# Kramer

Senior Members

330

2. ## IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?

Endercreepr01 is not the equation for gravitational potential energy. You are claiming that no matter what r is, . This is not correct, since the speed of light is always constant. ------ Indeed. This may happen only in Plank –Ejnshtein area. There, an alleged “tiny” particle with mass 1.85939987 10^-9 kg, in a distance, from the same other partner, 1.38054385810^-36 m., moving around each other with C velocity , fulfill conditions of both equations. Swansont I thought that was answered: No. Gravity is not the only source of movement. ------ Now to be clear: that “is not the only”, does not exclude the statement that “gravity is a source of movement. Right? About the “other source” I, only in passing, answered to the John Kuthber rebut, because I thought it as another topic. My doubt in second part of title: ‘maybe the only…?” it is because I have a hunch that “ only high gravity it is the source that deliberate free the photons, and as they are deliberated they create the second source of movement” Sensei What was first, egg or chicken.. ? If we have rocket with satellite on board and want it to stay fixed above one place of Earth, we have to accelerate rocket to certain speed, which you can pretty much approximate to: v = 2*PI*(r+h) / time r - radius of Earh 6378000 m h - altitude above surface time - one whole day in seconds ~86400 s, but we need to use sidereal day = 86164 s v = 2 * 3.14159265 * ( 6,378,000 + 35,786,000 ) / 86164 = 3074 m/s And that velocity you can find in this article http://en.wikipedia....tationary_orbit If satellite will lose that velocity it will be attracted to Earth, and suddenly destroyed in atmosphere. As long as it's going with that velocity or higher it's safe. Same is with planet - if it would collide with big enough fast moving object, it could slow down and lose its current orbit. Current orbits and current velocities around Sun are result of few billion years distant collisions and interactions with objects that are now part of planets. -----For the first part of this your post I have a question, and for short I answer my self: what source of movement you use in your racket, to defy gravity? Sure photons. In my idea photons are the source and in the same time bearers of their movements. In my idea photons are structure of interaction of two mater and anti mater sub-particles. Michel 123456 What is the other source? 1. what makes a planet orbit?: 2. what makes a planet rotate? Swansopnt Planets aren't the only things that move.

4. ## IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?

I tried to post a sketch yesterday, but it was not accepted by site, Please, can somebody explain for me why and how can i post sketches. iI want to continue debate about role of gravity in movements in macro cosmos and picro picro cosmos. If staf or moderators are not interested in it, please , openly say this and close the thread.

6. ## IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?

Sorry if I am not able to respond on each poster. This is not an issue of preference, as it is the policy of our speculation forum, policy that divides people in friends and foes. For me is not either of any relevance the valuation of individs. For myself I know the price of my skin. So I respond only on the posts that rebut the idea of thread with concrete remarks. On my thread nobody has criticized it step by step. Just about that, I was eager to listen. Because I am not sure myself about the main idea, which I see is very extravagance and scary. 1-- About the orbital velocity I wanted to know the opinion of posters. I have calculated for all planets, and I have found that equation is a hyperbola, and the velocity depends from the distance toward the main “source of gravity”, in this case -- the sun. Nobody approved or refuted it. 2 – From the first question depends the second. I for some time have asked myself, why the earth is not rotate (spin) with the law of orbital velocity? After this law, the Kramer in equator must have a velocity 7910 m/sec. instead of 465 m/sec. which is in the fact. 3 – Here came the idea that some counter spinning moment will reduce the own spin velocity of planet. Calculations for sun and the planets for discrepancies between orbital formula and the fact, gave the idea that problem depends on the rate between diameter of planet and the distance from the “source of movement”. 4—There came the calculations of delta Vg. for each planet, considered as a hidden culprit of named counter moment, and the link of this tiny velocity with the period of orbits and the radius of planets. 5—And here is the time to tell that grasshopper Kramer has stuck in clay. Some planets refuse to know and approve those childish calculations of some Kramer.

8. ## IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?

IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY? Kramer, doesn’t recall where he read once that scientists are puzzled about cause that make cosmic bodies to spin around their axis. That’s very simple to solve it! “--- He told me.---- It is a known boaster that lay man Kramer. But let be patient with him and throw down step by step his mode of reasoning. Kramer say: 1 – The velocity of planets depends by gravity of sun and by the precise distance “Rsun-planet” from center of sun to the point where is the center of gravity of planet. Vg1 = ((G*Msun) / Rsun,planet.)^0.5 Is it that true? 2 – But planet is not a point. It has a radius “R planet”. Here must be the clue for solving that puzzle. Let say that in the diameter of planet, directed to sun, Kramer 1 is in front and Kramer 2 is in the anti-pode. It is evident that Kramer 2 will stay behind in the orbital movement of them.(If we suppose for simplicity that gravity of planet is un-existent) Is it that true? 3---The difference on velocity between Kramer 1 and Kramer 2 will be: Delta Vg = Vg1 – Vg2 = = ((G * Msun) / (Rsun,planet – Rplanet)^0.5 – ((G*Msun) / (Rsun,planet +Rplanet)^0.5 Is it that true? I assure it’s true. For Earth Kramer 2 will stay behind 1.22m/sec. 4—Big deal , say the reader. 1.22 m/sec are zero in cosmic velocity! But not in this case, my friend -- says Kramer. You may calculate that Kramer 2 will stay behind after full orbital movement, in a distance equal perimeter of planet in equator: Delta Vg * Torbit = 2*pi*Rplanet.! 5 After this rebut Kramer continue: – Let return in point 2--. Kramer supposed (for simplicity!) that gravity of earth is inexistent. That we know was only a supposition. It is gravity of Earth (for example), which holds Kramer 2 tied in the same distance toward Kramer 1. But what happens with delta Vg? Will it be neglected as un-existent? Certainly not! It was applied in the center of gravity of each halves of planet, in the form of a spinning moment. 6 – It is this spinning moment that turns around the earth. This is the cause of spinning. Solved problem! Ha?-- asked I to Kramer. Solved problem?! How is “the period of spinning”? This means to be called “ solved problem”! 7 --- The Kramer mum! … may be for a while.
9. ## THE FLAVOURS OF NEUTRINOS -- AN INTRIGUING SCIENTIFIC FACT

Ajb. This is not something I am very familiar with. Maybe a quick google could throw up some analogies. ---- Thanks Ajb. I will try with myself ways.
10. ## THE FLAVOURS OF NEUTRINOS -- AN INTRIGUING SCIENTIFIC FACT

Ajb I think the most popular mechanism suggested is the via the Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix. The seesaw mechanism is also important here. Thanks Ajb. I thank you for giving me the satisfaction that my post is not a gross stupidity. Four scientists have suggested an explanation! From your replay I see that exists some other suggested mechanism. I would liked to know “in crude” the suggested ideas of the mechanism that rise about 10^6 times the mass of electron neutrino. I am a lay-man that because for the lack knowledge of high math, I can’t logic by means of math. So, if it is possible, what is the “seesaw mechanism”, is something I suppose “ give and take’ energy?! May be one of those, share my naive idea that neutrino is a composed particle from two sub-particles, that play an important role in nuclear theory binding electron with proton in a new particle –neutron. Even though, in modern physics neutron is supposed to interfere low with mater..
11. ## THE FLAVOURS OF NEUTRINOS -- AN INTRIGUING SCIENTIFIC FACT

THE FLAVOURS OF NEUTRINOS -- AN INTRIGUING SCIENTIFIC FACT When I read about scientific fact that neutrinos change their “mass” with but-strap mode from < 3*10^-6 MeV / C^2 (electron neutrino) in < 30 MeV / C^2 ( for Tau neutrino) I was amazed and wanted to post with label “ Controversy”. That because, even though I scratched for a long time my lay-man’s head, I didn’t was able to grasp how this can happens. Everybody understands that to loose energy when you run for long time is not against nature, but to gain energy from thin air in this case is upside down. So I thought to post in this forum, ( with-out that hated “controversy” label) maybe somebody knowledgeable and good willed may give any clue, how this miracle can happen.
12. ## Split Speculation on The behaviour of electrons

Swanson If it's confusing, I refer you to my above comment about learning the basics. That's really your responsibility if you want feedback from people who have spent considerable time doing so. ---- Thanks for reference and advice. About feedback –I am sorry to tell—was not much helpful because they dodged the problems and questions most of the time. Sure, based on the data and the fact that a lay-man don’t have any idea about Lagranges and Hamiltonians, and must be pleased on what say knowledgeable people. Short shepherds and sheep. I am sorry too about your considerable time spent. Sure I appreciate your patience and tact. But I see that I have overreacted in my tenacity. I think that after this say, is without any use to continue the debate in this post.
13. ## Split Speculation on The behaviour of electrons

Swanson Since "gravity mass" is a non-standard term, your question is not at all clear to me. You appear to be introducing something new, which you have not defined. ---- Sorry. Different topic, after which “mass” is not inner property of particles, --- it is induced by Higss field. “from outside” . And cover the debate under rug. My shallow lay-mans knowledge, can’t be conformed with this excellent idea, --- for scientists, and seems to me as a speculative patch to get rid from a nuisance that tether gallop toward total mystification of physics. What has to do this, with the topics we are debate? Introduce I something new? Not at all. My conviction is, as it has been, that all elementary particles are structured from material unique sub-particles, which posses at least three property: incessantly movement in an unlimited space, electric attractive or repellent ability, gravity attractive or repellent ability. It is for this that I want to know what is the mass of this Pion 0. Great. Come up with a model for it. Calculate how much of a difference there is, so when the people at CERN answer this question you can compare your prediction with it. ----- Now I can’t. When CERN will pinpoint the cardinal question: Have anti particles , anti gravity? Then will opened the way for many different calculations. By the way, the duty of calculations are upon scientists, not upon lay-mans. Sensei In high energy physics electronvolt unit is simply useful and convenient. ----- Yes! So it is said. But where is the convenience in “eV”? Here “e” is a constant, what is the rest, the driver? ---- “V”. or “giga V”. As we know the potential is created by electric charges, that is from constant “e”, so the only variable is distance in “meter”, potential create a force, which is applied upon “e”., but force is Newton - Kgmsec^-2. etc. Yes Maybe convenient but most is confusing and derailing. I don't want to hijack your threads. We would have to speak off-forum. ----- I have no idea what is it “hijack” even though I have had one awareness about “hijacking”. Who is ones that protests “hijack”? is it O.P. or staff of forum? And--for what reason? I would be happy if somebody has ideas similar of mine, better of mine, in contrary of mine in whole or in partial. For this I think is “speculative forum” , to debate, to make the ideas property of society, for scrutiny. Sure in a civilized manner. As for selfishness, authority , profitability, those have their post in forums “for per view”. So I don’t see why “off-forum”. Indeed if you want to slam me and don’t like in open, take example by gentleness of Swanson, and I go with one “ouch”
14. ## Split Speculation on The behaviour of electrons

Swansont It is the mass. Gravitational and inertial mass are, as far as we know, the same. --- I think that gravity is a weight tied in the leg of quantum theory, which bother and irritate theorists. In the most cases they ignore it, but they can’t get rid of it without going in strange speculations. My question was clear: Has “gravity mass” this Pion0 sub particle? Because I think that particles with gravity mass have distinguished features which can’t be covered with random used, equivalence of mass : eV / C^2. For a particle at rest, E=mc2 (if it's moving there is an additional term to account for the kinetic energy) ----- Right. Known in eons, but this “at rest” is confusing via relativity. Different topic. We say the photon is massless because it has no mass and thus travels at c. One result of this is that it responds to gravity relatively weakly as compared to massive objects. ------ Right. Known. For “Respond to gravity weakly” here my speculation: Unique sub particles have a tiny discrepancy in gravity and anti gravity. Neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically. ---- That a blow for me. My conviction is that does not exist particle without electromagnetic property, hence without electric charges. Is it sure-sure that doesn’t interact? I hope you have some appreciation of how this is insulting and condescending to scientists, that you will not accept any of their work until you understand it, because of the good chance they are deceiving you. ------ That ridicules. Who care what a crack - pot lay man feel, think and say. And where--- in speculative forum? Only --- if in himself of (alleged) scientist, resonate faintly the same doubt. Sensei But 1 C is quantized by e const 1.6*10^-19 C 1 C / e = 6.25*10^18charges/electrons. ----- Thanks Sensei for really accurate and pedantic explanations They are very helpful for a lay-man that has a lot of lack in knowledge. Only I have, especially for you, request for help about two dilemma: 1---- Why is fading from modern physic the system of unity Kg,m,sec.A? 2---- If “C” is quantised in “e” what is your thought about fractional electric charge?

16. ## Split Speculation on The behaviour of electrons

Sensei say: Pion 0 can also decay to gamma photon, electron and positron. It's just one of decay modes. They can be really complicated.. ------That’s exact conforms with my reasoning: that “pion 0” has a structure. The structure “must have been created” in itself from elementary base blocks. Those blocks must have property to combine with each other in different modes. So after fall down (decay) the structure of Pion0, those blocks combines in simpler structure: gamma photons, further in more simple combinations : electrons , photons (those elementary particles base of objective reality). Gamma photon will collide sooner or later with charged particle and accelerate it, and new photon will be produced with lower energy. See Compton scattering. http://en.wikipedia....pton_scattering Without collision of photon with something, you have no idea that photon was there.. ---- That right. The Compton scattering and the Compton wave length reinforce my credo that reality consists in “particularity” existence of matter. The basis of this particularity are alleged blocks of matter which are able to create all kind of particles perceived or not, by us humans. ----------------------------- But specialist of science rejects down this idea. And specialist is sincere in his objection. Based on data of a century research. Based in "irrefutable" interpretations of these data. Forget about disputes: Strings? Loops? Etc. Those are all inside the box. They are based in sancta math, and math has nothing to do with common lay mans reality. The math is subtle, is Platonic. It create things where is nothing from. Only one thing the science has not pinpoint: How something, without charge or mass called Pion 0, gives birth of things called electrons which posses charge and mass ? Swansont No, it does not. There's no reason (within physics) to expect photons to behave this way. -----Please explain for me how are created gamma photons from Pion 0. Pion 0 has to do with gamma photons, gamma photons have nothing to do with Pion 0, this is something strange. No, pions are not a kind of photon. ---- My ignorance. I thought that something in physics that has not mass, has not charge is Photon. And Pion0 is one of them. A different kind in the zoo of particles! Photons don't decay, so the mean lifetime is infinite. They can interact with other particles, though. ---- Is this sure? How comes that from gamma photons take life electron –positron? No, it does not. Not in the context of science. If you are doing science fiction, though, then you can make up anything you wish. But if you want to do science, you need to make yourself aware of the larger picture, of all of the interactions that are (or aren't) taking place. ----- I don’t make science. I only throw my doubt about some aspects and assertions of modern physics that seems to me weird, irrational and far away illogic by the common sense. If I speculate with idea of “unique sub particles”, and the particularity of reality, in the forum of speculations, I think that my aim is not to irritate interlocutors (if any) but only to make stressing that for me “modern physic, in a lot of assertions, is highly speculative”. And if this is premeditated is very bad. And rightfully so. It ignores known physics. ----- I see. It’s not only your opinion. It is of all readers of my posts. I am not able to convince nobody about my so called hypothesis of sub particles, even those that think that electron is the basis block--- (because I think that electron positron and photon have similar structure). I don’t blame anybody, even my self. Again who knows? Maybe in the future-- if scientist will find that antimatter has anti gravity—the science will change what is irrational.
17. ## Split Speculation on The behaviour of electrons

Thanks Sensei So, “pion 0” decays in two “gamma photons”, doesn’t this give me the right to suppose that pion 0 was structured by two gamma photons? ! So, pion0 was not destined to move in eternity. It splits without traveling 1 meter. My mistake. --- But wait a minute, why not? It is kind a photon, and photons are stabile! Ha? Further: What about it’s offsprings -- gamma photons? Have they any mean life? Have they possibility to travel more far than their mother pion 0 ? As I am aware they too splits in two ” mass particles” electron and positron. I don’t know if they degenerate in lower frequency photons. This gave me the right to suppose that “pion 0” is a bunch of electron positron pairs that dance for a short period a kadrill called Pion 0 and after a while split in grups called gamma photons which going home split in pairs electron-positron. This is a lay-mans reasoning and sure by specialist will be ignored as senseless crap. I have doubt myself but not about the fact that the so called mass-less particles are structured by mass particles with opposite gravity property. My doubt is about the by - product of “ annihilation” of proton. There must be compulsory the neutrino particles in the ensemble.
18. ## Split Speculation on The behaviour of electrons

I would like to know “the fate” of the by-products of ”annihilations” sort of pions 0 , gammas, even simple photons of light. Where is their destiny? Eterne travels toward infinity? Somebody knows the answer. Please elucidate a curious lay-man.
19. ## Von Klitzing’s constant and Ohm’s rule

Even though nobody want to dispute about this thread I will continue for awhile. The huge potential energy, results if we use unities Volt, Amper, Herc, ( instead of electron volt), that is, when treat electron as a dynamic, continuous interaction and movement inside him, of electric charges. So: P = U^2 / Rk = 10115904, 73 V.A. = (Mpl.*sqrtα* C^2) / 16.51989 V.A. = Hpl. / τe Here “Hpl”. Is upper constant energy of Plank mass equal 167113697,2 J. (For us, reveals only a tine part of this energy: Ee = (U^2 / Rk) / fe = 8.18710195*10 ^-14 J. = me * C^2 = e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*re) = = h* (C*α / 2*pi*re) etc. In the formula, “τe” is interval of time that corresponds gravity velocity inside electron. ”Rk” – Von Klitzing constant. τe = ((2*pi /α) * re) / Vge = 16.51989 sec. Here Vge (gravity velocity) inside electron structure. Vge = sqrt ( G * me / re ) m/sec.= 1.46872039*10^-13 sec. ------------------------------------ In the closure of this thread I give “my” conclusions: Von Klitzing resistance (Rk) is a Plank area constant that may be used as capacitive, inductive, or active. And in this thread I gave a short explanation for the link of Rk with my hypothesis that all particles are structured by sub-particles, the so called -- tiny black holes.
20. ## Split Speculation on The behaviour of electrons

I think Dekan is right. I think electrons are material particles, real particles that have nothing to do with annihilation. Even interacting with positron they dance with him preserving hidden in photon own entity,. They display themselves when divorce with positron.
21. ## Von Klitzing’s constant and Ohm’s rule

( The layman say the opposite: What you call Quantum, is nothing else but classic physics of super high frequencies, where the resistance is always a composition of capacitive, inductive and active. Now we have a resistance, Von Klitsing resistance : Rk = μ0 * C / 2 * α = 25812.80762 ohm. = RL this is equal RK = 1 / (2 * α )* ( ε0 * C ) = 25812.80762 ohm = RC In my electron’s hypothesis R = Ue / e * fe = 25812.80762 ohm ( I think, “ fe” is motivated. This is not something fudged. It is equal ---- fe = Ee / h. ) What troubles me, is the huge amount of potential energy: P = U^2 / R = 10115904.73 V*A P = I^2 * R = 10115904.73 V*A P = U * I * R = 10115904.73 V*A I think that this huge “potential” energy is linked with gravity of hypothetic sub-particles. And with this , I think, is linked the “ Quantum momentary energy h / dt “
22. ## Von Klitzing’s constant and Ohm’s rule

Andy 0816 It's a constant because it is derived from constants. Planck's Constant and Elementary charge respectively. Planck's Constant = 6.62606957×10−34 J·s Elementary Charge = 1.602176565×10−19 C Von Klitzing's Constant = Planck's Constant / (Elementary Charge)2 = 25812.807557 J·s/C2 = 25812.807557 Ohms You can divide the two yourself and have proof of this. If you want how it relates to the real world you'll need to look at the already mentioned Quantum Hall effect.| ------- All you say is exact. What I say is that Von Klitsing constant fits in Electric elementary particles, as i suppose they have structure: RK = h / e^2 = Ue / Ie = ( e / ( 4 * pi * ε0* Re) ) / ( e * fe ) = (e / ( 4 * pi * ε0 *Re) ) / ( e * ( C / ( (2 * pi / α) * Re) ) ) = (2 * pi) / (α * 4 * p i * ε0 *C) = 1 / (2 * α )* ( ε0 * C ) = μ0 * C / 2 * α -------------------------------------- So let me get this straight: you can't find any information on the von Klitzing constant*, and yet you are able to conclude that it applies in situations other than the quantum Hall effect. Yes . I am, even though my reasoning not satisfied opponents. Swansont *despite the fact that I provided a wikipedia link, which includes references, and a Google search yields almost 50,000 hits. -----Thanks for the help. I am not ungrateful, even though I hopped for something more concrete. Fine, then: go and find experimental results that show quantized conductivity that is not related to the quantum Hall effect. Until you do, though, you can't claim the constant has applicability elsewhere. ------- May be Hall effect is the experimental fact you ask with insist. Up on what is applied “ quantum effect” if not up on the electrons? May be this is some kind of “dielectric hysteresis”? that caused RK = constant, based on the alleged fact that electrons resistance is constant too. I can't fathom the logic that allows one to conclude that particle physics links quantum physics with classical physics, making them interchangeable. The quantum Hall effect, as the name implies, is a quantum effect. -------My lay-man logic is based in: 1 The particle has an over-all energy. 2 The energy is conserved. 3 The energy may tranformed from one kind in another. 4 In exact the same amount. 5 The quantum energy, is one of them that has its specifics, as the others have own. .

24. ## Von Klitzing’s constant and Ohm’s rule

Swanson Then go read up on the Quantum Hall Effect. You get quantum effects when you put the electrons into a situation where they have quantized energy values. ____ That is “ go fishing “. I see in Hall effect only classical effect: The intertwined of two kind of magnetic fields, one from outside --- the other from the flow of current. In one side of flow the magnetic field will be stronger, in the opposite weaker. This will push electrons of the material, conductor of the current, in the side perpendicular with direction of flow, where field is stronger. If material (conductor) is an allow that has trapped, in its atoms some-how, the positrons, the so called “hole”, they will pushed in opposite direction. Sure this is a mess explanation from the lay-man. But my questions continue to have not an explanation from specialists: It is the “Von Klitzing constant resistance”, property of conductor? property of electrons? property of space?. Why is it constant? That’s what I wanted to listen. About the part II ( above ) that you ignored at all as “ nonsense “ the Von Klitzing constant revealed as a property of structure of electron. I think this is much more important than how it ‘s revealed in Hall effect. By the way --- two other constants may be taken from the domain of Quantum, in my classical interpretation of electron: “Josefson constant” and “flux constant”. Anyway—thanks that have patience to debate with a lay-man.