studiot

Which brings me back to my question Microphotons pass through them. But then we have Which strikes me as a circular argument So why are the photons 'passing therough them' ? Because momentum passes through them ? Nothing backdoor about it. @OlegMarchenkov The ideas of momentum flux and particle flux is perfectly reasonable and conventional if handled correctly. Such models appear in the subjects 'continuum mechanics' and 'transport phenomena' which have very wide application in science and technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics I suggest you need to get your concepts lined up correctly to make anything of your model. They are useful techniques, but certainly do not amount to a theory of everything.

Thanks guys.

Someone has changed what you wrote after I posted this quote and the timings on the posts are not wotking properly.

Why do you contradict me? I quoted from where you said exactly what I said, not the opposite. If you meant something different, please make the necessary amendments.

I've seen the tickboxing or crossing in coloured squares in one or two other threads now. Can anyone tell me if this is a result of AI output or something available in the new SF format or what please ?

Whilst a couldn't agree more that we need some maths, you can't have maths until there is something to calculate. And until the descriptions stop changing and make some sense there can be nothing to calculate. You said that the black dots are microparticles and that a bunch of these make up a photon. In you picture it seems to take different numbers of microparticles to make up one photon. Further the photons appear to be sevaral times larger than a microparticle. So how can a photon 'pass though' a microparticle ? The whole setup is making ever less sense to me.

If the black disks are particles or microparticles ( which one is still not clear) then what are the red circles and the white space since there is not such thing as vacuum ? Why are these particle moving?

So what is a microparticle ? Please elucidate the following What is the difference between a photon and a microparticle ? Note this is not a critism or rebuttal. I just do not understand what you are trying to say. Perhaps a heirarchy or list of particles might help.

No I didn't find anything offensive. But the onus remains with you to demonstrate that it is possible to tile or tesselate (let us say a plane as it is easier than 3D) a plane with circles. It is not enough to just declare it so you have to actually demonstrate it mathematically. I should warn you that lots of folks have tried but no one have ever achieved it as it is impossible. There are two several ways to approach the problem. One is to try to arrange them geometrically, without overlap. Another is to try to partition the plane into variable circles - this has been done by removal of a finite number of points from the plane. A third way is to consider the areas of the circles used and show that this adds up exactly to the area of the plane. You could try taking a square or other tesselating shape an see if you can make a match with an infinite series of circles, the series being conditioned by weighting factors of the numersof any given size of circle used.

I was not talking about orbital dynamics or paths. Going back to Poinsot's Theorem mechanics has to account for both statics and dynamics, both of which divisions embraced aspects of both translational and rotational mechanics. When are you going to address all the the points in my last post - they come as a package deal parts of which cannot be ignored ? Two of these points are particularly relevent since they refer to the interplay between rotational and translational dynamics.

It is not often that joigus graces his replies with this much detail of really well reasoned explanation and advice. +1 It is sound advicest I suggest you take it.

A further note Note that the page counter in a pdf viewer counts some blank pages so you must use the actual page numbers on the pages themselves. Page 84 is the crucial one to come away understanding ( to proceed to quantum theory) since it is about the potential energy of a body about to fall under gravity.

Why is it so important to you to be shown to be right in every respect ? In my turn I have agreed with some of your statements and listed good scientific reasons why I disagree with some of them. This one you simply misinterpreted since I was talking about content not speed This one is your claim not mine so it is for you to prove, mathematically, that your premises lead to the conculsion you claim. But note that since the sphere is a convex hull (has positive curvature everywhere) the will always be spaces left between touching spheres of any size, different or the same. Firther I already presented a link to the conventional maths for the simplest case and explained why you can't fill up the gaps leftover. Ddi you not read it ? Just as an alternative thought; Why do your units have to be spheres ? I also showed many solids that will fill 3D completely. Certainly QM geometry has very few spheres in it.

Don't worry too much about the maths - it's concepts they want to teach at your stage. Here is an american physics text for 7th grade. https://chilot.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/83fa6-grade-7-physics-textbook.pdf See if you have covered forces and measurement in sections 1 -3 then Have a look at section 4 Energy, Work and Power pages 75 - 90. Then you will be able to make some sense of explanations. You will only need very simple maths at this stage.

Yes, if you have a garden you could pour them onto the compost heap, say one a week. but dont out them directly into the soil at this time of year. December would be OK for that. Alternatively just pour them down an outside drain or gully and rinse them out.

This is where some knowledge of Chemistry or Mineralogy is helpful. The term used is close packing and the best that can be achieved with equal spheres is 74% fill. The shape of the unoccupied spaces preculudes packing with successively smaller spheres. Geosciences LibreTexts13.3.2: Packing in Three Dimensions

Glad you like it Having seen so many ideas fail because they start with there is only one or this is absolute or somesuch, I have this 'theory' aboute statements of absolutes, which runs:- There are no other absolutes. Two tools huh ? What about Trial and error ? So few tools yes, but only and absolutely 2 no. Agreed Agreed these were both important questions. However I am comfortable with my understanding of QM in general and duality in particular. I find neither suprising. Personally I consider that we are spending too much time and effort on external research into places we will probably never reach or influence. I think the actual physicists here would seriously disagree with this observation. Certainly the Physics I learned in the mid 20th century is way different from the Physics I am seeing today. I agree that unification of theories is today's ,most sought after goal. However not being goal oriented, I am perfectly comforable with 10 theories as 1. Further your list of quantisable effects is certainly far to short so there is no need to incorporate non quantum effects, or currently unimportant ones when there are plenty of very important ones to choose from, Whenever you feel ready. But I would expect both the visualisation and mathematics (as per your basic physics) to match the observed field.

I find the auto update jumping around, adding and subtracting items willy nilly. Further if I see a new post actually whilst in a thread and go back to all activity in can be several minutes before it is added to all activity - the record is over 15mins.

Thanks for the detail, I will consider it carefully before responding. Just a quick response to your summary of classical machanics. You are only considering linear (translational) inertia. What about rotational inertia and the inertia tensor ? What about a skater spinning on the ice and drawing in her arms ? What about Gyroscopic action ? You would be ill advised to calculate rocket mechanics this way.

Thanks for the info, I had honestly thought that we were having (and still are) a reasonable discussion and that there was some misunderstanding so you had cracked a joke re Beer. So yes come back when you have sorted your other business. Please also look at my point about the fuel. I don't know who posted the negative rep, I haven't done that since I was a rookie here in 20012/13. So I have post a positive cancellation. See yah.

+1 for an excellent attitude.

Also welcome. You are in luck we had a recent similar thread I posted a couple of resources there and there are also several other responses to choose from. joigus has asked for you maths level, I ask for you Physics and/or Chemistry or whatever you are studying. QM is basically about energy so it is a good idea to have a handle on this side of things Note you are allowed 5 posts in your first 24 hours, so make them count. After that you can post at will. And there is plenty of help availbale here so read / study widely and ask about what you are unsure of.

Space filling is not a property of infinity. Take, for instance the integers 1, 2 We know ther are numbers between 1 and 2 because we can form the expression (1+2) / 2 out of the integers. But it is also clear that those numbers are not integers. But Faraday's Law simply states what happens. It does not say why it happens. Neither Faraday nor Maxwell had any inkling of Quantum Theory, so it is not suprising that they did not mention it. However if you look in the second article (Dyson) about Maxwell that I linked to you will find a discussion of the quantum implications of their theories. Here's why. https://scienceforums.net/topic/136139-photon-collapse-as-the-origin-of-gravitons-gravigenesis-theory/#comment-1292263

even this is contradicted in your article Here is just one such place As a matter of interest your original concept is very similar to Maxwell's vortex theory (published in 1860 and 1861), except he used rotational momentum and you have used linear momentum (isn't momentum another physical law you wished to avoid?) This was also called Maxwell's Mechanical Aether theory. The interesting thing is that the shapes in your diagram are not space filling. (You did say that your required space to be completely filled with your protoparticles with nothing left over) Round objects do not fit together to fill space, and 2D can be misleading. Here are some 3D shapes that fill space. Space-Filling Polyhedron -- from...Space-Filling Polyhedron -- from Wolfram MathWorldA space-filling polyhedron is a polyhedron which can be used to generate a tessellation of space. Although even Aristotle himself proclaimed in his work On the Heavens that the tetrahedron fills sp... Maxwell used hexagons to achieve the filling Here are some links to maxwells theory. You can see in the original paper (the first link) how similar it is to yours https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/MAT22C/MaxwellOnPhysicalLinesOfForce.pdf https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/dyson.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell%27s_equations