SpaceTime

working with any thing below a photon will be hard. i'm working with the wieghts of all of the atoms. and the speed of light.

True working with any thing below a photon energy level will be hard, but the answers will be found because the masses of the atomic particles are different and they also react differently to similar energy levels.

Every atom is constantly reacting with gravitational energy at the surface of the earth. Unfortunately this reaction is not catered for in the current quantum atomic model.

Signed

SpaceTime

I was responding to I agree the energy has to basically exact when dealing with photon absorbsion and emmision.

The probability of absorption going rapidly to zero I see differently.

so we were clearly talking about photon absorption.

 

What energy levels "below this" are you referring to? What phenomena can be observed that involve these levels?

 

It's an open forum. Anyone is free to step in and contribute and have their say.

 

I have raised several objections to your "model" (though that's a charitable use of the term) and have been ignored. If you were interested in serious debate you wouldn't duck the questions that are asked of you. If you were interested in doing science you'd have a model that made specific predictions so it can be tested' date=' instead of waffling with a bunch of jargon.[/quote']

Although I wrote "The probability of absorption going rapidly to zero I see differently." I meant that this value is never zero, never goes to zero.

 

These low energy levels are not accounted for in QM, and the observed phenomina is gravity.

 

I have not given you a new model at all, I have only questioned the QM and suggested looking at including some refinements.

 

It would take more than a few posts in a forum to describe a new model.

 

The questions I am supposed to have ducked mainly are your mis-interpretation and jumping to conclusions trying to defend the QM.

 

Try asking what I mean and do not keep trying to presume what I am saying.

 

Personally I have no real problems with the QM but I am suggesting there is more to it, another dimension, which could provide the key to electrical stability and open the door to a possible resolving of how gravity maybe is interacting atomically with the QM.

 

I am not attacking the underlying fundamental basics of the QM at all, as you said it is spectacularly successful.

 

Maybe you are a gentleman and could help unravel a mystery or maybe you could be a pompas ignorant so and so, the choice really is totally yours, sometimes we need to slow down and think first.

 

You are right. It's an open forum. Anyone is free to step in and contribute and have their say, including me.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

Collection of assorted buzzwords deleted

 

This doesn't happen though' date=' so it doesn't matter what you see. When you tune a laser off resonance the light isn't absorbed.[/quote']

Why the preoccupation with photon energy levels, when I am trying to discuss energy levels below this?

 

The principle electrical operating system in computers is the binary function, which is based on a logic state of one or zero (1 or 0) in the Quantum atomic model the system is based on photon absorption and emission.

 

The linear analog universe nevertheless still exists.

 

Whilst both these systems have their obvious invaluable benefits, they are only tools to enable us to work and research further with. They are not the beginning and end of our research, meaning we still don’t know it all.

 

This forum I have been advised is available for debating scientific concepts, ideas and questions about the current state of our scientific research.

Answers like:

“It does, so we don't”

“I saw it. It's wrong”

“Collection of assorted buzzwords deleted”

To me does not constitute reasonable debate, appearing more like I’m not interested in debating this, you do not know what you are talking about. If this is the case then be a gentleman step aside and let others have their say.

 

I had much more I wanted to discuss but I am inclined to hold back due to receiving a cold shoulder. Maybe not everything I say can be correct but it is intended to raise serious questions as to where we stand scientifically.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

In th direction opposite our current motion, of course.

The current motion is helical, and if you must not overshoot with the velocity component. This is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Why would this be necessary? Reduce the speed and the repulsive force you postulate would be decreased, and the attractive force remains. That results in a net force of attraction. Atoms should be collapsing left and right. Increase the speed and they should fly apart. These phenomena have somehow managed to esscape my attention all these years.

They dont fly apart, when you added the energy in the first place to accelerate, you changed the internal resonant wavelength structure, which forced a change in universal velocity to accomadate the change of the wavelength structure, or did you not account for the changed velocity in the atomic wavelength structure?

It depends on the linewidth of the transition, but basically the energy has to be exact; if it's not within a few linewidths that probability of absorption goes rapidly to zero.

I agree the energy has to basically exact when dealing with photon absorbsion and emmision.

The probability of absorption going rapidly to zero I see differently.

But when the atom deals with fractional component energy values the atom can absorb or release these minute energy components by simple phase modulation, i.e. the atom attempts to change its univeral velocity to correct for the induced phase error within its internal resonant structure, in this way the atom can be accelerated or de-accelerated within the universe.

Signed

SpaceTime

So as an ion is accelerated in a particle accelerator and at some point achieves a net zero speed with respect to the CMB, it should collapse. Why is this not observed?

Which direction would you accelerate the ion particle long enough to enable this fusion to occur?

I don't think that absolute zero velocity can be acheived in any practical way.

The earth is a rotating and orbiting platform for a reason, and is one of the reasons atomic structure remains stable along with the universal velocity.

Or do we just say stop the world I want to make an experiment.

Swansont answer me this, the Quantum Model atom, can it only absorb energy at packets of photon quanta energy level, or can it receive packets of value say 0.84 or 1.24 quanta energy level.

Signed

SpaceTime

Gravity operates below the photon, electron reaction threshold level, it cannot be detected by bullying the atom as the photon does. Gravity is a gentle giant when dealing with the atomic structure. It has nothing to do with photons.

Photon energy that is emmited as electromagnetic radiation, has occurred only when the electron has received an energy level that is greater than that provided to it by the universal velocity condition.

Who has worked with energy levels below the photo electric affect? because you will find they do exist.

Signed

SpaceTime

What in your opinion happens at the event horizon near a black hole? does the speed of light climb to its c value slowly or just suddenly appear at the full speed of c as you start to move away from the black hole?

Signed

SpaceTime

I do understand what you are saying. The electron that goes into the end of a wire is stated as not the same one that comes out the other end, but the time of the total transfer of electromagnetic energy through the wire is almost c.

The net result of jumping to a higher energy quantum state before re-emitting another photon collectively add up to the electromagnetic radiation affect being time delayed.

I believe gravity fields also change the atomic energy quantum state, the only difference being gravity has the capacity to reduce or increase this state relative to the strength of the gravity field.

Signed

SpaceTime

The speed of individual photons through a material is still c, however, electrons can absorb a photon and jump to a higher energy quantum state before re-emitting another photon. Thus light appears to travel through a material at a speed less than c, resulting in the optical effect you mentioned.

This statement of yours re the speed of light c through a material is contradictory to the educational institutions statements. For example the speed of light through water is stated to be 33% slower than c.

The speed of light more than appears to be slower than c, it is slower than c.

Signed

SpaceTime

Space Time, you haven't addressed Swansonts point.

Why when a stick is half placed in water and the other half is out of the water why does it appear bent at the point of entry?

If gravitational fields also cause the refractive index to change then it is highly likely that the speed of light can be changed by the density of space-time, influenced by gravitational fields, this affect would become extreme near black holes.

This area of debate is quite speculative and somehow does not really relate to the debate as to whether we should consider adding the universal velocity environment to be included in the QM atomic model.

Just like current theories I dont have all the answers, but I feel I have some strong valid questions, re the atomic model.

Signed

SpaceTime

Mass and energy curve space.

 

Not too surprising' date=' since it was never designed to address gravity in the first place. Science is incomplete. That's why scientists still have jobs.

 

QED incorporates Maxwell's equations.

 

If there is an absolute reference frame, how come no measurements can detect it? Why are there no daily or yearly fluctuations in atomic spectra, or in anything that depends on atomic spectra? Shouldn't atoms at rest with respect to the CMB collapse, in your model?

 

What are the specific failings of physics that you keep alluding to? Like how QED predicts the electron g-factor to 3 parts in 10[sup']11[/sup]?

(Mass energy and curved space). This does not address gravitational theory but only attempts to explain the phenomina.

All atomic mass interacts at atomic level, this interaction is referred to as gravitation although it is fundamentally electrically based.

(Not too surprising, since it was never designed to address gravity in the first place. Science is incomplete. That's why scientists still have jobs.

QED incorporates Maxwell's equations.)

Exactly the quantum model was never designed to account for gravity, which means that it is incomplete.

(If there is an absolute reference frame, how come no measurements can detect it? )

I have not discussed an absolute reference frame. We work with what we have. If we could fix our atomic theory up then maybe we can detect our "daily or yearly fluctuations in atomic spectra".

(Shouldn't atoms at rest with respect to the CMB collapse, in your model?)

If you had no universal motion the electron and proton would be unable to generate the necessary repulsive electromagnetic field, yes they would fuse together.

Signed

SpaceTime

I appologise if I have insulted anyone in this forum in particular you Swansont, and thank you 5614 for the information about Swansont. I had continued discussing theory with Swansont because he had appeared to know what he talking about. I do respect his opinions but I do not always agree with 100+ year old atomic principles.

With respect to the preferred frames of reference it is important to note that the atomic models based from the beginning assume that it has no universal velocity.

There is a big difference between assuming :

1: I am stationary relative to the atom next to me, and that the laws of physics apply in any inertial frame, and also that you have to be able to treat the particles as if they were at rest:

My viewpoint whereby:

2: I am in universal motion along with the atom next to me, and the atomic model cannot assume the particles are at rest, but must always account for this universal motion:

I feel this, along with the fact that charged particles in any form of universal motion, generate electric currents and subsequent magnetic fields, which the current Quantum atomic model does not address and does infact ignore.

This is the fundamental differences of opinion which we have expressed in this forum.

Signed

SpaceTime

1: If the reference frame you use is correct please explain the fundamentals of gravitation.

2: If the electron and proton in universal motion is wrong please explain why? or is your electrical theory inadequate. I have worked with electrical theory all day every day since before I left school and I am 57 years old. I have experience you haven't even dreamt about. Also I hadn't finished providing information for you to even judge.

3: Quantum mechanic's may the most successful of all atomic models but it is a classic electrical failure. It is only a mathematical model to surcumvent the original classical model which was incomplete. It also fails to include the affect call gravity, or predict it functioning.

4: This doesn't deserve an answer, its the type of statement a man makes when he cannot explain himself, when his words fail him.

Signed

SpaceTime

Hi Swansont,

It is time for you to go back to school, your babbling again, examine the laws governing parallel current carrying wires, this same affect applies within the vacuum of space, and the electrical particles don't have to travel within a wire (see vacuum tube theory), and this law does apply to atomic structure.

Click here to start your education: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/torrance.htm

P.S. The only preferred reference frame is the right one, You obviously haven't found it yet.

Signed

SpaceTime

Hi Swansont,

Getting back to the two opposite charged particles (the proton and electron) if they are in motion travelling in the same direction, should they not electro-magnetically repel each other proportional to their universal velocity then?

This then produces two electromagnetic fields that are identical in strength but opposite, because the charge values are equal although opposite.

Outside of the atom the magnetic fields cancel out but inside they form a powerful magnetic repulsion between the charged particles, which is directly proportional to the velocity, do you agree with this?.

In this way the oppositely charged particales attraction will still occurr but the magnetic repulsion will prevent them fusing together, agree?

Signed

SpaceTime

We alrteady know that two reference frames that are moving with respect to each other measure different times. Nothing new there. But no inertial frame can be considered as preferred.

 

Why do I care if a clock sitting out in the middle of nowhere runs at a different rate? I'm here' date=' not there. All the rest is mumbo-jumbo quasi-new-age philosophy. That and five bucks will get a latte' at Starbucks. You got any data? Any predictions? Any experiments that can be done?[/quote']

We must consider the alternate inertial frames, because the one we have doesn't work or explain gravitational forces.

 

I started another thread called "What stabilizes the atom" you remember. In that thread we both started to discuss the electron and proton in universal motion, maybe we should continue down that track.

 

The current atomic models are all 3 dimenional and fail to conform to classic electrical theory, this includes the quantum atomic model, it also fails.

 

When you add the velocity dimension, you get a 4 dimensional atomic model that totally conforms to and satisfies pure classic electrical theory.

 

I couldn't quite see your relavence to $5 and starbuck relating to atomic theory, maybe you could clarify this for me.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

Hi QuickSilver,

Some of those electro-magnetic formula's along with hundreds of other scientific physics values are available in a calculator available as a free trial download at:

http://www.dovada.com/calcdownload.shtml

You could extract all the info you need from this calculator before the free trial runs out.

As far as your latest question goes about things being so simple, until we know how the universe works it will appear complex at times.

Signed

SpaceTime

Hi Mezarashi,

Now you may understand why I seek the answer to that mathematics problem. When we work together we share the load.

Signed

SpaceTime

I'm in the same frame of reference as the atom sitting next to me.

Thats the problem.

Step off the earth and visualise. see the earth and its atoms in motion from this new perspective.

See the spiral nature of the atomic oscillatory structure as it passes by you and resonates with its universal environment.

Atoms move similar to the DNA structure, atomic models must also reflect this spiral environment too.

From your frame of reference the atom is stationary, the atom is talking to the universe and not talking to you.

Signed

SpaceTime

Read again what I said, you havent taken the time to even try to understand what I am saying. It took me years to understand, and you can understand it in 5 minutes.

PONDER IT

What length would you have for the Bohr radius if you had a velocity of 600,000 meters second, electromagnetic wavelengths that the atom sees are different to what you see, you are in the wrong frame of reference and having difficulty changing your frame of reference to the one that is required.

Signed

SpaceTime

Maybe I still dont understand.

Sun radius is 149,600,000,000 meters

Orbit velocity 29,770 meters sec

Orbit Angular velocity = 29,770 / 149,600,000,000 = 1.98997E-7

Earth spin angular velocity = 462.95 / 6,378,000 = 7.258431E-5

How would I mathematically obtain the combined result of these two conditions under these conditions.

Is one divided by the other i.e.

result = (1.98997326203209E-7 / 7.2584311942428E-5) = 0.00274

Is this the correct way to define this point on the earths surface?

Signed

SpaceTime

How could these clocks show the difference, if the atomic structure speeds vary everything must vary slightly, even the relative speed of light.

You would be operating and functioning inside a form of pure relativity.

Maybe this why we suffer jet lag, the body clock goes out of sync faster than it should when we travel fast between time zones, and it takes time for our atomic structure to adjust to the new timezone.

It takes time to absorb this type of change in thinking, ponder it and you will slowly see the universe unfold for you over time.

It takes time to understand that everywhere in the universe is different and these differences are reflected in the velocity and internal wavelength structures of the atomic masses.

Signals which arrive at the earth from different areas of the universe may have changed their velocity several times before arriving at our speed of light.

It has been proven that gravitational fields will bend light waves just like a magnifying glass, therefore the speed of light can be changed within different medium conditions.

Why must the speed of light remain universally constant. It is logical that it must change otherwise my spectical's woundn't work

As an atomic mass nears another atomic mass if their velocities are different then they attempt to share their electromagnetic condition, one may have a shorter internal wavelength structure than the other so one atomic structure will attempt to slow down and the other will attempt to speed up, to try to balance with each other, this affect appears to us as gravitation.

If the atomic structures don't actually collide then they elliptically oscillate around each other until a balance is achieved.

Thats enough for now.

Signed

SpaceTime

I am not absolutely clear on this, we for simplicity sake will assume circular orbit and rotation and ignore the fact that the earths tilts.

The rotating earth is travelling at an orbital velocity of 29770 metres per second and sinultaneously has a equatorial surface spin of 463 meters per second.

How would I calculate the combined resultant equatorial value? could you supply an example for me, both for forward and reverse equatorial spin.

Thanks again.

SpaceTime

Yes' date=' we are moving with respect to the microwave background. It's not an absolute velocity.

 

And what effect does the earth's 30km/s motion around the sun have on all this? You should see a 10% fluctuation in velocity-dependent terms in spectra as we move through our orbit. On top of that, we have rotational motion of another .5 km/s on top of that. Do we see this? I've got a bunch of atomic clocks that say no.

 

Planets that do not have the right velocity for orbiting are no longer in orbit. Ever seen a crater?

 

What of atoms in other galaxies that are moving at some other speed toward...whatever. Why do their atoms give the correct spectra from our supposedly incorrect models?[/quote']

What causes the tilt of the earth?

 

Why does the earth spin?

 

If the electron has a velocity (600,000 * 1.414) as it orbits the proton, what would be the protons orbital velocity of the electron be?

 

After all every action has an equal and opposite reaction I was told.

 

Proton orbital velocity = (600,000 * 1.414) divided by (mp/me) = 463 m/s

 

What did you say is the earths equatorial spin velocity was?

 

equatorial spin = (40.000,000 km / 86400 seconds) = 463 m/s

 

Maybe you are still missing something? these macro conditions are not occurring by just mere chance. I suggest you do further investigation.

 

Remember the atom is not stationary, you are travelling at an incredible velocity, and atomic clocks will probably vary with you as the atomic conditions vary.

 

If internal atomic frequency conditions vary, then why wouldn't the atomic clock also be a variable after all it depends on the atomic frequency condition.

 

Hope this helps

 

Signed

SpaceTime

Swansont,

Take a look at this website and then you can see that all atomic matter has a universal velocity.

http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/astronomy/expandinguniverselecture.html

quote"The earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the Milky way, The Milky way moves about within the local galactic cluster and the Galactic cluster is being pulled across space by the gravity of the "great attractor." The great attractor is a huge supercluster of galaxies. Add together all of these motions and we are moving 600 km/s toward the great attractor."

After reading this then start calculating the internal velocities for the particles of the current hydrogen quantum atomic model.

Positive proton nucleus velocity = zero (wrong)

negative electron velocity = about 240,000 to 250,000 meters/sec (wrong)

Note before any atomic functions can occur the atomic particles have a base velocity of:

Positive proton nucleus velocity = 600,000 meters/sec

negative electron velocity = about (600,000 * 1.414) meters/sec

None of the atomic models show these simple but important fundamental facts.

Additional to this, the atomic wavelengths are modified by this velocity (phase shifted) and the atom does not see the same wavelength that we see and calculate.

Our observance is relative to our own velocity which is the same as the atom we are testing.

The atom can be considered as being in tune with its universal environment. For this reason all atomic structure is in motion within the universe, and all planets just happen to have exactly the correct velocity for orbiting.

Galileo was penalised for saying the earth was not the center of the universe, that the planet earth is orbiting the sun.

From this perspective, we should have taken Galileo's lead and the developed our atomic models as atomic models that are in motion and not assumed that they are stationary like the church assumed the earth was in Galileo's day.

I am very interested in the research by the http://www.dovada.com company in Australia, they seem to be researching in this very direction.

Myself I feel that everything is in for a big change shortly.

Hope this may answer your question.

Signed

SpaceTime