quick silver Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 no i'm the one who really took it out of line. i've never really taken critcism well........ and i thank you for you lead. i will try to follow. sorry i was snippy in my last messages. i though that all my work was for nothing when some one had said that it was proven impossible to do. i hand wrote 23 pages on this thng and found a different answer. thank you for the speed of light I definiatly NEED that..... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 What did you think of Quantum Inertia Hypothesis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceTime Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Hi QuickSilver, AtomicMX offered to assist with electromagnetic formula's etc, maybe take him up on his offer. Good luck with your research. Signed SpaceTime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick silver Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 What did you think of Quantum Inertia Hypothesis? lol lol lol hey wait one moment please, allow my brain time to catch up. lol i don't have acess to a computer all the time. and what time i am on, i'm either working on my project or my senior project so i can graduate. what stuff on quatum physics that i did print out..... it didn't have that in there.lol so i can't really say much of anything about it. i'm on limited information right now. lol thank you all for your help. oh and by the way................... reality is a concept of one's mind. you can't define what is different for every one. like the term "normal person" how do you know that , what they are is normal. it's all perspective. oh , i nearly forgot.............................. thank you for the lead that you have given me. (now i feel better. i knew that i was forgetting something.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceTime Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 What did you think of Quantum Inertia Hypothesis? Life is really not that complicated. The answer is much simpler.. Signed SpaceTime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick silver Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 yea..... i think oi found one of the many answers.... i have a chemistry/? tacher reading it to tell me i f it made any sense. i hope you got my above apology. you know about e being snippy? signed, a freind, B. Bourget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceTime Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 No appology necessary. Good luck SpaceTime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick silver Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 good. i'm glad now that whole bout of whatever that was, is over. now i have to ask a question................ can something be so simple that you have to find a way to explain it in complex terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceTime Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 It is common for the scientists of the world to complicate those things that they don't understand, it is the only way they can hide behind and hide within their own technology. Once the truth comes out it is really simple and easy to understand. The majority of the current scientific theories are pure speculation, nothing is locked into cement, and their is plenty of room for individual acheivement. Remember people who explain things in complex terms are usually hiding behind scientific jargon, but people who know what they are talking about are easy to understand and can explain what they mean. If you keep this in mind it will help you, and make it very hard for others to confuse you. SpaceTime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick silver Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 einstine could have created a different way to explain something in our universe, bu nowing that some would dissmiss it because it was simple could have been one motive? could that be right? for the long GUT formula he found something small and easy to understand and as for speculation................ that's how every theory starts as. lol thank you for the advice and encouragement got to go to my next class soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceTime Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Albert Einstein did not have an easy life with his fellow physicists, much of the work he published took many years before it was to be accepted by others. Unfortunately Albert Einstein did not have the information which is available to us today, and it was almost a miracle that he achieved what he did achieve, with only the information he had at that time, for this we must give him credit. As we progress toward the true scientific understandings we will discover mistakes which others have made, do not criticise those people who have made scientific mistakes, because through their errors you may have advanced toward success. Respect those that have shared their knowledge with you, because they had the guts to do this, and there is much pride and prejudice within the scientific community. Einstein and many others did their best, who could ask for any more than this. Signed SpaceTime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Then if gravity is so insignicant how can gravity change the velocity and direction of all atomic matter?' date=' and obviously the internal functions of the atomic matter?[/quote'] gravity is pretty much insignificant on the atomic level. Gravity does not noticably affect the motions ON THE ATOMIC LEVEL. The internal functions, as you put it, are much, much stronger than the gravitational perturbation, on the surface of the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick silver Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 i have no intrest in critizing others for there mistakes, unless they are illegal. i have a teacher here that is reading what i have. he has a background in physics and may give me soem insight. i was told by the first teacher to go ahead and try to copywrite it. that at the end my "answer" made a lot of sense. i'm not trying to brag if that is what you are thinking. i find what einstine has done interesting. i am doing nothing more than trying interprete a puzzle that was left undone. and as for my thought on gravity. it is nothing more than another version of electromagnitsm. and that all things can be broken down ito electromagnitsm. if not all, them almost all things. well go to go to my next class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Tell me what the internal atomic wavelengths of a simple hydrogen atom is expected to be if it is travelling at 600' date='000 meters per second through the universe? [/quote'] 600 km/s with respect to what? Which transition(s)? Where do you expect gravity to come into play for an atom travelling "through the universe" and how does that tie in to its speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceTime Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Swansont, Take a look at this website and then you can see that all atomic matter has a universal velocity. http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/astronomy/expandinguniverselecture.html quote"The earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the Milky way, The Milky way moves about within the local galactic cluster and the Galactic cluster is being pulled across space by the gravity of the "great attractor." The great attractor is a huge supercluster of galaxies. Add together all of these motions and we are moving 600 km/s toward the great attractor." After reading this then start calculating the internal velocities for the particles of the current hydrogen quantum atomic model. Positive proton nucleus velocity = zero (wrong) negative electron velocity = about 240,000 to 250,000 meters/sec (wrong) Note before any atomic functions can occur the atomic particles have a base velocity of: Positive proton nucleus velocity = 600,000 meters/sec negative electron velocity = about (600,000 * 1.414) meters/sec None of the atomic models show these simple but important fundamental facts. Additional to this, the atomic wavelengths are modified by this velocity (phase shifted) and the atom does not see the same wavelength that we see and calculate. Our observance is relative to our own velocity which is the same as the atom we are testing. The atom can be considered as being in tune with its universal environment. For this reason all atomic structure is in motion within the universe, and all planets just happen to have exactly the correct velocity for orbiting. Galileo was penalised for saying the earth was not the center of the universe, that the planet earth is orbiting the sun. From this perspective, we should have taken Galileo's lead and the developed our atomic models as atomic models that are in motion and not assumed that they are stationary like the church assumed the earth was in Galileo's day. I am very interested in the research by the http://www.dovada.com company in Australia, they seem to be researching in this very direction. Myself I feel that everything is in for a big change shortly. Hope this may answer your question. Signed SpaceTime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Swansont' date='Take a look at this website and then you can see that all atomic matter has a universal velocity. http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/astronomy/expandinguniverselecture.html quote"The earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the Milky way, The Milky way moves about within the local galactic cluster and the Galactic cluster is being pulled across space by the gravity of the "great attractor." The great attractor is a huge supercluster of galaxies. Add together all of these motions and we are moving 600 km/s toward the great attractor."[/quote'] Yes, we are moving with respect to the microwave background. It's not an absolute velocity. After reading this then start calculating the internal velocities for the particles of the current hydrogen quantum atomic model. Positive proton nucleus velocity = zero (wrong) negative electron velocity = about 240' date='000 to 250,000 meters/sec (wrong) Note before any atomic functions can occur the atomic particles have a base velocity of: Positive proton nucleus velocity = 600,000 meters/sec negative electron velocity = about (600,000 * 1.414) meters/sec None of the atomic models show these simple but important fundamental facts. Additional to this, the atomic wavelengths are modified by this velocity (phase shifted) and the atom does not see the same wavelength that we see and calculate. Our observance is relative to our own velocity which is the same as the atom we are testing.[/quote'] And what effect does the earth's 30km/s motion around the sun have on all this? You should see a 10% fluctuation in velocity-dependent terms in spectra as we move through our orbit. On top of that, we have rotational motion of another .5 km/s on top of that. Do we see this? I've got a bunch of atomic clocks that say no. The atom can be considered as being in tune with its universal environment. For this reason all atomic structure is in motion within the universe' date=' and all planets just happen to have exactly the correct velocity for orbiting.[/quote'] Planets that do not have the right velocity for orbiting are no longer in orbit. Ever seen a crater? What of atoms in other galaxies that are moving at some other speed toward...whatever. Why do their atoms give the correct spectra from our supposedly incorrect models? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceTime Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Yes' date=' we are moving with respect to the microwave background. It's not an absolute velocity. And what effect does the earth's 30km/s motion around the sun have on all this? You should see a 10% fluctuation in velocity-dependent terms in spectra as we move through our orbit. On top of that, we have rotational motion of another .5 km/s on top of that. Do we see this? I've got a bunch of atomic clocks that say no. Planets that do not have the right velocity for orbiting are no longer in orbit. Ever seen a crater? What of atoms in other galaxies that are moving at some other speed toward...whatever. Why do their atoms give the correct spectra from our supposedly incorrect models?[/quote'] What causes the tilt of the earth? Why does the earth spin? If the electron has a velocity (600,000 * 1.414) as it orbits the proton, what would be the protons orbital velocity of the electron be? After all every action has an equal and opposite reaction I was told. Proton orbital velocity = (600,000 * 1.414) divided by (mp/me) = 463 m/s What did you say is the earths equatorial spin velocity was? equatorial spin = (40.000,000 km / 86400 seconds) = 463 m/s Maybe you are still missing something? these macro conditions are not occurring by just mere chance. I suggest you do further investigation. Remember the atom is not stationary, you are travelling at an incredible velocity, and atomic clocks will probably vary with you as the atomic conditions vary. If internal atomic frequency conditions vary, then why wouldn't the atomic clock also be a variable after all it depends on the atomic frequency condition. Hope this helps Signed SpaceTime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Remember the atom is not stationary' date=' you are travelling at an incredible velocity, and atomic clocks will probably vary with you as the atomic conditions vary. If internal atomic frequency conditions vary, then why wouldn't the atomic clock also be a variable after all it depends on the atomic frequency condition. [/quote'] Exactly my point. Clocks would have to vary under your scenario. And yet we can compare them with other clocks - on the other side of the world, for example, who have the opposite velocity to be added into the overall value. Or with clocks that are away from the earth, like pulsars. Why don't these clocks show an effect of this motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceTime Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 How could these clocks show the difference, if the atomic structure speeds vary everything must vary slightly, even the relative speed of light. You would be operating and functioning inside a form of pure relativity. Maybe this why we suffer jet lag, the body clock goes out of sync faster than it should when we travel fast between time zones, and it takes time for our atomic structure to adjust to the new timezone. It takes time to absorb this type of change in thinking, ponder it and you will slowly see the universe unfold for you over time. It takes time to understand that everywhere in the universe is different and these differences are reflected in the velocity and internal wavelength structures of the atomic masses. Signals which arrive at the earth from different areas of the universe may have changed their velocity several times before arriving at our speed of light. It has been proven that gravitational fields will bend light waves just like a magnifying glass, therefore the speed of light can be changed within different medium conditions. Why must the speed of light remain universally constant. It is logical that it must change otherwise my spectical's woundn't work As an atomic mass nears another atomic mass if their velocities are different then they attempt to share their electromagnetic condition, one may have a shorter internal wavelength structure than the other so one atomic structure will attempt to slow down and the other will attempt to speed up, to try to balance with each other, this affect appears to us as gravitation. If the atomic structures don't actually collide then they elliptically oscillate around each other until a balance is achieved. Thats enough for now. Signed SpaceTime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 How could these clocks show the difference, if the atomic structure speeds vary everything must vary slightly, even the relative speed of light. Except we've done experiments that show that the speed of light is not a relative value. If you have clocks at different places in the world, and their atoms' structure depended on their speed relative to the CMB, they would have to oscillate at different frequencies depending on the time of day, as the vector changed. So when you compare clocks from around the world, as is done continually, they would disagree. We don't see this. Signals which arrive at the earth from different areas of the universe may have changed their velocity several times before arriving at our speed of light.very convenient and ad hoc. How would all signals change in just the right way? You're trying to resurrect the ether that was shown to be incorrect over 100 years ago. It has been proven that gravitational fields will bend light waves just like a magnifying glass' date=' therefore the speed of light can be changed within different medium conditions. Why must the speed of light remain universally constant. It is logical that it must change otherwise my spectical's woundn't work [/quote'] This isn't logic, this is physics. Many things about relativity and QM are counterintuitive to the novice. That doesn't make them wrong. As an atomic mass nears another atomic mass if their velocities are different then they attempt to share their electromagnetic condition' date=' one may have a shorter internal wavelength structure than the other so one atomic structure will attempt to slow down and the other will attempt to speed up, to try to balance with each other, this affect appears to us as gravitation. If the atomic structures don't actually collide then they elliptically oscillate around each other until a balance is achieved. [/quote'] What a load of crap. Real models don't rely on pulling a bunch of jargon together. Oh, plus they actually predict effects and can be compared to data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceTime Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Read again what I said, you havent taken the time to even try to understand what I am saying. It took me years to understand, and you can understand it in 5 minutes. PONDER IT What length would you have for the Bohr radius if you had a velocity of 600,000 meters second, electromagnetic wavelengths that the atom sees are different to what you see, you are in the wrong frame of reference and having difficulty changing your frame of reference to the one that is required. Signed SpaceTime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 What length would you have for the Bohr radius if you had a velocity of 600' date='000 meters second, electromagnetic wavelengths that the atom sees are different to what you see, you are in the wrong frame of reference and having difficulty changing your frame of reference to the one that is required. [/quote'] I'm in the same frame of reference as the atom sitting next to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceTime Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 I'm in the same frame of reference as the atom sitting next to me. Thats the problem. Step off the earth and visualise. see the earth and its atoms in motion from this new perspective. See the spiral nature of the atomic oscillatory structure as it passes by you and resonates with its universal environment. Atoms move similar to the DNA structure, atomic models must also reflect this spiral environment too. From your frame of reference the atom is stationary, the atom is talking to the universe and not talking to you. Signed SpaceTime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mezarashi Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Wow, your last post there sounds like some great philosophical statement. /me ponders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceTime Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Hi Mezarashi, Now you may understand why I seek the answer to that mathematics problem. When we work together we share the load. Signed SpaceTime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now