Simpleton

Don't realy know if 10 mm will do (as the drip may depend on the volume in the downward part of the tube) but dare to say that thirty or forty mm of downward tubing would have it drip for sure.

If I take an extra thin tube and bent the top one inch over the edge of a six inch glass , then that tube is gone drip at a highth of 5 inches even if the 6" glass ihas only 3" of water.

Has anybody noticed the clout of particles (lint?) coming with every peace of tissue pulled out of the box or is that only my cheap brand. It's most easily seen in rays of sunlight.

If so, is that proper and or legal?

I guess that there certainly is a very high probability that it would encourage both. I expect will comment and enlighten us some time along the way.

In reality, don't all black holes spin?

As simpleton, I can not reach an understanding from numbers. I only take for granted that, which receives a very large majority of agreement. I imagine und very much hope that some of the many incredibly smart and imaginative people on this site are able to see the possibility and investigate in this and all possible directions. I know I need lots of help and appreciate all the help I can get from anyone. I do not mean in any way to state that, this is it, just that it might be possible. There are so many possibilities “almost right theories and general agreement” that none of them so far is the final word. I believe things will only be right if most everybody can agree. It looks to me that there is a lot of imagination and investigation needed before that will happen. It could and may really be more simple then any one can imagine.

Please ignore just for a little bit what you think you already know and try to imagine. Please be easy on me.

If anyone can think of further references pertaining to any part of this post, please post them.

Zitterbewegung: Wiki

Thus, we arrive at the interpretation of the “Zitterbewegung” as being caused by interference between positive- and negative- energy wave components.

Stochastic electrodynamics: Zitterbewegung is explained as an interaction of a

classical particle with the zero-point field

Imagine please

An incredibly large but finite amount of water that is space, in reality of course “mostly cosmic background radiation“.

A huge but set amount of floating clay marbles distributed throughout, each needs to absorb some of this water.(via wave particle duality?) or dry out and shrink enormously. in return the marbles excrete something tiny, un reactive, useless, dead like, “black matter” that in a way and to some extend don’t even like it self and disperses and mixes in with the water (CBR).

Sins black matter is not known to be in the way of anything and don’t react to anything else, please assume that, (like little floting islands in water) it is “in the way” and “slightly resists” the flow of the fast moving “CBR”).

That in turn would mean that the “ocean of waves that is space” gets more turbulent the more “CBR” is needed for an extra large bunch of stuck together marbles (the stronger the turbulence, the more frequent appearance of virtual particles).

This inward flow of the CBR then also has to pushes against and goes around dark matter particles. The flow and turbulence is stronger, the bigger the bunch. The maximum flow of course is the speed of light.

If the pile of marbles is to big, then more CBR is needed then can be supplied. At the same time, the flow by then may also be so strong, that it would push on the dark matter from all sides and compress it. There by also preventing further (water) “CBR” to reach marbles on the very inside of this extra large bunch of marbles. These inside marbles then dry out and shrink to almost nothing. Black matter does not resist or even acknowledge regular matter and more marbles will want to fill the extra space exempt if they fill it they shrink. I do no that atoms, electrons and such are not exactly clay marbles that need water, jest imagine them to be for an easier understanding.

Getting to tired. Somebody else’s turn.

Good night.

Thank you for all and any answer. I am at this time not willing to retract, thought, I did use the wrong wording. Do not want to be accused of hijacking. It is way to soon but. :-)Will hesitantly pass on my simpleton view, that I feel is given to me by mostly this site and the links that I followed for some considerable time, reading and reading and reading again. Still, my hero is Uncle Albert. I am slow but will start a new post asap.

Of course, I stand to be corrected. Keep in mined my name.

A magnet will give you a stationary magnetic field, getting weaker with distance.

The vacuum, space, the universe, everything, is an ocean of mostly electro magnetic waves. All of them moving at the speed of ligth comming from all directions and going in all directions.

Do not believe me.

I think it is the left over from the fuel the atoms use to stay alive.

Finanly had a chance to read some posts and this one is making me have a big grin on my face. I "think" that in the current view, light or a photon can travel without any help and does not require a medium to travel and stay alive.

"Personaly", I find that difficult to believe and like it the way you understand it.

It seams right and there seams to be reasonable agreement on that the Univers is cyclic.

It seams right and there seams to be reasonable agreement that over time the mass and mater of the galaxies will end up in black holes. That then includes the background and any other radiation. Then, eventualy as the last stars burn out and the quantity and or size of black holes increases, more radiation is consumed then produced. Adding the momentum of everything moving apart, the radiation pressure of the universe must go down ever faster. It seams to me that eventualy the pressure will be so low that it alone should draw in all that is the Univers like a baloon loosing pressure. AS pressure goes down, will speed limit increase? There will be many monster black holes in many places, at enormous distances from each other that will be drawn together faster and faster all the time without the need for gravity. Sorry, I am loosing it.

Had problems posting for a bit and asked this question on an other side. Feeling a bit guilty.

It does not seam reasonable to me that a black hole should loose mass "if the black hole is not feeding". I keep thinking that it don't have a choice. There is a continues flow of radiation under pressure flowing in to it all the time, from all sides. Or would this ocean of waves stop and jest sitall around the edge of the black hole and not try the impossible task to fill it and equalize pressure.

It seams that there is reasonable agreement that at least a quantity of E=M, or can be.

So, if all this radiation ends up in the black hole, how can it loose mass?

Nobody answered so far at the other place.

Thank you:embarass:

Hooray, Iv'e been trying to get the message over to physisists for 25 years or more, that despite A.E. describing it accurately to us 95 years ago, gravity continues to be still totally MIS-REPRESENTED as a FORCE.

It is of course, an acceleration (which means it mimics and can be calculated as if a force) but never-the-less is not a force. Once you accept that you can start making sense of everything.

 

"We have acceleration or exchange of momentum and that is enough"

What kind of complacency is this?

What about the billions of dollars and vast resources, being wasted on the futile search to unify gravity as a 4th force (the incredible weakness by comparison should be enough to realise it is not a force) with the other 3 forces of nature? What about all the mis-conceived experiments designed to find effects of a force which doesn't exist. Gravitons? - I ask you!!, Gravitinos? I ask you!!! - Total rubbish!!!

For example - Gravity waves exist, but there is no way they can be detected by deflecting mirrors or other 'mechanical' devices.

"LIGO" is a complete waste of time, as Iv'e I've already told them.

 

GRAVITY IS NOT THE PRIME MOVER OF THE UNIVERSE!! - it is merely an effect!!! - This is probably all I'm prepared to say at the moment.

I am totally in agreement with you. I believe that gravity is the product of the consumption of background radiation by all that is mater.

Take note.

I realy am and feel as my name implies, when I dare to make a comment on this site.

Would there be a difference in mass between a large, active molten core body and the exact cold duplicate out in interstellar space giving of only black body radiation.

Please and thank you

Sorry it was supposed to be a new question or post.

To much in a rush.

Sorry again

Merged post follows:

I would very much appriciate if some one could please move this where it belongs. I am sorry but I can not fix it.

Thanks! What about my first question (see OP).

 

Rusty

I believe that I read an article some time ago, that was talking about a switching or internal fluctuation, at the speed of light, inside the atom. I keep thinking that it was a respectable source and meant to read it again but can't find a link.

Hoping a lot that some body can and I was not dreaming.

If you push something, why would particles be needed

No, not even close.

I don't find the poll fair. If I could, I whould have anwered "may be possible". So my answer is yes.

I do not know the activation energy required for hydrogen and oxygen to make water, but I think that there are a lot of energies available up there in the earth magnetic field to make it happen.

Therefore, to me this possibility exists, till I get to know better some day.

How so? The electron's rest mass is a constant.

Please excuse my poor wording in what I am locking for and what I am trying to understand.

The energy of an electron changes as it lights a bulb. Does that not show flexibility of energy content?

I have no problem with the rest mass of a particle staying the same, even if some particles don't hold still and some do.

I appriciate all the help I can get. Thank You.

Not really

 

Since mass is a form of energy, you cannot have mass without energy.

So sorry, I did not mention that I meant to exclude the energy that is produced by the distraction of a particle, as well as the energy given to a particle by a push.

 

??? Dark matter is considered having mass.

Forgot where, but there was an article where an area deemed to be full of dark mater was used for gravitational lensing.

 

Personally, I often consider things that are directly proportional (with the proportionality constant being a natural constant, not something like F and a in F=ma) as being the same thing measured in different units. In fact, particle physics even uses units where your E=mc² would read E=m.

I much appreciate your kind anwers. I did not mind shadows. Thank you.

If he doesn't show the data, then he's a fraud. That's how science works - you report your data.

 

 

 

Is it too late for a refund on those classes? Because I'm fairly sure "we've watched it happen" counts as 'proven'.

 

Also, what about Earthquakes? Plate Tectonics predicts that they happen, where they happen, and how often. Expanding Earth predicts that earthquakes are impossible, yet they happen.

 

 

 

1) if it was space itself expanding, the frame of reference would expand too, yielding no change in perceived shape.

 

2) If planets expanded like stars, they'd have fusion in their core, and thus gasseous cores. We KNOW from seismic density readings that this is not the case.

 

3) No other moon or planet is expanding. Bullshit. Show me evidence.

 

 

 

You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

 

 

Wrong. Geological uplift is also predicted by plate tectonics.

 

 

 

Then why can we trace the edges of pangaea's coastline by the boundary of marine vs terrestrial fossils? That means there were seas at the edges, not in the middle.

 

Or maybe you think coral lives on land, and trees live underwater?

 

 

 

Geological uplift. We have marine fossils going back over 3 billion years. I've dug fossils out of the ground in Cincinnati that showed marine organisms over 450 million years old.

 

Face it, you're WRONG.

 

 

 

So trees and rats live on the bottom of the ocean? Because we have terrestrial fossils from all over pangaea, including things that cannot live underwater.

 

You claim we refuse to see evidence. You're the one claiming palm trees lived 1000 feet under the sea.

 

 

 

Then where did that come from?

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------

 

 

 

Ok, this is getting assinine. You clearly don't have the slightest clue about geology, paleontology, biology, physics, biogeography, or how science works in general.

 

We have presented you with HEAPS of data that your theory cannot explain, or that flatly contradicts your theory. Instead of actually thinking about this, you either ignore these points, whine about persecution, or present a hand-waving explanation that defies all known laws of physics.

 

I'm going to give you one last chance.

 

Stop and *think* about Expanding Earth Theory. Think about all the things this theory predicts about geology, paleontology, biogeography. Think about how such a world would work. Don't look at reality - just extrapolate, based on your idea.

 

Now find a prediction of EET, one that DIFFERS from PT. For instance, EET predicts that plate material should never be lost/subducted, while PT predicts that it does. Or that EET predicts there should either be no coastal ecosystemson Pangaea or (if water was on top) that the coastlines should not match with modern coasts at all, while PT predicts that coastal ecosystems would have occured at the edges of Pangaea and those should align with modern coasts, give or take a bit due to sea level change.

 

Give a prediction in which the two DIFFER. For which we can test the predictions, and for which you DO NOT ALREADY HAVE A PRE-MADE EXCUSE.

 

Any other post will be deleted.

Of course, I don't know but maybe. Thinking that water (maybe) was constantly made by the suns hydrogen and earth produced oxygen in the earth magnetic field and maybe even a little extra help from other radiation. There would be little water before free oxygen?

You might have meant that [math]E \propto M[/math], or "energy is proportional to mass". Energy doesn't equal mass. Not here, not in any fantasy world. [math]E=mc^2[/math].

Does the electron not imply that Energy may be treated as a flexible quantity in at least some particles?

Energy equals Mass.

Does that specifically excludes Mass without Energy.

(like dark matter)

Please and Thank You

First of all

I appreciate every and any answer, all replies and every bit of help I can get.. It is a given, that I am thankfull. I am somewhat as the name implies. To be able to be sure, that I ride things down in an hopefully understandable way, takes me so very long. I am constandly suffering from the uncertainty principle. It is not easy to find the right questions, that may ad something when there is a huge, intimidating Mountain of knowledge in front of you, that is full of Mathematician-Magicians.

Somewhere in the many articles and discussions on this subject it was said that "it" ZPE was increasing. If ? that is so, then I have to consider it possible that the questions are still valid, un answerd questions.

Zero point energy is the energy remaining when a system is in its lowest energy state. Also referred to as "vacuum energy". Not to be confused with the rest mass of a particle.

 

AFAIK, ZPE should have been a feature of the universe since its inception, although it probably would have been difficult to measure in the initial fireball.

 

I do not know of any physical theory that suggests that ZPE should change with time.

I, for some reason was certain that ZPE, when taken to the individual particle level was more-less one very, very, shallow wave representing one particle of some type, that is cruising around for so long that it is so stretched out that it almost is not there anymore as an individual wave. It must be still there, because it is both, a wave and a particle. It has been somehow calculated.

1.

Is it wrong to think of ZERO-POINT ENERGY as Particle-Waves, that have lost there energy, have reached there biggest size and lowest density.

2.

What age was the Universe, when zero-point energy became part of the Universe.

3.

As long as stars are shining, is zero-point energy increasing.