too the field of space may undergo inter generational change, and large evolutionary changes accumulating over time. It might be that there is no such thing as a perfect replication system, and that changes will always occur. And even if a replication system could achieve perfect accuracy, it wouldn't be favored by natural selection, because it would fail to lead to adaptations.

In any case, for you to ask that question, it must be that you haven't read my thread.

You are now starting to understand our general objections to your claims. This is good.

No. I am simply acknowledging a limit to my understanding. Which is not the same thing as your generally disagreement of every point made. Why dont you expose a true flaw in my thinking, rather than trivial nit picking.

Why dont you tell us, why we dont need an explanation for universal fine tuning? Why cant the complexity of the physical universe be an evolved state? Shouldnt be to hard for you to dismiss a silly idea, you would think. Come on, nail this debate closed ajb

or maybe show me how my particle structure diagram doesn't correspond to mass, time dilation, motion, gravitational potential, weight etc? that would upset my apple cart. But if the diagram does correlate with observations, then isnt that a little curious that a simple diagram could achieve such an agreement with physical phenomena?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyni47q4r17lsp7/IMAG2668.jpg?dl=0

If I am wrong, then this is my soft underbelly. Stick it to me

What does it mean for a field to replicate? Two fields do not have sex and reproduce, nor do they reproduce asexually. So what does this mean?

 

I have a field \phi and then...

Sex isn't the only type of reproduction employed within biology. Bacteria and viruses simply divide and best adapted progeny tend to prosper. I dont have any particular insight into what reproduction strategies a field may or may not have developed.

I am still no closer to any understanding of how biological evolution applies to quantum/classical fields and how this relates to modern cosmology.

Life is but an arrangement of elements/molecules. Some primordial arrangement of chemistry managed to sequentially replicate itself, parent to progeny. Replication in this respect is the only fundamental of evolutionary process, besides having an energy potential to exploit in the first instance.

If a field replicates sequentially parent to progeny, then evolutionary progression is the natural result.

I suggest it really is that simple. Whats not to get about it?

Not my arbitrary expectations...

 

Anyway, so you are now accepting you do not have anything close to a theory, offer no meaningful contributions to physics/cosmology and have just hashed some biology and physics terms together?

 

Not that I want to change the subject, but it may help the thread to know why you posted here and what you expected from the members of this forum?

 

We have pointed out the obvious flaws in your idea and stated that much more work would be needed to get your ideas 'off the ground'. I really do suggest you have a look at a physic book or a paper to get a better idea of what is really involved in building physical theories. You will notice that mathematics is essential.

 

It has been fun, but I am not sure how fruitful this has been from your perspective.

Opinion noted

You should read what you have written and compare it with some papers on building models in QFT and/or cosmology. Maybe then you will appreciate what I am saying.

Within the first few paragraphs of this thread, I explain this write up is a condensed version of another forum conversation held at cosmoquest. It is what it is, and is no more right or wrong because of your arbitrary expectations of what a paper should or shouldn't be.

Seeing as you appear to not understand what work is, nor have you explained what work is being done, I'd suggest staying focused on the issue at hand rather than joking. It gives the appearance of trying to distract us from the fact that you aren't answering questions.

I assure you are reading to much into something. Infact I'm not even quite sure what you're suggesting. Work is not a complex concept, and you suggest a quip is a strategic distraction? Really?

I didnt see that coming

Meaning that whatever the initial conditions of the Universe it was bound to evolve towards the state we see today? This sounds like a variant of the anthropic principle.

 

Anyway, one has to to more than just state that 'fields can evolve, adapt etc'.

Thats a "no" to your question regarding initial conditions, and I did mention something to that effect earlier. There is something missing in your understanding of the principles of natural selection.

I do a good deal more than just state "fields can evolve, adapt". I describe the relationship shared between the field, magnetism and electricity within context of an evolving system, which provides an interpretation for the roll the material universe plays within the overall context, and give reasons for structure we observe of the physical universe on large and small scales.

So when you say, quote "Anyway, one has to to more than just state that 'fields can evolve, adapt etc".

Then you are kind of disregarding quite a lot of what I have written.

Actually I read the full thread, not sure why you would need a flames dependency on oxygen calculation. If you look through chapters 3 and 4 of the Uwe Jen article I posted earlier it will have the relevant calcs.

 

Unfortunately the flame calculation is more in the realm of chemistry so I can't help you there.

I am sorry everybody for the late reply. A lot of distractions for me at the moment, including my 40th.

Thank you for reading my full thread, and I hope parts of it resonated, or at least that you found some notions of curiosity. In any respect, your consideration is far more important to me than agreement, so I'm very appreciative you have taken the time.

I guess the main point I would like people to take seriously. There is an inordinate level of order displayed by the physical universe on all size scales, and if you really think about it, possibly far more than could reasonably be explained by chance. It is often said that roll the universal dice enough times and every eventuality will sooner or later occur, however unlikely it might be. This sounds logical enough, but is it really true? Putting universal complexity aside for a moment, consider biology for example. There is only one possible path to achieving highly complex biological organisms, that being via step by step evolutionary progression. Never under any circumstances is it possible to take the raw elemental ingredients for a rabbit, throw them randomly about and materialize a complex and functional animal. Even should it be attempted infinite number of times, and this I suggest is an unequivocal truth. If somebody doubts this, then there is a fundamental aspect of biology which has escaped their grasp.

However thats biology which we know to be an evolved system, so doesn't necessarily represent a proof for universal complexity. But its very informative what types of complex systems cannot spontaneously arise without an additional element, a self organizing principle such as evolutionary process. So the question is, does universal fine tuning fall within this scope?

I've been pondering this question for a while, and I'm now of the resolute opinion that universal physics is such a system which unequivocally requires the organizing principles of evolutionary progression. But that doesn't necessarily prove my version of events and detailed in this thread. However if others come to agree that universal fine tuning requires an organizing principle, and that that principle can only be good old fashioned evolution. Then I will be immeasurably pleased. Not that I am the first to propose the general idea, and I wish to be clear about that. But I believe my explanation is the first which has reasonable prospects. An evolutionary scenario requires fundamental of generational exchange, and this really narrows down the possibilities of how it can be taking place. I've tried to think of ways it could be taking place, other than what I have presented in this thread, but cannot think of any. I'm not an advocate for the black hole fecundity scenario.

As for the flame oxygen dependence calculation. Obviously there are some distinct differences between flame oxygen dependence and my universal process and matter field of space dependence. Whereby matter consumes a regenerative field of space to generate electric fields. However insight into the relationship shared between flame and oxygen, is much the same type of relationship I propose between universal matter and the field of space. As I have explained earlier. The mathematical considerations are going to be very much the same.

iterating, Einstein's following description doesn't quite capture everything it could regarding the relationship shared between space and matter (mass informs space how to bend, and space informs mass how to move). If mass is a consequence of a reaction in the field of space, (as flame is with oxygen) then there is also a proportionality of mass and field energy density to consider. And accounting for it in my opinion, will solve anomalous galaxy motions.

In any case, conceivably its not an overly complex proposition to be calculated. If I cant convince others to collaborate with me, I'll learn to do it in time.

Do you generally understand what I am talking about with the flame oxygen dependence please? coz this is really the most important aspect of my thread. Obviously I cover a great deal more ground beyond this topic, but I am quite happy to make a focus of this particular aspect.

The topic of this thread is your ideas about mixing biological evolution, field theory and cosmology. We should try to stick on this topic and very closely related topics. You are free to open another thread on the 'needed overhaul of science' if you wish.

 

Fine tuning is an interesting question, but largely due, I think, to us using effective theories.

 

As for the problem with energy conservation, what problem? The concept of the energy of a space-time is not so clear in general relativity and if we have a non-static space-time then we do not expect to have global energy conservation. You will need to be more specific with the actual problem here.

 

Okay, but if it is just hand waving then your ideas may not 'get off the ground'. But let us see...

 

If you think I have broken any of the rules or are treating you unduly harshly then please report my posts to a moderator. Please be assured that they will show no favouritism if I have broken the rules.

 

Great, but so far your ideas are very loose. I hope you can be more specific in the future.

 

I am sorry if you feel I have done that. I am really only trying to get some understanding of what you have said. Unfortunately, it seems that you have typed a lot but not really said much.

 

PS. Do not take the reputation points too seriously. However, a fast accumulation of negative points should tell you that something is not right with the posts.

Hi ajb. I know its been a few days, but I'll reply to you very soon.

and thank you for the message

Your ideas have to achieve agreement with nature.

 

Had a chance to look up the definition of work yet?

Yes absolutely. Agreement with nature is the primary prerequisite. Never a truer thing said.

My having to check wiki "work" was attempt at a joke.

What you seem to be ignoring is the scientific method largely avoids these issues by having processes that impose rational objectivity upon findings. Individual scientists may indulge in self deception, but the method has proven remarkably efficient at neutralising their ill founded views.

I really like what youve said here, and do agree with you. The scientific process works for the most part, and where mistakes do find their way through the process and persist for a while, they are usually corrected, or will eventually be corrected. We might hope.

However if we believe our theories justify it, the typical person is still very capable of believing irrational views. And that is why I was speaking about human nature in respect of the physiology of our evolved brain and internal belief systems. Humans are quite clearly capable of rational thinking, but this hasn't had much to do the our historic belief systems. And nor could it before scientific understanding. But that has only now occurred.

I would like to touch on the subject of "relative distance", a component of special relativity. Is this really a rational conclusion? I used to believe it, but then again I recall what it is to have religious beliefs as well, when I was young.

Relative distances?

I have a reasonable understanding of relativity, curved space time, non euclidean geometry of space, time dilation and motion etc. So rather than gravity being attributed to a physical force, orbits are representative of objects moving along straight lines in curved space time. However special and general relativity can be made mathematical consistent, at large speeds for example, it leads us too some rather extreme and un-intuitive conclusions. For example, from perspective of a photon traveling at light speed, the universe literally has no length. This is not something you are encouraged to subjectively believe if you are an advocate for SR, but you must take this very literally. Or, if you are a human in a spaceship traveling at 87% light speed, then the distance to alpha-centuries is literally half that which another person perceives, from their stand point on Earth. So the Universe is literally a different shape from perspective of every object that exists within the universe, which is traveling at a unique speed and or direction. And each and every perspective is to be considered simultaneously true.

Dr Physics can explain it for us.

Ok, if the universe really is so weird, then so be it. Credit too us for having the ability to recognize it and overcome intuition and come to believe it. Thank you Einstein. However is there something obviously wrong with this idea, and our human tendency for irrational belief has won the day? Unflattering as it might be, worth consideration at the very least.

Of course each of us has already considered the strangeness of this situation at one time or another, as how could one not. But are we willing to consider this possibility again for arguments sake?

Isn't this just off topic?

 

Also, I find it quite amusing when people who know very little about science care to make such comments.

 

I note the 4 down votes. From my perspective its not off topic, because I'm the one with a non standard view point, and considering what obstacles lay in the way of others appreciating my view. But I will not dwell on it, and I would like to discuss aspects of relativity soon. In sharing of my ideas, Im not talking about achieving agreement so much as peoples consideration.

I know that what I say about human nature sounds uncomplimentary, but I dont see it that way. I feel its acknowledging a simple truth. The idea of having a rational world view, based on a scientific understanding is brand new to the human species. In all the eons of human existence prior to now, a world view was constructed of mythologies, religions and abstracts such as perceived moralities. If people were overly predisposed to rational thinking, then this couldn't have occurred. And so its not unreasonable I feel, to suggest that we generally have a disposition of human nature to except cultural truths without questioning, as irrational as they might be. And if you think you are cured from this natural disposition then you are not acknowledging your humanity. I'm happy to except this of myself. I am simply suggesting that we as humans need to be aware of this disposition no matter what the suggested world view. Whether it is considered of scientific rationality or not. Their are some important scientific unknowns, like origin of mass, gravity. Its my opinion that uncovering the answers for these phenomena is going to undermine the big bang theory. Because we need to explain fine tuning, and there are problems with energy conservation within standard model of cosmology etc etc.

I am able to make a case based around reletivity, SMoC and SMoPP, and that is what I would like to do with this continued discussion. I have said the above so that people might be introspective of themselves, and perhaps be willing to consider a new argument. But I have no intention of going on about this unnecessarily.

I am going to be away a couple days. I might be buying a boat, so a little distracted. But I would really like to continue this

I've tried reading what you have posted. In some areas I'm not even sure what direction to point you in. Other than textbooks. Which is probably the best suggestion I can offer. In all honesty I found numerous misconceptions that are a result of a pop media study style.

 

Not too unusual in that regard it's a common event with new forum members.

 

One suggestion I have is to learn the correct terminology associated with your ideas. Understand what a field for example really is. For example what is the difference between a scalar and a vector field?

 

Correctly describing what field would help us show you the mathematical end.

 

For example all scalar fields can be modelled by the equations at the bottom of this page.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

That equation can be adapted to any scalar interaction

Thank you for all the information. As for pointing me in the right direction, I think the first step is for me to understand how to calculate flames dependence on oxygen density distribution. needs beyond that, perhaps we can work out later.

I'm not sure how much you read of my thread, and whether you choice to read the rest or not, I'm happy to leave to your discretion. I'm not the sort that urgently needs others to adopt my point of view, and seek to change those who are resistant. I post this for people to consider on their own terms. But if further discussion draws you in, then I will be happy for it

Thank you once again

This is off topic and some vain attempt to discredit me.

 

Ill allow you to set the general fairness standard for our conversation. If I feel your playing unfair, I'll respond. But I wont make up baseless claims, and besides the truth can be a pointier stick.

I think you and I can have a really interesting conversation. Just dont deliberately take me out of context etc. You do have a tendency.

It seems to me, the system which humans use to build a world view isn’t perfectly suited to this new scientific paradigm we find ourselves in. Our belief system evolved within us primarily as a mechanism for enabling social unity, with individuals absorbing cultural learnings more or less unquestioningly. Our default program is to generally except cultural belief, without rationalizing for ourselves. This is very efficient, and worked well for a time pre-science. And luckily it also allowed for incremental improvements of knowledge to occur over time, and so we did build our knowledge base, early technologies which lead to farming etc. However community cultural beliefs were rather stable and static over duration of a person’s lifetime, or at least they used to be. But no more.

Knowledge is changing so fast in this day and age. All this change of perspective is being processed by the same brain system, evolved for much less challenging times. But we are trying to adapt to a more flexible frame of mind, and doing quite well considering this circumstance. But we are generally not perfect at it.

Even knowing there are many many unanswered questions of nature, we can be quite resistant to suggestions that contradict our world view. Somebody might suggest, “lets tinker with a variable mass theory”, and people might remark, and even while not knowing where mass arises from, “you cant do that”. Why, because it challenges preconceived beliefs. I suggest this is human nature, and something to be acknowledged and aware of, but not to be ashamed of. Just the way we are.

We should take John Cleeses comment to heart

It is insulting to lots of people to claim that science is like a religion. It simply is not. We are able to change our minds when new evidence comes to light. This seems very distinct from religion. Anyway, this is moving off topic.

Not so fast. Youre much more like a religious zelot than you would care to think. You did admittedly take up argument with me before having even read my thread. At what point in this process did you employ your enlightened scientific discretion? I have had similar experiences with religious people.

Your right, back on topic. Relativity!

What rudeness?

 

I have only asked for some clarification on 'electromagnetic energy' as you brought it up!

I owe you a sincere apology. I am sorry for that accusation ajb. You didn't and I am out of line.

True, so why bring it up here?

 

I respect her opinion. and after your rudeness, I thought Elizsia might appreciate a little humanity.

So what is 'electromagnetic energy' and how is matter comprised of it?

This isnt my thread. But I do cover it in mine

 

So you have philosophical objections with general relativity?

 

As far as I am aware, any attempts to show that general relativity is not a good theory, taking into accounts the domain of validity, experimental errors and so on, are all based on philosophical arguments and not hard science. This is awkward, as we know that general relativity is not the final say on gravity, but nature nor our mathematics has really pointed out what should replace GR. Well, we have a few mathematical ideas, but so far nothing that really singles these ideas out. String theory so far seems a good candidate but it does have some problems.

 

You should think carefully about what a physical theory is and how it relates to your ideas.

 

Well this is subtle, but the reason 'why' is usually left out of physics. Physics builds models that describe observations of physical phenomena and makes predictions about things we can observe. Newtonian gravity fits this bill for a range of physical parameters: we can make predictions of the movement of test particles using Newtonian gravity and these generally agree well with nature.

 

Does general relativity tell us 'why' energy-momentum is a source of gravity? Or does it just allow us to model gravitational phenomena?

 

For sure, general relativity allows us to model gravitational phenomena for a much wider range of parameters, specifically masses and (relative) velocities. General relativity agrees with nature better than Newtonian gravity over more phenomena.

 

In relation to general relativity, hard to say. He did work on alternative related theories for a while. But his is all history.

 

Nobody thinks that general relativity is the final word on gravity.

 

Good to see a change in your tone. and maybe something of interest said. Not that we'll agree on much, but agreement is less important than general courtesy. I'll reply soon

 

 

So much for this, then

 

https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/683681888687538177

John Cleese haha lol. An ideal to aspire toward, but actually thats a bit trickier than first seams. I'm going to think on that a little

I would like 2016 to be the year when people remembered that science is a method of investigation,and NOT a belief system

Hi Elizsia. I agree with you to the extent that I believe matter is comprised entirely of electromagnetic energy. So I guess that is general agreement

 

Come with questions in the mainstream physics sections (instead of conjectures, hypothesis, speculations),, and we will be happy to answer them, if we will be able to..

This way you will learn and gain knowledge.

 

Thank you Sensei. You are a breath of fresh air

Individual particles in some cases, when they have high kinetic energy, are starting to be visible by naked eye..

By device that you can build by yourself for $50 and see by yourself.

 

They are leaving traces in particle detectors.

Particle with high kinetic energy is decelerating in medium, through it pass by, and ionizing that medium.

The higher kinetic energy particle, the longer trace.

Alpha particles (+2e charge) are leaving thick, short trace.

Beta electron particles (-1e charge) are leaving thin, long trace.

 

And they can be photographed, or filmed:

 

Cloud Chamber particle detector

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber

 

Bubble Chamber particle detector

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber

 

If there is provided external electric/magnetic field, traces are bending accordingly to charge and mass of particle.

Negative electrode will attract positive alpha, positive antimatter positron, and repel negative electron etc.

Positive electrode will attract negative electron, negative pion, negative kaon, etc.

 

This is NOT mathematics.

Mathematics is just used to predict what will happen in future, what is seen in detectors already.

 

If apple fails from desk, you can calculate f.e. time it flied prior reaching ground,

you have math equation,

then the next time you will release apple from hand,

you will be able to predict when it will reach ground.

From observation is made math equation,

then math equation can tell you in advance when and how something will be acting.

Wow I love that so much. I want one!!

Thank you for the vid and explanation. I'm so impressed. I'm going to be following up on this stuff for sure

Well, you are the one that has stated some comparison without understanding of what science is.

 

Anyway, you are not going to address my request that you explain how Newtonian gravity is not a theory of gravity? Nor are you going to say something about the many interpretations of GR that you claim exist? Nor are you going to try to address my earlier questions?

 

I now wonder what the point of keeping this thread open are?

 

You had the chance to converse with qualified experts in physics and others that have sound knowledge. Instead you just keep showing ignorance and stubbornness. You are clearly interested in physics, so don't waste your time. Take advantage of the time others have spared for you.

Dont try to pass the buck. I pointed out there are many different varieties of religious belief, even to the extent of individual interpretations. I didnt speak with contempt towards peoples religious beliefs as did you.

The forums are filled with debates regarding GRs various interpretations. Not dissimilar to religious disagreement it seams to me. But thats speaking from somebody who has become dissatisfied with the apparent limits of theory of general relativity. Like relative distances of space etc. Like nothingness comes in different shapes and sizes, and pushes heavy objects around perpetually without breaking energy conservation laws. But I have to concede, I was not insightful enough to second guess these circumstances of GR until I had reason too. And so I too have to admit myself capable of dismissing new ideas off hand, based on my personal prejudices and prior held beliefs. And so I dont really claim to be different from you, or anybody for that matter.

I'll converse with you, however not if you keep up your disingenuousness. Only math is worthy rendition. Disagreement without cause, even when you dont actually disagree.

Take this Newtonian gravity is not a theory of gravity thing. You disagree with me, but I cannot believe it is your true position. A theory "of" something does not merely describe what is occurring, it at least attempts an explanation of why it is occurring, and perhaps a process or mechanism from which it emerges from. Really, you want to argue Newtonian gravity is a theory of gravity? Forgive me if I switch off from you.

General Relativity is different however, and Einstein really was trying the develop a theory for processes and mechanisms underlying the cause of gravity. And no doubt about it, he improved of Newtons work measurably, but did he achieve entirely what he set out to achieve? The fact he spent the rest of his life trying to uncover a deeper explanation of things, gives an indication. Seams he wasn't entirely satisfied. He would liked to have known the why of, the nature of energies interaction with space. That's a pretty fundamental question which needs to be answered, before you might choose to lock GR in as the final answer of things. Dark Energy? Dark Matter? there are those tinkering with standard model of particle physics in attempts of an answer. There are those tinkering with variable gravity theory, MOND justified because gravity is a free parameter within SMoPP. Well Mass is a free parameter also, and so I'm tinkering with a variable mass theory. The difference between my attempt, and others, is that I can propose a reason for my tinkering. Thats a little novel dont you think?

I do appreciate the chance to converse with qualified experts, however I'm not sure I count you amongst them. Perhaps you are, but I haven't seen evidence beyond your say so. Perhaps you might present me your work? I'm guessing its pure math, written in gods only tongue. Not even lowering yourself to mortal for benefit of presenting english spoken abstract.

I got as far as the first few paragraphs of your post and found errors. Which you never addressed or asked for clarification. Not too supportive of your idea.

 

Photons decays follows rules within particle physics. So does temperature measurement. These rules are well tested and established. You can't Willy nilly them away simply because they don't agree with your idea.

 

By the way I'm supplying the tools to advance your idea. By providing you the mathematical formulas you will need to learn.

I really really like the idea you can guide me too the mathematical tools plz? I promise I'll be considerate of your time. Just point the direction and I'll pursue as far as I'm able.

I'll give some thought to my theory's general needs, which aspects of math might shed light on the subject.

It would be a great start if I could practice a mathematical description of a flames dependence on oxygen. how a fuel source energy density distribution relates to a reaction consuming the fuel.

comparing GR with religion is a bit insulting.

Have some respect for peoples beliefs

Photons have no charge, and yet they have an electric field. So this can't be right. Charge is a property of a particle.

Elemental bonds perform no work. There is nothing unresolved about this.

We can discuss Newtonian gravity, which is a force, and yet no work is done on something moving in a circular orbit. Duration doesn't enter into it.

No tricks involved. Just knowing what the definition of work is. Do you?

 

What direction of motion? Electrons are waves. QM has no trajectories for electrons in an atom.

Funny that, since the solution for the states in an atom involve the energy of the system, the possible values of which are eigenvalues. Energy conservation is inherent in that.

Taking things out of context. A great use of our time. If I had said charge is a property of all particles electric fields, then you might have responded "Photons have no charge, and yet they have an electric field". ​But I didnt.

Vagaries vagaries. electrons are particles. Electrons are waves. Electrons have mass, but no need to account for their inertia within atoms. etc etc. And yet you are so sure of everything, while your theories have openly admitted limits.

Newtonian gravity is not a theory of gravity. General Relativity is, and prescribes orbits are just objects moving along non euclidean straight lines, not experiencing force. But in some ways GR is like religion, in respect that there are nearly as many interpretations of it, as there are people making interpretations.

What is work. Hang on while I'll check wiki.

 

In terms of atomic physics the relation to gravity is not vague at all. It's only at the far reaches of GR where this is an issue. It's a little vague where your "it's a little vague" is coming from.

haha thats a little vague. Would you mind clarifying plz?

 

Not really.

 

There is no vagueness in QM; it is a mathematical theory which is able to make extremely precise predictions. All of which have been confirmed by experiment.

 

It is you that is being vague with references to "evolving fields" and photons as "electrical entities" or "lightning".

 

Perhaps you should learn a little more about the theory before attempting to replace it.

You mean within the scope of probability theory you can make statistical QM predictions. Its a little vague where the parameters of QM arise from. A little vagueness surrounding QM and how it relates to parameters of mass and gravity.

Dont like the idea of an evolving field. Not for everybody it seams

A photon is not an "electrical entities", and it is not "not dissimilar to lightning". Photons have no charge. There is no current flow with photons.

 

There is no work done in maintaining bonds. "Work" has a specific meaning within physics; the energy of the system is constant, so no work needs to be done. There is absolutely no issue with conservation of energy here.

 

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

An electrical field might be termed an electrical entity.

Charge is a property of a particles electric field.

Elemental bonds perform hard work for long duration of time, and yet conventional theory doesn't expect they should give something of themselves to perform this work. I stand by my assertion, its an unresolved issue.

Following is something I posted earlier

Energy conservation and comparing gravity, to the atoms electric field and electron.

If it is your preferred interpretation of general relativity, that mass curves space and time to create a gravitational field, and so an orbiting body experiences no force upon it, because there is no force. Its just a body moving along a straight line in curved space? An interesting way to get around energy conservation laws by the way, for the alternative would require that if gravity was a force, its value would also have to factor duration.

But we’re not talking about General Relativity, so we don’t have any such trick to circumvent energy conservation laws when talking about an atoms electric field and electron interaction.

There are a lot of ways this could be argued, however simple is best.

An electron has mass? So it experiences inertia, and especially so because it moves very fast? So requires energy to change its direction of motion, and continual energy for continual change in inertial motion?

Assuming an electric field can persist without an energy source in the first instance, then how does an Atoms electric field overcome an electrons inertial mass, without performing work? And of cause an atoms ability to overcome electron inertial mass is of minor significance, when compared to its full potential expressed in elemental bonds.

The vagueness of QM cant save the argument, because energy conservation laws apply to that domain also.