Complexity

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

If you know this, then you must have evidence. If so, post it in your next response.

 

They offered me a job doing this  and learned me how to do neurological modulation and read specialist code . I have a bank transfer receipt that proves  the link . 

I believe , know , that there is machine code and a group of people , that use online neurological manipulation to promote terror , murder etc .

Now this must be correct ! 

30 minutes ago, studiot said:

Actually I blame (at least partly) the current vogue to  reduce the Maths to things like this

Gαβ=Tαβ     (Baez on GR)

H(ψ)=E(ψ)     (Hamiltonian formulation of Schroedinger equation)

Those who have truly studied this stuff know that this is very shorthand hiding a multiplicity of equations and other stuff you would need to perform any actual calculations.

But it leads others to think you can just write energy = whatever.

 

 

Does that say gravity A to B equals Tensor A to B  ? 

16 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

For your math that is correct.  Not so much for the rest of the world.

Well actually since a while back when I wrote that I've considered changing it and trying to define that in solely energy terms . 

In my present model that would read 

E=-E+E/R^3 =0

Which explains everything that exists . 

20 minutes ago, Eise said:

 

LOL. Everything is wrong with your physics.

My physics at least is my own physics and not just a repeat of  others !

c is falling regardless of what Maxwell or others said . 

Newton was correct about apples and they fall in a straight line  as do falling photons . 

I wish somebody would seriously help with the math . 

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

 

For example, this does not have the same units as force, so it cannot be a valid expression for force.

Ok, the attractive  force in the scenario manifold comes from the -E  

How would you present that in math ? 

21 minutes ago, Eise said:

Strange, do not feed the troll...

'Complexity' has shown not to understand any physics and math at all. And he doesn't want to learn, so what is the use?

I'm not very good at math , not a troll .  There is nothing wrong with my physics . 

39 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

1.There is no such thing as a "tensor force".

2.There is no force causing the expansion of the universe. (In the same way that gravity is not a force.)

3.You don't have any math. You have meaningless collections of symbols.

I could  never hope to win an argument against moderators but all the same I'll attempt it !

Who says there is no tensor force ? 

Don't you mean that nobody as yet discovered or written a scientific paper on a tensor force ? 

Gravity is quite clearly a force  , the force that keeps things on the ground .  

My math means nothing to you is the correct statement , the reason is because you don't understand it and are not willing to attempt to understand it . An equivalent to aliens visiting the earth and you telling them their math is meaningless just because you personally don't get it . Likewise I see some of your math seems meaningless .  

My math on force etc is based on negative energy -E 

Where all +E is attracted to -E 

Consider a 4 dimensional manifold  X,Y,Z and E 

Consider at the center of the manifold is a single point -E

How would you describe in math  the +E of the manifold volume being attracted to the single  -E point in a centripetal isotropic manner ? 

Linear algebra ? 

I have so far :

-Ec^3 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I would say it is the other way round: the voltage of the battery could be considered (rather inaccurately) as a force that pushes electrons (from the negative terminal) and pulls electrons (to the positive terminal) hence generating a current. The current flows through the motor: some of the energy of the current is converted to  kinetic energy of the fan (and the air it moves), some is converted to heat.

I would caution you against trying to interpret absolutely everything in terms of force though. Not everything is caused by forces. (In GR, gravity is not a force, for example.)

 

And, once again, your "mathematics" is a meaningless collection of symbols.

You may be correct about my math but I really do understand the nature of forces and the physical aspects involved .  Mass curves space-time  energy towards it with a linear force of gravity .  I disagree , force is everything more or less . 

The tensor force that is expanding our universe is slightly stronger than the tensor force that holds it together . A tensor force creates linear field lines  and mass gravitational force curves these lines to create space-time curvature . 

Consider a taught bed sheet that was being supported in each corner , then drop an iron ball in the middle of the sheet so the sheet become slightly concave and curved downwards . 

The force that creates the curve is the gravity linear force pulling down on the iron ball . If there were no gravity ''under the sheet''  , the sheet wouldn't concave as the iron ball would have no weight to cause effect on the form of the taught sheet . 

P.s People don't want to try and understand my math . Any ''negative'' point of space has gravitational force . 

9 minutes ago, Eise said:

 

So the answer is: none. The only force is that coming from the potential difference between the two poles of the battery.

 

So the answer is not none then because you state there is a force and it is the force between the two poles .  I assume you mean the + and -  signs . 

So in essence you are saying a circuit is made !

Ok ,  can you tell me why a battery will go flat over a period of time when not being used ? 

Where does the charge go and by what force ? 

In my hand I have a 7.5v battery off a RC car that I've been attaching to a fan in a test of aerodynamics . 

The  thought occurred that the battery in my hand retains a charge and the charge retains for a lengthy period . 

Now when I attach the fan connection and my blades start to revolve , I considered that there is now a current flowing from my battery to the fan , A to B 

Can you please tell me what force the fan is applying on my battery that creates an inflow of energy , extracting the energy from my battery ?

F(X) = ? 

F is force 

X is vector 

a = charge 

b=wire and fan 

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Right. So you need to learn, too.

It is not an equation (clue: there is no equals sign). All it says is that F is less than E, without saying what F or E are.

That is bollox.

Yes I do need to learn and I am always willing to learn . 

c=F<E

Force , energy and the speed of EMR traversing through a vacuum . 

If a cold volume doesn't attract energy then how do things reach room temperature ? 

My chicken that is defrosting tells me otherwise ! 

18 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

No. 

Consider the following claim. Do you see that it seems to predict gravity to be negative? Instead of objects falling down on earth they should be ejected into space? Do you understand why?

So either your claims are incorrect or very poorly worded. In either case that is not a good alternative to a few pages of physics and/or a good teacher.

 

Gravity is a negative ! 

There is a difference within an atmosphere and in space . There is also a difference of how a body influences bodies  over distances . 

Obviously things don't fly off the earth because of inertia  and the gravitational force is stronger at ground level  . 

I agree a good teacher and a few pages is great also but for a basic introduction into math  and physics my math does explain c . I am  highly confident that the force = less energy positions  

1 minute ago, Strange said:

And yet another example of you thinking that you know more than you do.

That is not mathematics. It is the meaningless combination of three symbols. None of your "mathematics" made any sense for this reason; it was incoherent nonsense. You can't just throw random symbols on the page and say "see, math!"

 

By insisting that there must be a force, you are rejecting the existing explanations - without even studying and understanding them.

You are correct I do not completely understand ''your'' math on light but neither did you or anybody else until they learnt the math . 

However , you say my equation is meaningless without learning what it means . 

Let me try to explain , my math  teaches somebody a physical process that removes the need for pages and pages of education learning the physics process . It doesn't give and is not meant to give units and values .  The result my math gives is an understanding of the actual physical process . 

I describe the momentum of light is because there is an applied force of attraction , this force being a sate of being <E . 

When I described F=<E 

That is showing the physical process , a physical reason for all spatial motion . 

I am not talking bollox when we know a cold volume attracts heat . 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

No. Another example of where you think you know things, but don't realise how little you know.

c is a constant (299,792,458 m/s). It is the speed of light (and anything massless) in a vacuum. 

Maxwell's equations tell us how and why a changing electric current (for example) generates electromagnetic waves that propagate at c. (But you reject this: because it involves mathematics and large amounts of evidence).

GR also tells us why anything massless must travel at c. (But you reject this: because it involves mathematics and large amounts of evidence).

 

I don't reject this !

I am talking something different than that , force . 

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you could present your ideas (in the Speculations forum) with mathematics and evidence then people might consider them. 

But you have already demonstrated you are unable to do that. So why should anyone take your wild unscientific rambling seriously?

The thread got closed , I did present the math F<E 

I'd need help to put in units and a measurement . 

13 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No.

C is "the speed of light in a vacuum".

And so  C is constant.

 

 

c is a variable passing through a medium as mediums are variable and not invariant like a vacuum . 

Isn't that true ? 

11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Quote

Because on the way A-B, why would there ever be a force involved to keep anything moving at constant speed in a straight line?

Quote

Because always ahead of the moving matter is less energy and energy always wants to make a transition from high state to low state . 

 

Quote

Do you have a reason to believe that anything (light or other) needs a "reason" to traverse from A-B at constant speed?

Inertia 

Quote

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I am suggesting you learn instead of making things up. 

You have rejected all the answers you have been given (because they don’t math your fairy tales)

I haven't rejected the answers !  I deem you haven't give me an answer yet to my question . 

I asked pull or push !

Was told neither in answer !

Do you wan't me to believe that light traverses from A to B for no reason at all ? 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have rejected the given physical reasons 

No I haven't !  All that you've said is that it is emitted . 

Then when I ask for the physics involved in emissions you tell me there is no force , push or pull .  How can something emit with no push or pull ? 

I suggested there is a force of attraction involved to anything that has <E 

Are you not willing to consider and discuss my suggestion which at least attempts to answer the question ? 

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

 

Problem is you are asking us to move back! Should we revisit Aether and Phlogiston as well?

 

Yes you most definite revisit aether but when considering the aether , also consider the semantics and what an aether actually is . 

We on earth are within the earths  electromagnetic field , when we transmit a signal we are effectively transmitting EMR through the electromagnetic field . 

We could consider the earths EMF an aether if we consider semantics differently in relationship to aether . 

What is an aether ? 

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Neither. 

 

Not pull !

Not push!

You must be suggesting by magic then which is an inappropriate answer to somebody who wants the physics answer . 

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

But science moved on and this early forerunner to the modern understanding of the photon was replaced. Corpuscles theory didn't explain refraction and interference for instance.

This is one of the main problems I've found with science , they seem to have stopped moving on ! 

Isn't understanding and advancing science suppose to be a scientists fundamental goals ? 

I personally hate incomplete answers and to me the explanation that light travels at c with no given physical reason is seriously incomplete physics . 

Refraction and interference are reactions of light when it encounters something , it is not the same thing as light traversing through free space . 

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Bollocks. Anyone can use calorimeter to measure amount of energy required to melt piece of ice..

Perhaps so ! 

Ice is not really the subject though although I do see the density argument . 

Are you aware of super conductor levitation?

12 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Ice is exception from this rule. Water in solid state has smaller density than in liquid state. Sorry, could not resist..

I've a different thought on ice for you .  

What if an iceberg floats because it is has more energy per volume measure than water and is attracted upwards towards the <E of the stratosphere making it seem more buoyant ? 

8 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

 

Since c is a constant it can't change under the influence of a force so it wouldn't tell you if that force was there- that' idea is just silly.

 

 

 

c is only constant in a vacuum ! When light passes through a medium the permeability of the medium provides an opposing force to light and slows light down . 

To say c can't change under the influence of force is just silly when we know about medium effects and permeability .  

Quote

a quantity measuring the influence of a substance on the magnetic flux in the region it occupies

9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

 

Simply because any such force would, by now, have been noticed.

Isn't the force noticed by the speed of c ? 

Perhaps the force hasn't been noticed because nobody as considered a force contributing to  lights momentum before ? 

How could anyone notice something if they aren't looking for it ?

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

Photons are emited by matter and eventually absorbed by matter, reflected or diffused, or refracted. There are other types of interactions at higher energies..

Blackbody radiation depends on temperature of body.

Not always, but usually.

There are also rare up conversions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_upconversion

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_absorption

 

It is simply a matter of probability. To upconvert there are needed two or more photons with lower energies to be absorbed in very short window of time, in the right moment.. To downconvert there is needed just one photon and it is spontaneous process.

Throw a dice to get 1 of 6, versus throw two dices to get 1 and 1 in single shot. There is 6 x 6 = 36 combinations.

The word emitting is a generalized term that is without real explanation of cause . 

Google search:Emitting - produce and discharge (something, especially gas or radiation).

The answer is a shortfall to my question and upconversion takes a detour away from the question . 

Water flows down a hill because of the force of gravity !  Why can't light flow in a similar manner because of an attractive force ? 

Look at the Sun for example , the Sun itself has more energy than the surrounding space  <E  per small volume measure . 

We know by  thermodynamics that high energy is passive to less energy state objects and/or space .  We also know the ''emitted'' energy of the earlier mentioned lit candle traverses upwards towards the stratosphere where it is <E compared to within the  troposphere per small volume measure .  Again suggesting that the >E is attracted to the <E ?

Aren't objects at their most dense volume when they have less internal energy i.e cold ?

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

And you'd be wrong.
AGAIN !

If there is no answer any of you can give of why  !  How can you say I am wrong ? 

The evidence of thermodynamics and spectral emissions suggests I am correct in my thoughts .  Objects in a state of high energy always pass energy to objects in a state of less energy . My suggestion that lower energy is somehow an attractive force is not ''way out there '' over the top in imagination , based without fundamental  foundations . 

Of course I am open minded enough to accept a different answer providing there is some provided facts as I've provided .  

10 hours ago, MigL said:

That is a perfectly valid Newtonian equation.

Now substitute values in for the variables.
For light, m=mo=0  IOW it has zero rest mass because it can never be at rest.
So your perfectly valid equation, when mis-applied in the case of light or heat, gives you the non-sensical solution 0=0.

Now you're doing Physics  .
( being very sarcastic )

Can't light have infinite mass ? 

Point physics and zero point energy?

How many photons can occupy a point ? 

13 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Because it is a wavefront that radiates from the source.

 

Radiates by the cause push or pull ? 

The answer is one of the two answers offered and because of my prior light passing through glass scenario , I am swayed towards pull is the answer !  The thereafter the glass having less energy than the glass . The energy  before the glass being the flow of light and as in spectral emissions the flow can't invert as before the glass has higher energy . 

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

If you want to be stupid about it, you can consider density  in terms of physically splitting things.

If I take an apple and dice it into 1cm cubes then the number of cubes I get is (approximately) the volume of the apple.

And, I have similarly shared out all the mass of the apple among all those cubes.

The density of the apple is the average mass of each cube.

 

The question "what divides the apple?" is a bit meaningless, but as good an answer as any is "my imagination".

 

 

 

If you take an apple and dice it into equal segments or cubes , the answer to what divides the apple in this instance is, yourself divides the apple by applying force with a knife . 

You would be the ''adverb'' . 

It is a causality answer and not meaningless .  

'

Quote

If you want to be stupid about it, you can consider density  in terms of physically splitting things.

I  don't  consider it is stupid to want the  entire answer in full , I consider completeness .  We know the effect of light but we do not know at this time the cause of the speed and distribution over a volume . 

In thermodynamics high energy state objects  pass energy  to lower energy state objects . The energy traverses to the receiver , the motion isn't magic , there is an answer of why and I believe that answer is an attractive force .