SpaceTime

Albert Einstein did not have an easy life with his fellow physicists, much of the work he published took many years before it was to be accepted by others.

Unfortunately Albert Einstein did not have the information which is available to us today, and it was almost a miracle that he achieved what he did achieve, with only the information he had at that time, for this we must give him credit.

As we progress toward the true scientific understandings we will discover mistakes which others have made, do not criticise those people who have made scientific mistakes, because through their errors you may have advanced toward success.

Respect those that have shared their knowledge with you, because they had the guts to do this, and there is much pride and prejudice within the scientific community.

Einstein and many others did their best, who could ask for any more than this.

Signed

SpaceTime

It is common for the scientists of the world to complicate those things that they don't understand, it is the only way they can hide behind and hide within their own technology.

Once the truth comes out it is really simple and easy to understand.

The majority of the current scientific theories are pure speculation, nothing is locked into cement, and their is plenty of room for individual acheivement.

Remember people who explain things in complex terms are usually hiding behind scientific jargon, but people who know what they are talking about are easy to understand and can explain what they mean.

If you keep this in mind it will help you, and make it very hard for others to confuse you.

SpaceTime

No appology necessary.

Good luck

SpaceTime

What did you think of Quantum Inertia Hypothesis?

Life is really not that complicated. The answer is much simpler..

Signed

SpaceTime

Hi QuickSilver,

AtomicMX offered to assist with electromagnetic formula's etc, maybe take him up on his offer.

Good luck with your research.

Signed

SpaceTime

Taught proper english in England, born in Birmingham UK, Harbour has a U in it.

SpaceTime

Hi QickSilver,

At no time did I ever question your excellent inquisitive mind, the answers you seek may not all yet have been printed in the formulas of the science books.

There is an excellent foundation available in the current text books, but keep your mind asking questions. There are many conflicting theories floating around and it is difficult to always know what is true or false.

The scientist of the world needs to have a questioning and open mind, and a lifetime to work in. Keep asking and be carefull of what people tell you, learn to think and question for yourself.

Use Google for example in the search window start your seach query with

define:xxxxx with xxxxx being what you want defined

I appologise if you feel that I may have been out of line, I just tried to keep the conversations honest.

Signed

SpaceTime

speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second

The one that physics aims to describe?

Exactly.

Signed

SpaceTime

Hi Klaynos,

I realise the classical model is incomplete, but the quantum model is basically a working mathematical model only. This quantum model is an atomic model, which is composed of pure electrical particles but does not conform to classical electrical laws, to me this is suspicious and suggests that we may have overlooked something in the classical model.

This is why I am also going to discuss the motion of the proton and the electron.

All the current atomic models are primarily based on a near stationary nucleus or in a hydrogen atom a stationary proton. This is the fundamental failure of the current atomic models.

Wether the electron is a particle or not is not under dispute here, it still has mass.

I respect that you are a physics master student.

I have been studying physics for more than twenty years, also a qualifield electronics technician, currently working in research and development in the area of electromagnetics, and at times I feel I know nothing.

Signed

SpaceTime

He means that at close proximity (close enough that you'll be using AU-atomic units rather than cm or meters), the gravitation force is negligible compared to the electromagnetic or strong forces. Just try using the simple force equations (columb's law vs gravitation force equation), and see what ways more at sub nano scales.

Tell me what the internal atomic wavelengths of a simple hydrogen atom is expected to be if it is travelling at 600,000 meters per second through the universe?

Some of us live in the real world.

Signed

SpaceTime

This was the failure of the classical model it should have an electron that radiated but didn't. For this reason the quantum model was then developed.

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 velocity then?

Signed

SpaceTime

Island,

Please learn to spell, I had to read you several times to properly understand what you were trying to say..

Where did the volume come from, and isn,t a vacuum just the absence of gas atoms, what created the volume in the first place? the empty space in your head? Come how can the universe come from nothing and go back to nothing or are you clutching at straws here?

Relax Island, this is a very contraversial subject and I do have an open mind. Do You?

If somebody says jump off the Sydney harbour bridge like the rest of us, remember you don't have to do it, You do have a mind of your own, and you are entitled to use it.

Thanks for your comments anyway.

Signed

SpaceTime

The viewpoint that the universe is expanding may not need to be the case at all, it may be an illusion created by our universal motion.

This is similar to optically looking through a telescope, if you look through the correct way everything looks magnified, turn it around and everything looks smaller than it is.

Space-time is the carrier of all light and gravity can create a lense effect for light.

Maybe looking in the direction of where we came from, everything seems to come from a single point, and when we look into the direction of where we are going maybe everything looks infinately large.

This viewpoint is more likely to be realistic than, the viewpoint where we all miraculously exploded out of a pinhead. For this reason my mind still remains open in this area.

Maybe space-Time is not expanding but just in motion, giving us the illusion of an expanding universe.

I am interested in you comments..

Signed

SpaceTime

No I agree it hasn't been proved, but it also hasn't been disproved, something had happened to stir this man to do this research, and I believe he did the best in his own way, for that research effort I developed a respect him, he had the guts to report his findings.

The Pride issue was not directed at you at all, But the report on this mans work may also be flawed, or prejudised, biased by the reporters own belief.

If you believe in something you seek the knowledge of it, and if you seek the knowledge you eventually find it.

People can be very cynical about other peoples success, this is usually based from a form of jealousy.

The area of scientific research and acheivement is the most difficult to receive a fair unbiased hearing in, pride and prejudice are never very far away.

Signed

SpaceTime

The church didn't agree with Galileo when he said the earth as a planet circles the sun and the earth was not the centre of the universe, but the church leaders full of self pride where wrong and Galileo was right.

We need to always have an open mind to avoid crucifying each other.

Signed

SpaceTime

Much of the technical information available suggests that a velocity of about 600,000 meters per second is the correct value (http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/astronomy/expandinguniverselecture.html), as our galaxy is travelling toward the great attractor and not 360,000 meters per second.

As for the galactic spin value 220,000 225,000 and 232,000 are being suggested, I am unsure of where I can find the most accurate value.

Signed

SpaceTime

The reference I am considering is from the source of the big bang which could be in a way percieved as the source of absolute zero, the start of everything.

Signed

SpaceTime

Hi Gem8717,

The universe is far from dead, it is vibrantly alive just as you are. The earth and all planets are bonded into solar systems bound to their suns, and these solar systems are bonded into groups of billions forming galaxies.

All this bonding is achieved by a clear transparent fluid of energy force (commonly called gravity), and because people cannot see this transparent fluid energy with their eyes, space is often considered as being empty space when infact this is not true.

Many years ago very careful measurements were done such that the weight of a human being was measured at the actual time of death. It was found that the weight of the body reduced by approximately half an ounce at the immediate time of death.

This reduced weight indicated that some of the body mass was released somehow at the time of death (possibly the mass consisted of the spirit energy).

This experiment was repeated many times as they tried to confirm what was happening, and every time repeatedly at the point of death the weight of the body reduced by about the same value. The drawn conclusion was that the spirit must have a small amout of mass and is released.

The scripture also refers to this universal transparent energy force as the living waters, and along with Jesus walking on water to draw your attention to gravity energy, much can be learned from scripture.

Rest assured much is not known about the ways of the universe, nevertheless man is very persistant and if his own self pride does not blind him he will one day understand all things as does his father (God) who wants to teach you, his children.

Look on the brighter side of life and walk in the knowledge of the light of this world, the living waters, (gravity).

Hope this helps you.

Signed

SpaceTime

What is the universal velocity of the solar system?

Do we have exact values for galactic velocity and galactic spin at the position of the solar system, and from this what would be the mean velocity for the solar system?

Signed

SpaceTime

The Bohr model predicts classical' date=' circular orbits for the electrons, and they don't do this. It fails to predict a lot of behavior as well. It does get the energy spacing right, for the principle quantum numbers, in Hydrogen-like systems.

 

Atoms fail using classical models because classical models fail under quantum conditions - classical electro-mechanics is not complete.

 

Charges in motion do create magnetic fields. So does spin. The use of "opposite" requires some context that you haven't provided.[/quote']

I agree that electrons do not follow circular orbits but disagree with your statement re the reason for the failure of classical models.

 

The Classical model was replaced by the quantum theory model because of the apparent lack of electromagnetic radiation detected from the orbiting electron which could not be explained and the classical model predicted this electromagnetic radiation should happen.

 

The opposite referred to in the last statement meant that if I moved a proton in the same direction as an electron then the magnetic fields produced would be opposite and out of phase and concequentially repulsive, you aggree with this?

 

Signed

SpaceTime

No, gravity is pretty much insignificant on the atomic level.

Then if gravity is so insignicant how can gravity change the velocity and direction of all atomic matter?, and obviously the internal functions of the atomic matter?

Signed

SpaceTime

Hi Rebel,

Thanks for the definate clarification. Could you extend to me one more courtesy, or anyone else who may know.

If we used the previous example as the mean angular velocity for earth in its orbit around the sun and then wanted to include the earths daily spin angular velocity

( i.e. spin velocity / equatorial radius = 462.9 kms / 6378000 km ) so as to enable us to obtain a combined mean resultant angular velocity value.

What would you suggest as being the correct approach, is it as simple as:

Resutant angular velocity = (earth angular velocity / solar angular velocity)

And would the answer be, in meters per second or hertz?

Thanks in advance

SpaceTime

Hi Swansont,

You say the Bohr model is fundamentally wrong why? I think there is a lot of uncertainty in what you are actually saying.

Why does the atom not function using classical electrical mechanics?

An electron or proton in motion produces opposite magnetic fields is this correct?

Signed

SpaceTime

It's all to do with exchange particles. Each type of force has its own exchange particle. I can't think of a decent way to describe it' date=' but the nuclear force has the gluon exchange particle - quarks exchange this particle and because of it they're stuck together with the nuclear force. For the electromagnetic force (which is what keeps electrons in their associated energy levels) the proton is an exchange particle. As for the Bohr radius - the particles will only exchange within a certain distance of each other.

 

That was a pretty lame description, but I've only had the experience of A-level two years ago There's a much better explanation here.

But the exchange particles, are they not mythical like the graviton which has not yet been found.

Signed

SpaceTime

Hi Dapthar,

Thanks for the quick response. The information you supplied is not nescessary the answer I was looking for.

If I divide the orbital circumference with the orbital velocity then this would give the frequency in Hertz?

But the two vectors of the orbital velocity and the radius length are 90 degrees out of phase, surely then the answer is eqivalent to Hertz / 2pi ?

From this perpective what am I actually calculating? is it angular velocity for the frequency?

Signed

SpaceTime