John Cuthber Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 As another remarkable example of Dovada's ignorance "If the use of infra red technology was available 100 years ago do you think we would be having this conversation, I doubt it." It was. IR was discovered more than 100 years ago. So, Dovada doubts that we are having this discussion. "What if it contains all three velocity vectors" Then its velocity is the vector sum of those three. It only have one velocity from any given point of view. "what harmonics are available? " None (generally, but it depends on the field through which the electron is moving) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted October 30, 2011 Author Share Posted October 30, 2011 IR was discovered more than 100 years ago. Only recently was the technology developed sufficiently to make the discoveries needed. But you knew that didn't you? "What if it contains all three velocity vectors"Then its velocity is the vector sum of those three. It only have one velocity from any given point of view. "what harmonics are available? " None (generally, but it depends on the field through which the electron is moving) What do you mean "none (generally, but it depends on the field through which the electron is moving)"? Do you understand about amplitude and frequency modulation? How do you express frequency modulation in the quantum atomic model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 What do you mean "none (generally, but it depends on the field through which the electron is moving)"? Do you understand about amplitude and frequency modulation? How do you express frequency modulation in the quantum atomic model? His point was that free electrons do not have resonances. Also, you appear to have ignored my post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 The use of mc^2/r described simply as a centripetal force was to show the relationship that the Sun Earth experiences in a path that is similar to the ratio of the galactic velocity of 600,000 m/sec for the solar system as it moves with the galaxy and the solar radius distance between the Sun and the Earth. The 600,000 m/sec centripetal force that would normally apply is (counteracted) balanced out by the 600,000 m/sec galactic velocity. This still leaves an active force between the masses we refer to as gravitation. example: 600,000 * (Sun Earth radius) is simply equal to c^2 This is similar to Kepler's law that expresses the planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time, so the Earth's mass moves with the Sun's mass at a radial distance that equals (c^2/600,000) along with the galaxy at 600,000 m/sec to sweep out an area that simply equals c^2. These types of numerical relationships need to be looked at a little closer, that is all I am implying here. So it's "I used it because the numbers work out" rather than there being a physical principle involved. Do you imply here that the galactic velocity that we are a part of is not moving at 600,000 meters per second? If you do agree we are moving at 600,000 m/s how can you say "It's evidence that motion has no effect on atomic structure. It falsifies your claim. I have not found any evidence that suggests this. No, I am stating explicitly that some things are moving at e.g. 600,001 m/s and others at 599,993 m/s and a whole continuous spectrum of values because velocity is a vector. And yet atomic structure is not a continuum, which means it is not dependent on the velocity. You have not found evidence to suggest this is false — have you actually looked? Have you just decided what is true and ignored any contradictory evidence? Why does it not matter what time of day or year I do a spectroscopy measurement? My velocity changes by quite a bit over time, because I can be moving with or against the galactic motion, and yet atomic structure does not change. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted October 30, 2011 Author Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) His point was that free electrons do not have resonances. You mean free electrons bound in our galaxy and moving with that galaxy? Sorry, how can something be moving at 600000m/s and 3*10^8m/s relative to something else at the same time? This sentence makes no sense. What was meant here was the galaxies have a variety of velocities extending up toward the speed of light. Our local group has a value of 600,000 m/sec. But it's ot a localy universal velocity condition, because the concept of a local universal velocity condition of fundamentally unphysical. Not in my world - It is very physical condition. Relativity works though, your idea opposes it. Your idea does not fit with how our experiments show the universe works. How can motion within the fourth dimension appose your ideas? We are in real physical motion and we have to accept that fact. Your experiments do not show how the universe works. Ask yourself: Why does all atomic matter have equal quantities of charge? Why does atomic structure have a positive nucleus and negative electrons on the outside? How do gravitation fields accelerate atomic structure? You have not found evidence to suggest this is false — have you actually looked? Have you just decided what is true and ignored any contradictory evidence? Why does it not matter what time of day or year I do a spectroscopy measurement? My velocity changes by quite a bit over time, because I can be moving with or against the galactic motion, and yet atomic structure does not change. Why not? Dynamic impedance, when the velocity changes the effective electromagnetic wavelength also changes. (Frequency modulation - something the quantum atomic model does not cater for). Edited October 30, 2011 by Dovada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 His point was that free electrons do not have resonances. Also, you appear to have ignored my post above. Actually, my point was that, from any given point of view, an electron has only one velocity and, because of that, it has one frequency (I'm presuming we are talking about the fact that if it has a velocity it has a momentum, so it has a wavelength and it therefore has a frequency). It only has one velocity. It only has one frequency. There are no combination tones or overtones. So the answer to the question "what overtones are there?" is none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 We are in real physical motion and we have to accept that fact. Your experiments do not show how the universe works. If our motion affects atomic structure you should be able to show that. But you keep ignoring the evidence which falsifies your thesis. You need to start adhering to rule #1 of speculations. It's put up or trash can time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 The difficulty here is everybody is trying to defend something that is not yet fully understood. Fundamentally I am not attacking and trying to tear down the science we know to date. I am trying to expand its ability to help us achieve greater heights by looking at the system from another perspective. Actually, my point was that, from any given point of view, an electron has only one velocity and, because of that, it has one frequency (I'm presuming we are talking about the fact that if it has a velocity it has a momentum, so it has a wavelength and it therefore has a frequency). As far as electrons and frequency are concerned it is clear that they can be manipulated to oscillate at any reasonable frequency as the radio spectrum shows us. After all our communications system would not work if this was not possible. The main point I wanted to make was that our environment where we live is made possible because the processes of atomic structure makes it possible for the environment to exist this way. There are aspects of our environment that are happening, which we are not clear on as to why? We have developed some theories some of which are more of a means to an end, rather than a clear solution to a problem. In many ways we depend on the insight and intuitiveness of the physicist to develop the tools and new methods to enable us to understand what is going on. It is this insight and intuitiveness that will enable us to rapidly develop our theories to levels tomorrow that we can only dream about today. One of the problems we do have with our current theories, is they do not readily interface at all levels of functionality. It is because of this that we have conflicts, including what is happening in this thread. We need to resolve these functionality problems to progress into any source of success in bringing functionality back into our theories. This will not happen if we persist in becoming inflexible to the point of no change. The ability of neutral atomic structure to move within the cosmos in any uniform path, as appears under the influence of gravity in our galactic motions, means to me, we have overlooked something obvious. For this reason we need to step back and re-hash the way we assume atomic structure is working with the environment. In the research I have done, I discovered a simple but effective method whereby neutral atomic structure could be moved by a moving electrical gravitational field. But more importantly moved it in a manner which also masked the existence of the electrical properties of the gravitational field itself. That process I wanted to discuss with sensible members on this forum who understand classic electrical theory and how it could be applied to the current theories incorporating quantum mechanics. This is the reason I am here today. I am not here to tell you that you are wrong. I am here to discuss something new and different, and this at times, may conflict with your concept of how things are working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 As far as electrons and frequency are concerned it is clear that they can be manipulated to oscillate at any reasonable frequency as the radio spectrum shows us. After all our communications system would not work if this was not possible. That is a completely different matter, and has no relation to electron wavelength. The ability of neutral atomic structure to move within the cosmos in any uniform path, as appears under the influence of gravity in our galactic motions, means to me, we have overlooked something obvious. Newton's first law of motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 ! Moderator Note Dovada, you've had ample opportunity to address the objections to your claims and present evidence to support you, as the rules demand, but you have not done so. Instead all we've gotten is a re-hash of the same tired numerology. So this thread is closed. Do not reintroduce this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts