kba
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kba
-
-
-
-
-
Edited by kba
On 7/25/2025 at 1:51 PM, kba said: Physical propertiy of matter is inner tension.
Inner tension is only possible if there is a structure to it, meaning it’s made if something. What’s it made of.
On 7/25/2025 at 1:51 PM, kba said: How you did read this?
Maxwell's equations are correct. Basically. )
And the divergence of the electric field is equal to the charge, meaning field lines begin and end on charges. You said they don’t disappear.
On 7/25/2025 at 1:51 PM, kba said: Please, imagine and describe new condition of matter which isn't exist in our Universe, other than movement and keeping in rest.
Now you’re moving the goalposts. You claimed “we cannot to imagine something which is absolutelly impossible in our Universe” and now you’re limiting this. Modifying it is basically an admission that your claim was bogus.
Inner tension of what? Inner tension is impossible to realized by means of structure! Tension realizes only by means of field between any particles. What structure EM field has?
Charges can disappear, converting to the field. But field never disappear. Field is a basic form of matter. Where it will disappear to? Charges is just a kind of interaction between particles, which realized by means of field.
You cannot to imagine impossible things because you haven't an analogue to do it and unreal parts to compile it. You cannot to imagine impossible things because your brain doesn't work without energy. You cannot to imagine impossible things without your brain which doesn't work independently of our Universe and its laws. Your mind uses only possible understanding processes which is: comparing, opposition, analogue, addition, subtraction, combining, interfering, separating, etc, which are applicable to material objects.
"Not exists" isn't equal to "impossible". Not existing things can be possible in some (other) conditions/places/times. But impossible things do not exist. absolutely, nowhere and never. The Universe doesn't contain something physically other than matter.
-
On 7/24/2025 at 4:37 PM, swansont said: You’re not the first person to claim this nonsense.
You’re not the first person to call this a nonsense.🙂
22 hours ago, swansont said: Plenty of science can be understood without philosophy
I talk about Physics, namely about basic principles and matter's properties. You don't need the Phylosophy to observe the Moon. 🙂
-
Edited by kba
22 hours ago, swansont said: There are plenty of crackpots who think perpetual motion can be achieved, as just one example.
As I already answered, it isn't impossible thing.
Actually, if you accept such possibility - some volume with absolutely empty space without any fields and particles as real - then perpetual motion in such volume (which equal to absolutely isolated system) is absolutely possible thing, by definition. Just drop particles into there.
Even me, who do not accept absolutelly empty space as real, consider our universe as absolutelly isolated system which is in a perpetual motion.
22 hours ago, swansont said: we can imagine impossible things.
1 hour ago, kba said: Please, imagine and describe new condition of matter which isn't exist in our Universe, other than movement and keeping in rest.
... and which not describable by this two conditions as its part(s).
-
Edited by kba
19 hours ago, swansont said: What properties does it have - angular momentum, mass, etc.?
Physical propertiy of matter is inner tension.
21 hours ago, swansont said: So fields don’t start or end on charges? Maxwell’s equations are wrong?
How you did read this?
Maxwell's equations are correct. Basically. )
21 hours ago, swansont said: we can imagine impossible things.
Please, imagine and describe new condition of matter which isn't exist in our Universe, other than movement and keeping in rest.
Or the object without form but with other kind of its representation. It would be interesting how you will describe it, by what words. 🙂
Not an abstraction which we never mean really existing. If you can do it, I will agree that you came from other universe. 😄
22 hours ago, swansont said: There are plenty of crackpots who think perpetual motion can be achieved, as just one example.
Our Universe is an evidence of this.
-
21 hours ago, studiot said: But you didn't say what you think a particle is.
So please tell us since that is crucial to your proposal.
Firstly, you didn't asked it. 🙂
I consider particles (which have mass) as form of EM field. Only such concept can explain how and why particles (electron-positron pair) converts to gamma-quants and vice versa, and how it is possible, in principle. And how particles emit EM waves and EM quants.
21 hours ago, studiot said: One further question, how does your model describe shadows ?
What are they made of ?
Shadows? ) They do not exist as material objects. And my model doesn't describes nonmaterial abstractions. 😉 Physically, you see or not see light which droped to objects and reflected by them with different values, so they look darker or lighter.
On 7/22/2025 at 9:09 PM, swansont said: So the length of travel from earth to the moon, or some distant galaxy, is made of matter?
No it didn't. Length is a property of matter.
-
Edited by kba
On 7/22/2025 at 9:09 PM, swansont said: So the length of travel from earth to the moon, or some distant galaxy, is made of matter?
You say about dimension, which is a property of matter (both space and substance). Only the matter has properties. Length dimension is one of them. Only material things can be bent, shrinked, expanded, inflated, twisted, as the space inside the dark hole or with the whole Universe.
On 7/22/2025 at 9:09 PM, swansont said: What particles comprise an electric field?
I already said that "EM field isn't a sum of some particles", thus no particles comprise it. The structure of EM field (and base of matter) is special - we cannot to break it to independent parts on any scale of length dimension.
On 7/22/2025 at 9:09 PM, swansont said: But there is a field in regions where there are no charges.
Fields have not the borders out of where they absolutelly disappear. Their strength has tendency to zero but never reach such value (in other words, it reach zero on the infinity). The material space which is representation of non-polarized condition of EM field, it doesn't polarizes by itself, i.e. it doesn't generate the EM fields. Only particles do it.
On 7/22/2025 at 9:09 PM, swansont said: But it doesn’t matter what philosophy you adopt; nature behaves the way it does regardless of that.
But how it does (should) work we cannot understand without phylosophy. In fact. Logics as a base of Phylosophy (and Math too) works same as laws of nature: we cannot to imagine something which is absolutelly impossible in our Universe, because our brain working based on laws of nature (e.g. particles' interaction).
-
Edited by kba
On 7/18/2025 at 6:12 PM, swansont said: What matter is length made of? Time?
Length is a property of matter.
On 7/18/2025 at 6:12 PM, swansont said: The EM field isn’t a substance, either.
What do you mean under "substance"? EM field isn't a substance (as a sum of some particles). EM field is continuous (not discret) basic form of matter.
On 7/18/2025 at 6:12 PM, swansont said: Any way to test this?
It's a fact that, no electric field without electric charges, and no magnetic field without moving electrons.
On 7/18/2025 at 7:44 PM, studiot said: Why is everyone so hung up on 'particles' these days, without any proper understanding of what they mean ?
It's a right question. I think because theoretical physicists uses only math, and do not consider the phylosophic problems of particles. They adopt, by default, particles in the absolutely empty space (Nothing), which is impossible condition.
-
Edited by kba
On 1/19/2025 at 7:11 AM, swansont said: Spacetime is not a substance.
It is a form of field (of Matter). Electromagnetic field is a main representation of its properties.
On 1/18/2025 at 9:04 PM, julius2 said: Is the universe expanding "in" to something?
Or is the universe itself perpetually pushing a "boundary" ?
It is impossible to expand into Nothing.
The space and the substance (particles) being in some ratio which can change in some range. No particles without space, and no space without particles.
-
-
Edited by kba
I read such hypothesis about 25-30 years ago as a comment on one discussion forum. 🙂 Earlier I've also considered such model of Universe, because I don't agree with expanding model of whole Universe.
IMHO it explains the dark energy as acceleration by means of gravity which looks like matter condensing unlike expanding model which hasn't any explanation for this phenomena.
On 5/9/2022 at 4:00 PM, bangstrom said: The value of c is a constant ratio of distance to time and not necessarily a speed. C can remain a constant if both time and distance remain as the same ratio.
What about space-time inside dark hole? 🙂 In this case, the space measurement inside dark holes should shrink while to slowing its time down while c (light of speed) is constant. We should observe dark holes (e.g. Event horizon) as greatly smaller then they are.
-
-
Edited by kba
5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:Please show in detail how you arrived at that number
All what you need are known mass of Universe, Universe's size, and Newton's laws. My previous post need the correction. I said "half of Universe' size. Actually, the distance is about 1/2-1/3 of half Universe's size - if we consider Universe's volume as ball.
Approximately half of Universe's size we can consider with full mass of Universe.
I already wrote formula to calculate number in my blocked topic:
a = MG/R^2 = 0.00000000868 m/s².
It is nearly to 1e-8 m/s², but anyway it is smaller than 1e-7 m/s².
M, G, and R value you can take from Wikipedia.
4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:If you are surrounded by a spherical shell of matter, assuming an approximately uniform distribution, the net Newtonian gravitational force acting on you is exactly zero
This is correct if you consider gravity as static force. But I declare that gravity is dynamic one.
Quoteyou’d still be locally in free fall in that direction, and your accelerometer reads zero.
This is correct for any frame which is under only gravitational force. According to equvalence principle, bodies, that falling in the uniform gravitational field together, wouldn't register relative acceleration of each others. Look, even GR predicts that bodies inside uniform gravitational field will accelerate. You can consider any inertial frame as accelerated by means of gravity of half mass of Universe (as in the uniform gravitational field) in any direction. Only relativelly moving observer could register its acceleration.
And any gravitational frame you can consider similarly.
-
Edited by kba
3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:If you put an accelerometer in free fall (inertial motion), it reads exactly zero at all times. This is an experimental fact. Thus, due to F=ma with a=0, no force acts on freely falling test particles.
You can measure acceleration value a=1E-9 m/s²? Such acceleration we have from mass of half Universe on the distance equal to approximately half size of Universe. It is because inertial acceleration is caused by gravity of half Universe on the movement direction.
-
Edited by kba
On 1/18/2025 at 8:12 PM, tar said:We see the closer parts of the galaxy 10s of thousands of years before the further parts.
IMHO it doesn't matter for for such scales of galaxies' sizes and their rotation speed.
But I agree with following:
QuoteMy thought that the calculations are missing something is that they need dark matter to provide the extra mass to arrive at the observed rotation.
...
it is easier in my thinking to discard imaginary dark matter and look for the manner in which the equations are misapplied.
...
Dark Matter is a made up thing. Easier to discard it and bold an image that matches our senses.
...
dark matter is by definition not observed
...
Bottom line, they seem to not have "found" the particle required to account for the dark matter they need in their velocity of rotation calculations.As I know, physicists use incorrect conclusion of Inertia Law. There is no movements without forces! Therefore, inertial motion is accelerated. It means that stars in the galaxies should continuously accelerate and go away from galaxy center. I said and showed it in my closed (blocked) topic, here.
Astronomers at early 20th century lived without dark matter, and they was sure that everything was taken in account and correctly calculated. Now your opponents assure you that dark matter is real and "everything was taken in account and correctly calculated". 😄
Next step is a correction of basic principles of Physics to explain astrophysical phenomenas, again without dark matter. 😉 After it everybody will say that "everything was taken in account and correctly calculated"
-
-
Edited by kba
15 hours ago, MJ kihara said:For a theory to qualify as a theory of everything what are the expectations for such a theory to qualify for such a heavy title?
Or even to come near to that title?
It would have to explain simpliest action of Matter. If it could define simpliest interactions, it could construct the Universe. Like you build the house using standart bricks.
-
-
Edited by kba
6 hours ago, DanMP said:the rotation of the stars around the galactic center is influenced by other galaxies in the Universe in the same way as the DM
Not the same way. According to hypothesis of DM, it is concentrated near to galaxy, holds stars inside the galaxy. But I think that stars aren't holded there. They moving around the center of galaxy and out, their velocity slowly increasing due to gravity of far galaxies.
Calculation is simple, it is based on known mass and size of Universe. But, to get expecting result, we have to take in account dynamical nature of gravity.
-
Edited by kba
On 8/19/2024 at 9:53 PM, DanMP said:I am open for other explanations, that's why I asked you about MOND, but your response was disappointing.
IMHO, MOND is speculative theory. Any theory should define law(equation, formula) of based on some model which explains why exactly such law physical value dependency was used. Does MOND do it? I'm not sure.
As I understand the philosophy of nature, we have to change the main paradigm of free(aka inertial) motion to understand DM phenomenon.
Any motion at any time isn't free (i.e. non enforced). Only forces support the motion. The motion by inertia is illusion that such motion is free (non enforced). Only the body, keeping in rest, forces do not act to.
As I have found, the gravity is a force which dynamically increasing during the motion. And such force makes any body or particle to accelerate its moving, if they are do not undergo for action of other forces. Thus, all bodies in the Universe have been accelerated, including stars. That's why their velocities do not decrease while they moving around the galaxy centre. The evolution of galaxy can be represented as stars moving around its center and slowly retires from it due to acceleration of [pseudo free] inertial motion. Such motion, actually, is provided by gravity of othe galaxies in the Universe. Rough calculation defines acceleration of any [free] motion equal to approximatelly 1E-9 m/s². DM doesn't hold the stars, as blocked inside the galaxy, on the stable orbit. That's why we observe various types of galaxies. Highly likely, galaxy evolution goes through various stages from quasars to scattered galaxies.
-
Edited by kba
How about such newest evidence (not single) - "Runaway 'failed star' races through the cosmos at 1.2 million mph"?
Read about it here - https://www.livescience.com/space/astronomy/runaway-failed-star-races-through-the-cosmos-at-1-2-million-mph
Almost all astrophysical news of last 2-3 years, breaking the view to Universe providind by Standard Model and Standard Cosmology, are evidences for Dynamic Gravity theory. Now, what scienists going to do? Just will be waiting for complete invalidation of Standard Physics for Cosmology?
-
Edited by kba
Other one phenomenon (and evidence) which can be explained by means of Dynamic Gravity theory and which proves it - is an "Antimatter detected on International Space Station could reveal new physics". Read about it here https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/particle-physics/antimatter-detected-on-international-space-station-could-reveal-new-physics
or here
Standard Model of particles cannot explain how this antimatter was synthesed (in the explosion like cosmic ray generators) to be accelerated, but Dynamic Gravity can explain - it was created in the ordinary mechanism, but speed up by gravi-inertial acceleration.
...to be continued for new evidences.
How can we inhabit Mars ?
in Speculations
·
Edited by kba
Why "or"? It must be "and"
Did we choose what kind of car we must produce: only gasoline, only diesel, only electric, etc.?
Therefore, we should to use androids, thousands of androids. With AI, and robots operated by humans, on the place. Self-replicating (would be prefered) androids, which can make all works we do on Earth: mining, producing, construction. Android do not need the shield from radiation and they do not breath. All of them (androids and operators) will build the cities for future settlers. While androids and robot operators will build the cities, the settlers will come and come, and they will participate in other various jobs. If something will happen wrong on first steps, we could leave all androids on Mars and evacuate only humans, while there are not big number of last, yet.
How about an idea to use mega transformers 🙂- specially made spaceships - which will do hardest works on Mars? Firstly it easy to transform spaceship to tunnel boring machine, to digger under Mars's surface.Because both of them are form of cylinder.
Benefits of low or g is for problems with skeleton, especially with spine and legs. Especially for old people. Also if you wish to grow (increase your height and weight), you should live on the Mars or Moon from few months to few years.
If anybody asks for benefits to settle the Mars, we have similar questions on the Earth:
why people live on the small islands in in the compact group. in the ocean, far from the mainland?
what benefits to live in the desert or polar regions for the people who live there?
While there are many perfect places to live with comfort and have job and all necessary.