Olorin

The hole in the ozone layer is, for starters, in the wrong hemisphere. Population, industry and land surface area testify to that. Chloroform Ch3Cl doesn't burn, Carbon Tetrachloride CCl4 was used as a fire extinguisher until people died when it formed phosgene gas COCl2 with hot iron, which gas was used in WWI to kill enemy troupes, but causing continuing problems much as agent orange has for veterans. Phosgene is still used to create insecticides and herbicides. Poison dart frog toxins are chlorofluorocarbons or CFC's. Carbon Tetrachloride was also discovered to cause instant fatal renal failure, while sold as dry cleaning fluid. The common factor in these deaths was alcohol in the blood of the victims, and it was banned. The claim that the ozone layer is leached by CFC's, even supplying some supposed chemical equations, seems unlikely. Class actions may have been threatening, besides the inability of natural processes to remove them from the environment, where they concentrate up the food chain. Ozone is a powerful oxidising agent. The solar wind consists of protons and electrons and the protons head south. They are oxidised by ozone O3 and even by ordinary oxygen O2, creating water missing an electron. This discharges slowly, or by producing red meeting the discharging green electrons rising in aurora Australis, or as red sprites drawn by lightning strikes (electrons rising) and manifesting above storm clouds. Borealis is normally green as electrons descend to earth. Possibly the current here implied contributes to the earth's shifting magnetic field. In these ways our planet's waters have grown from scanty puddles and seasonal springs as on Mars today. The traces of water on Venus is tied up as fuming sulrhuric acid (H2SO4 + nSO3), formed by the instability of sulphates at the temperatures of Venus. Had the oceans of Venus and Mars been blown away by the solar wind as often claimed, there would be no such phenomena on either of these worlds. Our seas continue to grow, and have been since cyannobacteria evolved 3800 MYA, Our ocean basins continue to grow and multiply. The state of this equilibrium is responsible for the great climatic changes through the Neolithic and Cenozoic Ages.

dthor68: Does anyone ever question Pangaea? It seem as plausible as Plate Subduction Tectonics, which implies that Everests and Matterhorns should be popping up all over the Pacific. Both Pangea and Plate Subduction are fabrications designed to explain a constant Earth radius. This has been refuted by UNESCO which, following James Maxlow's Earth Expansion Tectonics Theory, has compiled a Geological Map of The World at great expense. The evidence of this mapping proves that the Earth has doubled its radius over tha last 180 million years, and at an exponentially increasing rate, with the mid-ocean ridges located at the most recently laid down basalt. The ocean basins are nothing but basalt no older than 180 MY. Magnetic orientation, correlated with fossil evidence of the Earth's magnetic pole location over time, has been used for the dating. The continents jigsaw into a globe of the right size, with a piece missing in the Pacific area. The reason for this requires a discussion that could be a thread called The Anomalous Moon.

World Champion 1996 Kasparov drew a six game match against IBM's "Deep Blue" 200 core computer. In 1997 Karparov lost against same. From that time on the World Computer Chess Championships became the battleground for computers alone, which may have been considered invincible to human players. "Crafty GUI" is free on the net and can be easily beaten...if you use the slider to dumb it down, give it a ludicrous time to move, and accept the human privilege of ignoring your own loss on time, while backtracking tactical and strategic errors ad nauseum until its enemy king falls. Eventually a compute + coding called "Stockfish" lost to another called "Jonny Chess" manufactured and programmed in The Netherlands, and employing 2400 cores to win the WCCC, but was disqualified on protest by the former team. Result - an 8 core limit was set for entrants. This effectively hobbles to field, and possibly means that the World Champion is no longer "Deep Blue". Should the current World Chess Champion challenge the WCCC winner with hope of victory? How could this be arranged. Presumably a sizable stake would be required with great promise of financial gain to media people at least. A resurgence of interest in chess is also likely - akin to the 1972 Fischer vs Spassky match in Reykjavik 1972, when the Ruskies lost the long held crown. Any thoughts? Of extreme interest is this - WCCC entrants now rely on coding excellence to win, with spin-offs to other similar areas of AI again with great promise for our increasingly complex world. Analogous coding problems are not difficult to imagine. Hopefully, Neuronet processors, Skynet and Terminators, or "Running Man" reality TV shows (Stephen King alias Bachman book, Arnold Schwarzenegger Movie) remain fictitious.

John Cuthbert said: "It might be a good idea if you learned some maths- at least the sort that is available on a 2$ pocket calculator- before you set out to disprove physics." I need to learn how to reply to posts. Concerning some of physics, and even some of what passes for mathematics, there are some serious doubts. For instance: E^2 = m^2.c^4 + c^2.p^2 This relation is used to derive the square root of both sides, which by ignoring "NaN" terms (computer shprack for “indeterminate”) at least implies that the derived relation quoted as complete requires a plus or minus sign before the square root sign as is normally done by mathematicians. Seems to me that negative mass or negative energy are implied, as well as the accepted positive, and the NaN terms imply what pair production evidences, matter IS energy in a stable form, BUT ONLY as four distinct particles with negating mirror images. Is it so difficult to conceive a possibly complete symmetry plus complete conservation to photons, and a Universal status quo through recycling? A Steady State Theory was also Einstein’s quest, but antiphotons came in too late. The so called "evidence" of both "quarks" and "asymmetric matter-antimatter reaction" is unconvincing, but so is the existence of neutrons in the nucleus, rather than protons bound by electron flux with apprpopriate wavelength. These are ejected or smashed out in a plethora of combinations, containing various energies, and sporting at best a 10.3 minute half-life. The relation supplied by John Cuthbert properly stated seems to maintain conservation since all manifestations exists zero-sum, very obviously in pair production, and completed with the potential energy above the relative singularity (E = m0.c^2). The problem is the erroneous Gravitational monopole, the preposterous nuclear neutron and its necessary entourage of unbelievable reasons why all that positive charge can live happily ever after, our explanation of Universal expansion and the LACK thereof for ACCELERATION, again with an entourage of anomaly quenching hypotheses (phlogistons). The gravitational monopole apparent within our unique galaxy, where antimatter annihilates, is akin to Euclidean Mechanics, which fell to the constancy of c, which universal expansion made manifest (“Light” has a constant speed c regardless of the velocity of the source. This was Einstein’s postulate and clue to the required induction of Relativity). Emanuel Lasker and Albert Einstein argued for eight years in Bern, Switzerland on this issue. E.M. maintained that time & space were absolute, and that if a true vacuum existed anywhere in the Universe, light speed would be infinite there. EL could not accept the space-time implication, which AE said only about 8 people could understand. EL escaped Hitler going to Russia. They became the masters of Chess until Bobby Fischer 1972. Einstein went to the US. They became the masters of the (atomic) military-industrial complex for s short time. In the eyes of the world it took an Atom Bomb to settle the question AE and EL varied on, not to mention a world war to promote the $2 billion cost. Given that we are all happy with Einstein now, why are we accepting the initial velocity of the Universal material as Hubble proposed, which is thousands of times light speed? Einstein obviously couldn’t. By m = m0/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), the materialising mass is imaginary in every sense of the word? But by my hypotheses (I claim no more) the Universe could have reaches its present status quo beginning as “Light”, which ancient traditions maintained, possibly from the source Plato recorded in “Critias and Timaeus”, and Aristotle denounced. Before 1945, about a dozen people had any clue about Relativity, and the Gadget remained top secret since 1939. It was created on Einstein’s suggestion IN CASE Hitler got if first, as evidenced by Hitler’s activities in Czechoslovakia (a uranium source), and Hitler should prove Einstein correct, gaining Global domination by sheer force! These facts alone suggest that certain knowledge may easily cause the usurping of Global Power.

This relation is derived taking the square root of both sides of the source, which implies that the derived relation quoted requires a plus or minus sign before the square root sign. Seems to me that negative mass or negative energy are implied, as well as the accepted positive. It also seems to maintain conservation since all manifestations exists zero-sum. This becomes anomalous with our new species of neutrinos, as is assymetry and the gravitational monopole manifest in our unique galaxy where no antimatter can exist very long, without mentioning the initial velocity velocity of the matter as Hubble proposed, which is thousands of times light speed, which by m = m0/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) is imaginary in every sense of the word.

Thanks for supplying so many replies to my wild conjectures. Let respond in order: "1/0 <> infinity. It is undefined." Q. How many times can you take 0 from 1 before you get zero? A. Infinity. (you will never stop subtracting. The tally will grow indefinitely.) Q. How many times can you take 0 from 0 before you get zero? A. Indeterminate. (0 is correct. 1 is correct. 2 is correct. pi is correct. &c.) Q. What is the reciprocal of infinity? 0/1 = 0. How do you tackle subatomic physics without mathematics, even arithmetic? Mathematics alone stands sacrosanct (IDEAS AND OPINIONS, Geometry and Experience, pp 232). Mathematics is correct. It implies 8 dimensions, 4 real, and 4 imaginary. i such that i^2 = -1 strangely completes the real numbers. Quite possibly an electric field vector for every point in space-time x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = t^2 describes eternity with the present t = 0 nonnegotiable in the flesh. Time and space have no definition without an observer, and are incomplete alone, while they define every physical entity, even mass given a standard, E.g. proton rest mass (mp). Is the observer matter/energy or pure consciousness? The body is matter, part of the present, which we have stated in different words cannot be independent of the observer. What then is the observer? Consciousness? Can scientists define it? Can computers create it? Some say it is primordial, the first cause that Ancient Egyptians called "Amen". It remains in your court to decide. Q. The full energy-momentum relation (which is simply the relationship between the temporal and spatial parts of the 4-momentum vector) is: E = m^2.c^4 + c^2.p^2 (sic.) For massive particles at rest you have p=0 and thus E=mc2 For photons you have m=0, and thus E=pc A. You mean: E^2 = m^2.c^4 + c^2.p^2 for the check mark, presumably, or the rest does not follow. This only supports my conjecture that a neither the "light" quantum NOR the neutrino its own antiparticle. Implied for non-mass entities (neutrinos have flip-flopped too many times for confidence in current Mainstream opinion, and even redeployed as, not one but three, quarks. Do you wonder at my scepticism? Initially, Mainstream conjecture held that neutrinos were massless/speed c which is none or both, and explained the range of energies of Beta rays): E = c.p and E = -c.p noting that E is no vector. Furthermore, "light" frequency (f0) in an observer's gravitational field strength, is transformed with changing mass density, as: f = f0.(1 - G.m/r.c^2)..............................................(i) This, of course determines the gravitational field strength at the singularity, the point where time stops and space disappears. The density yielding: G.m/r.c^2 = 1 produces a "light" frequency of zero. However, as this thread conjectures, "light" rays are a two way street. An "electro-magnetic-gravitational" wave is actually produced, travelling in opposite directions, one producing phenomena presumed to support the "light" quanta hypothesis due Einstein, the other the neutrino. These quanta may represent reaction time for various processes like electron-emission. Their combined energies represent, contrary to current Mainstream thought, that required for particle-antiparticle production if they mutually "annihilate". As such, and consistent with tis thread's view of Gravity as the General Relativity force akin to the Special Relativity force called Magnetism, the frequency (f) is dependent on the signed mass type (m). So relation (i) spells out that, while the (relative) photon approaches the event horizon at the singularity of the mass maintaining it, the neutrino assumes the energy lost by the photon. All the energy is transferred to the repelled (relative) neutrino. Of course, whether mass or quanta are positive is Relative to the observer, or in relation (i), the sign of m. The "Asymmetric Matter-Antimatter" hypothesis needs to be reconsidered. Throughout this model of the Universe, conservation is zero sum and fully maintained. Similarly, atoms or their constituents can not continue to exist in no space or time but instantly evaporate as the "antilight", and pass through the galaxy material unimpeded, but concentrated toward the normal of the galaxy plane (E.g. galaxy M82 displays resultant materialisation). Worse still, subatomic physics needs revision concerning neutrons in the nucleus. Deuterium has accordingly two protons "covalently" bonded by a relativistic electron. Ordinary hydrogen may display unusual mass and weight values without, a reason for the massive size of Elliptical galaxies. Relativistic nuclear electrons forming the binding flux between protons, and thus harbouring the binding energy, explains the Universal Gravitational Dipole, the stability of isotopes, the strangeness of Technetium, the accelerating universal expansion, and the huge question marks (together with quarks, to my mind) over "meson forces" and finally, the God Particle. Science has allowed "phlogistons" to proliferate and stall progress, or Mainstream is posturing to maintain covert intellectual property beyond suspicion. Before you say it, Einstein was also a "Conspiracy Theorist" before the term forced Scientific Goose Stepping as an alternative to labelling and marginalisation. It may be that all force is one force, and the sub-atomic physics here conjectured explains how. Unexplained is mp = 1830.me. This magic number, to whatever precision necessary, may be required to bring the Universe as we know it into manifestation. Genuine scientists, the ilk of Albert Einstein (1879-1955), seek understanding despite the social environment (IDEAS AND OPINIONS, The World as I See It, pp 10-11 "This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of herd life, ... I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvellous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."). It may also be as much a coincidence as the first free living cytoplasm + DNA assembling in the tiny puddles forming on early Earth, bringing forth cyanobacteria, oxygen and the first rains 3800 MYA. To my mind, a loris, possibly our earliest terrestrial ancestor, has a better chance of trouncing the World Chess Champion by sheer mimicry. For those who think about these alternative postulates without relying on prejudice, some answers at least may begin their evolution with this effort.

The rest mass of the photon is zero. This is multiplied by 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = 1/0 = infinity if v = c. 0 times infinity comes up as indeterminate when mathematics cannot resolve the expression. There are plenty of photons passing us whose source we cannot determine. For argument's sake, only an observer can determine one such photon's frequency and hence its energy, while another moving relative to the first will assign that photon a different frequency. I am not terribly sure just who should be wearing a dunce cap here. I do know this. 1. Truth can only be established transiently on the basis of a consistent set of facts. 2. New information can threatened that set at any time by rendering it inconsistent. 3. There are few who can claim that they have questioned the information they have acquired from so-called authorities at best. 4. Einstein questioned the existence of space, time, the 'Ancient One', and the account of the Gospels. He came away only believing the last two were real, contrary to popular opinion which is sufficient authority to most. 5. What credentials establish one as wiser still, do you think? QED.

You reply is appreciated. If "the quantum of energy is determined by environmental factors which set the potential energy levels available to the system", how then can we speak of a "quantum" of "light" as though it were a particle. Obviously, a cosmic ray proton can have the energy of a cricket ball from a fast bowler, but the kinetic energy of the proton or electron has two terms, a constant value of mp = 1.6726219 × 10-27 or me = mp/1830 kilograms independent of its relative velocity, (the well known E = m0.c^2 usually quoted without the 0), and the second term which is totally dependent on relative v. The "photon" has, for its first term, zero times infinity, an indeterminate quantity. The second term implies that it represents the total energy, resolving the first term as zero. All of the energy of the "photon" is determined by the v of the mass it interacts with. This to my mind is NOT a particle, but pure force alone. Somehow, the "light" interacts with what seems to be the fundamental particles of matter (as defined before, electrons & protons, of which all other non-zero rest mass particles appear to be combines with energy). Suspiciously, the neutrino seems not to be endowed with the ability to interact with matter at all. Any interactions attributed to neutrinos with matter may well be properly attributed to the extremely rare manifestations of antimatter particles created by gamma ray materialization as pair production (E.g. from gamma ray bursts, radioactive decay, &c.) It seems a likely and necessary symmetry that, while "photons" convex lens around black holes, "antiphotons" must concave lens instead, and we being matter, not antimatter, only see the "light". If "antiphotons" and neutrinos are one and the same thing, and gravity a dipole like every other force (as "white holes" + "black holes" and thus E = m.c^2 is potential energy with m signed), we have solved the universal expansion (with the attendant acceleration to boot) theory Einstein could not. The antiproton was discovered too late, but he dabbled unsuccessfully in a steady state theory, and could only tell Hubble about the expansion without a cause, that Hubble so kindly provided his mentor. Direct current creates a magnetic field. Small v and huge q unbalance negative flux by space contraction. Alternating current produces "light". A second component of imbalance creates, by general instead of special relativity, gravitational force. "Light" bends toward the Sun. Circular motion is also acceleration, implying that both shell and relativistic nuclear electrons produce gravitational force likewise. With all charges reversed, matter and antimatter galaxies or clusters would experience G forces in opposite directions. Dark matter phlogiston is thereby unnecessary for galactic cluster formation, with repulsive forces now substituting for the missing mass. Lastly, were "light" in fact "electro-magnetic-gravitational" energy, involving the left hand rule significantly in matter vs antimatter reactions, then light rays travel in both directions from a source, and convert at the singularity, passing through the surrounding matter/antimatter without effect. This explains also gamma ray bursts, Hoag's object, Centaurus A and lastly Messier 82 with its hydrogen generation perpendicular to the plane of the Galaxy, besides the accelerating universe yet awaiting the next phlogiston. Why are we not asking "What the hell is happening to all of those neutrinos from Hubble's constant to now? What is their purpose or fate? Einstein said that, unless the universal density arbitrarily tends to zero with distance, it is unbounded but finite (maybe something like the three dimensional surface of a four dimensional sphere, where time is the fourth dimension graphed beyond our 3D minds as x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = t^2. If so, the space is filling up fast. Have they really turned into quarks? The neutrinos of their first inception might be used to explain dark matter in desperation. But symmetry and conservation seem to be a necessary design fundamental. In intergalactic space alone, where no net matter or antimatter exist, photons and neutrinos may well annihilate by materialization as rarefied and virtually non-interacting particles, forming the separating hydrogen and antihydrogen to supply galactic coronas or replenish the universe with massive ellipticals, drawing swarms of dead galaxies to become globular clusters by the thousands. In the Milky Way about 150 remain undissipated.

A serious question puzzles me. Light is described as electro-magnetic energy. It is also described as quantized with each quantum having energy proportional to its frequency, yielding Planck's constant as the proportionality factor. But unlike the proton or electron (& their antiparticles), which have a specific rest mass, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation IS light in some reference frame at a particular range of relative velocities. For brevity I shall call it all "light" so quoted. Is the quantum if "light" an abstraction without a specific mass/energy, unlike the above mentioned particles? It seems to me to be like account books (or bytes) as opposed to actual money, which is the materializable "hard" cash in the bank. E = m.c^2 for particles, m being rest mass, but "photons" seem to have no such identity, sticking religiously to speed c to avoid an identity crisis by never resting, and so claiming zero "rest mass". Perhaps Einstein was aware that the "light" quantum was a very relative abstraction, denouncing "quantum theory" as progressively more laughable with each elaboration. It may be that the disturbance in the electric field, "THE FORCE" has a finite time to interact decisively with an electron to force emission from a charged plate, which determines the energy that can be imparted or absorbed, or else the "photon" is re-emitted somewhat apparently "slowed" by the medium in question. We may be dealing with another "phlogiston" theory, and the only real quanta are the subatomic particles which do not spontaneously decompose. Even the neutron has a 10.3 minute half life, and is the most stable outside the nucleus. All, in fact, decompose into the stable particles, energy ( ? accounting information of "THE FORCE" ? ), and the suspicious fabricated phlogiston we called a neutrino to explain beta ray energies. But that is another story.