# Kramer

Senior Members

330

2. ## What is space?

Mordred "the zero point energy due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is" ------- For a curious lay - man what is: e ?
3. ## Absolute frame of reference (split from does relativity even exist)

Sensey I don’t know a law, even in physic, that suma of two sides of a triangle to be less that the third. Am I wrong? Or I misunderstand your idea in your post?
4. ## A Universe Without Origin and End?

I have some layman questions about the doubt in Big Beng theory. Questions out of curiosity. I On the news is said: Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have pieced together this picture that shows a small section of space in the southern-hemisphere constellation Fornax. Within this deep-space image are 10,000 galaxies, going back in time as far as a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. ------ If I am not wrong, for “creation” of our earth were spend more than 4 billion years, of “time. Isn’t odd that 10000 galaxies were created in only a few hundred million years? Any explanation about this news?: 1- Mistake of information? 2- Mistake made by an astronomer? 3- Some other profound conundrums? II Let suppose hypothetically: Astronomers scrutinized the small section of constellation Fornax and found 10000 galaxies. How many galaxies they will found if they scrutinize each inch of both hemispheres of sky map of today universe? Are some of the galaxies we see today the same as they found in constellation Fornax? Which one?
5. ## what is time ??

Swanson A ruler is not a piece of space. A ruler is a physical object. ----- We use the “ruler’s length” as a segment of space to measure another segment of space. Because both segments have the same Euklidian property. In this case we disregard other property that they may posses. The space I think was, is and will be the only home of physical objects. In both cases the measuring device is calibrated to a standard. A ruler has a length, and an oscillation has a duration, or period. -----The difference between space and time in this debate is that space we treated as something static. We can’t say this for time. Time is treated as something evasive mysterious that is always in movement, flowing. As this kind, it must have velocity, even acceleration. Why not? The modern physic treat time as most important actor in everything: it is culprit about the gray hair on old people, it is all mighty factor in the creation of universe. I think flow of time is only a human’s concept very helpful for them to compare their activity with movement of earth toward its axis, and toward the sun. As a human concept it is subjective, it has not any objective role. The prove are unities of time, used for everyday activity of humans: such as sec, hour, day… What is 1 day? After you, it is “a period of time when” a point in equator of earth fulfill 1circle. Why not after me: 1 day is 1 full circle of earth’s spinning, toward its axis? You say: S = Vo*t Why not (So / to) * t = So*(t /to) = So*n I may say: S = (2*pi*R(tire of car))*N Here N number of cycles of tire counted by speedometer. In this examples faded concept of time. Sensei If your ruler is metallic, when we will be measuring distance at -100 C, 0 C, +100 C, +1000 C its length will be different, as metal shrinks and extends depending on temperature of environment. This effect is used in typical Mercury thermometer. ---- Sure this is important for humans especially when ruler is used in business. Studiot All distance measurement is by difference. If you have done any serious hermodynamics you will have met the thermodynamic absolute temperature scale which is defined independently of any thermometer, unlike distance, for which we have no absolute unit. ------ Why not Plank length?
6. ## what is time ??

Studiot say: Yes, it is true that whatever clock ticks measure it is not time and that a ruler directly compares one length with another. But it is also true that neither tells us what space or time are. ----- Sorry, but I think isn’t the same. When we measure the distance with a ruler (nevertheless the ruler is metallic, wood or whatever,) we use the length of it (distance in the extremes of ruler) as a unity. They are both ”objective reality of the same kind”. When we say that measure time with the number of clock tics, or the number of water drops, or the position of sun’s shadow etc.--- what have they to do with concept of time? They give us the evidence of something that is moving, something that is displaced in space, and, indeed, the amount of displacement. What has to do it with flow of time? If we compare the number of clock’s ticks, with number of miles we made with our car, or with the amount of gallons of gas we have spent etc. this is an subjective comparison that has nothing to do with concept that modern physic gave for time, as an important actor in nature. In fact we cannot measure time itself, only time difference, and that is what the clock tick measures. ------- Do you mean frequency? The number of repetitive displacement of something in circles ? There are many quantities in Physics that we can only measure by difference, eg voltage. ----- I think that voltage is an objective reality, an intrinsic property of particles of mater. This mean a real actor in nature, that has nothing to do with human’s concepts as in case of time. Again in fact the ruler length is a distance difference not a true measure of space either.-------Distances, of the ruler taken as unity, or of the segment we want to measure, are the most evident objective reality of the same kind -- I think. One of the few absolute quantities that we can measure is absolute temperature (at least in theory). -------I think that temperature is too an evasive concept, of something that we measure with different methods, but i don’t know what it is. For example we measure its quantity with dilation of mercury colon, but what is it, I have not idea. The link of temperature with the frequency of electromagnetic waves --after De Vien interpretation, I think gave a method for relation between thermal and electromagnetic form of energy. One further note is that for quantities that we account in either absolute or difference terms such as voltage, time etc, both the absolute and difference measurements are made in the same units. go well
7. ## what is time ??

AJB say: In the same way I can use a ruler to measure the distance bewteen two points, but that does not tell me what space "is". ------But this is not the same. We don't measure the space with velocity. but with the same kind: ----a peace of space taken arbitrary as unity. You measure time with what? With repetitive movement take as unity, with "number of vibrations". Both they are not "peace of time. This is an arbitrary concept of time, used to give concept of time magical property.
8. ## Explanation of Time

-------An example about how “the time works”. Once, I and my twin Kramer II, make a competition about who will go farther in the same period of time. We lived in equator and were in antipode spots, as always. After 60 min. ride I reported that I have ride 360 km. --Slug! Derided me my twin. -- I ride 471.365 km in only one sec.! My twin is a lazy “couch potato”, but he is not a liar, he is a joker. He alluded about “his ride on earth carousel” without moving his but even a meter!------- I am very disappointed that Fred Champion left field of dispute about reality of time. My example is about comparison of a linear movement within a circular repetitive movement, and about the relativity of point of references. Here I think stand the illusion of flow of time as real, in psychic of humans. What really I am puzzled and distrust is about how time work in this second example: ( Energy) E = h / Δt (when Δt à0) = infinite. Here please give a hand.

10. ## RESEMBLANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ATOMS

Sensei I think so he did that already? (The problem is in Kramer inability to transfer his model to real scale, not in model) Neutrino is in his model tiny amount of energy with neutral charge (same amount of positive and negative sub-particles with equal charge, so they cancels together). Am I right ------ I am afraid to disappoint you, even your post aim to encourage and some how to defend my thread about resemblance of neutron and atom of H1. The scientist say: ”When a neutron decay, and the electron which is repealed out from neutron, has not much velocity, then electron will engaged together with proton -- in an together structure: H1.” This means a lot about resemblance of neutron and H1. Here a digression: What is “the thing” that thrust an electron particle out or inside the proton. And generally what make electron or proton to move, with a continue velocity?? I asked myself and speculated: The photon? The antineutrino? Both? Because those are the only “particles” able to “auto move”; because they both have summa of electric charge zero, (This only for an outsider observer,----in my speculation). In my hypothesis I need: 1— indivisible unique particle with size R = Lplank*sqrt(alpha). 2--- indivisible electric charge; 3--- each anti particle posses antigravity ability. If one of them is 100% false my speculative hypothesis is dead. And I will quit to flog a log. If 4-quarks particle will have fractional charge, then we will have proof that +1e or -1e is not elementary charge. (As far as I know no meson or baryon have fractional charge) All right with me
11. ## RESEMBLANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ATOMS

----- I have not offended you in any way. I only have asked question in the forum, and expressed my viewpoints about some issues in physic (Let say wrong, not based, even stupid after your evaluation) without attacking somebody personally. If you think you have the right to offend your interlocutor because of your post, i am very disappointed with my opinion about you.. As I see from your and staff’s angry reaction, I feel that I have touched some kind of a nerve with my naïve questions for which I am convinced that are not potshots, not an arguing with straw-mans. At least, my try, was to understand the wizardry of Oz. Recently, in C.E.R.N. is discovered a new particle structured by “four quarks”. I am curious to know the electric charge of this particle. Isn’t it a fraction of “e”? Physicians say that quarks are impossible to identify out of structure of particle, Because they never go out of structure, via their kind of weird force that bind them. The same can say about their fractured charges. It’s an opportunity to identify direct a fractured electric charge, in the new discovered particle. Isn’t it?
12. ## Thread hijack - 'non-mass expulsion type Thruster'

Let suppose for a moment that velocity is "property' of an unique elementary particle", and it is the only cause of movement. Let suppose that the elementary particle posses both the same gravity and electric ability. Two of this kind of elementary particles will be in eternal circular movement, in an absolute equilibrium between electric and gravity forces, if they are not disturbed by other similar. They will move like some cosmic bodies move in circular movement.in the geodesics of each other The change of velocity, the inertia and some other law of physic appears afterwards as interaction of pair with an third. (A cause for moderator to bun a lay-man for hay jacking.with non sense). .

14. ## Could SPACE be composed of the SUM TOTAL - of - ALL FIELDS including the ElectroMagnetic and Gravitational Fields , to mention a couple ?

If it filled then with what? Highjacked? O come on. Aren't they debate for the things of what is composed space?

16. ## Could SPACE be composed of the SUM TOTAL - of - ALL FIELDS including the ElectroMagnetic and Gravitational Fields , to mention a couple ?

What about epsilon zero, mu zero? Impedance Z0? Where are they if not in space? I think that the space is not empty. I speculate that space is filled with anti-mater sub-particles in the same as mater is organised in gravitate globs. Mater and anti mater sub-particles repulse each other.

19. ## RESEMBLANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ATOMS

Swansont Hydrogen and neutrons have different constituent particles, and have different interactions. The electron in hydrogen is not contained within the nucleus and undergoes an electrostatic interaction with the proton, all different from the neutron. -----This thread is just about the constituents. Why are they asserted as different when results that they are the same in fact after disintegration or disassociation? ! With (udd) constituents in neutron I can’t grasp how you may create an electron, a proton and an antineuitrino. The statement --- that the energy they have, is responsible for creation of those common elementary particles--, well known by physicists, is not enough convincing, and seems to me very artificial. Sensei I don't think so physics negate role of neutrino. There are scientists that are studying it f.e.Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins _----.I don’t remember where I read that neutrinos and anti neutrinos, acting so feeble with mater, don’t play any role in interaction of mass particles. In my layman’s logic, I think the opposite. They must play a powerful role in reactions, nevertheless that they are so difficult to detect or intercepts. Neutrino detectors are utilizing f.e. isotopes that are prone to neutrino bombardment. f.e. Chlorine changes to Argon, and Gallium to Germanium. ----- That’s very interesting, I had no idea about. But any explanation about mechanism of their interactions? Will be very helpful for the theme we debate. (~500 tons of substance is not something that everybody have at home, don't you think so?) Neutron decay neutrino has fraction of energy needed for these detectors to work. ----- The difficulties to detect or intercept those particle, is not an argument to negate their exceptional role in physic. About antineutrino I have a naïve idea, that their mass posses antigravity ability, and for this is so “wild” to catch with mass gravity instruments. The same cause is as about positrons. But why “neutrinos” are so “wild” to catch? They have gravity ability in my hypothesis? By the way: have you any simple idea why neutrinos change mass? But please not with "flavors".
20. ## RESEMBLANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ATOMS

Swansont Neutrons and protons are not fundamental particles. Nobody is claiming they are point particles. Yes. That true. With elementary particles I intended the “fundamental” particles, which are point particles, which build neutrons and hydrogen, and which being without any dimension create volumetric structure. Different for hydrogen and neutron. Daedalus When a particle decays, such as the neutron, and you get back other particles such as a proton, electron, and an electron antineutrino, it's easy to come to the conclusion that such particle is similar to the hydrogen atom because of the particles that you get back are also found in such atom. However, you have to keep in mind that energy is transformed. So, a particle such as a neutron can decay releasing its energy, which is transformed into other particles that can be found in atoms such as hydrogen. This does not mean that a neutron is a hydrogen atom smashed to the point that it becomes a neutron, only that the energy released from such decay is transformed into particles that can also be found in the hydrogen atom. As for point particles, I'm by no means an expert on particle physics, but from what I understand that is how the mathematics treats the particles. Perhaps, someone more knowledgeable in that field can weigh in on the topic. Thanks Daedalus for your answer. I know that this is the model of answer about everything that has to do with “decays”: energy transformed in mass particles. Now, just for this is the aim of the thread: how on earth energy transformed in mass and vice-versa. All i know about standard version is that neutron is nothing else but three quarks, bounded together by some boson. In process of disintegration --- where they go? How comes that three quarks becomes three common elementary particles, quasi, the same as those of hydrogen atom? And why the mass –energy of the same elementary particles occupy different volume of space? What is the role of “antineutrino”, in the structure of both “atoms”? Why the modern physics negate any role by antineutrino? Why is discarded the version that anti neutrino has the potential to “smash”, I would say to bound, hydrogen components in another volume to became “neutron”? For those dilemmas I thought to open this debate.
21. ## RESEMBLANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ATOMS

RESEMBLANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ATOMS When scientists say that disintegration of Neutron consists with an electron, one proton and one antineutrino, I make comparison with hydrogen and find the same, or quasi the same. But is it known that neutron occupy a volume very small, instead hydrogen atom a quite formidable one. For scientist, the fact of occupation of space by mass particles is a solved problem, or am I wrong? I am a layman, and I see very strange “the statements” that elementary mass particles are points and indeed without volume. I suppose that a debate about this theme will help to clear view -point of lay-mans, about “statements”.
22. ## Is charge an intrinsic property? (split from what is charge)

I was surprised by resemblance of your formula 18 with the formula of my thread about my alleged “ unique sub-particles’. But I saw that your approach and conclusions were in total opposition with my. If you don’t mind and don’t consider this post as a “high-jack’ I would like to debate with you about intertwined mass, charge, gravity, velocity. I admit I am only a lay-man.