QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 16 2008, 02:44 PM)
Dude, you can't even spell and you're trying to write the theory of everything - something physicists have been trying to do for centuries. It's really not going to happen is it?! 
Only what they do - they write comletly bullshit of quantum mechanic. I already debunk entanglement and wave-particleduality and for sure 'electromagnetic' waves colapse. And you saying some bullshit to me? Also I debunk HUP and create theory of air type waves, instead rambling bullshit about quants and over nonsenses.
Only what they do - they write comletly bullshit of quantum mechanic. I already debunk entanglement and wave-particleduality and for sure 'electromagnetic' waves colapse. And you saying some bullshit to me? Also I debunk HUP and create theory of air type waves, instead rambling bullshit about quants and over nonsenses.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 16 2008, 09:56 AM)
Only what they do - they write comletly bullshit of quantum mechanic.
Wrong, they have derived expressions and theories that correctly predict and match experimental evidence. You have no experimentation, no expressions (you can't even make equations that are dimensionally consistent, that means they're wrong). Fail #1
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #2
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #2
Also I debunk HUP and create theory of air type waves, instead rambling bullshit about quants and over nonsenses.
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #3
Wrong, they have derived expressions and theories that correctly predict and match experimental evidence. You have no experimentation, no expressions (you can't even make equations that are dimensionally consistent, that means they're wrong). Fail #1
QUOTE
I already debunk entanglement and wave-particleduality and for sure 'electromagnetic' waves colapse.
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #2
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I already debunk entanglement and wave-particleduality and for sure 'electromagnetic' waves colapse. |
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #2
Also I debunk HUP and create theory of air type waves, instead rambling bullshit about quants and over nonsenses.
Wrong, for the reasons above. Fail #3
Nobody measure actualy waves radiated energy by particle and thus quantum crancks speculating, that without acceleration flying particles don't radiating wavse, but they do. And in radios there the same scheme like in air waves, where bigger frenquency and speed means bigger electron traveling distance and thus amplitude so can either more electrons at same frenquency travel shorter distance or less electrons with same frenquency, but with bigger speed can travel longer distance and will be radiated the same frenquency and amplitude 'electromagnetic' wave - exactly like in air waves.
So nobody know, what energy radiating particles and such information no in wikipedia.
but there is also another assumtion, that particles actualy don't have mass and particles radiating energy 0.5mv^2 and everybody thinking, that this is particles kinetic energy, but this is actualy possible radiated energy needed to accelerate. But seems, that there established, that electrons more radiating, than protons, because heavier so everything then depend on size, but maybe this is not precisly measured and sciencists just thant that it would fit.
So nobody know, what energy radiating particles and such information no in wikipedia.
but there is also another assumtion, that particles actualy don't have mass and particles radiating energy 0.5mv^2 and everybody thinking, that this is particles kinetic energy, but this is actualy possible radiated energy needed to accelerate. But seems, that there established, that electrons more radiating, than protons, because heavier so everything then depend on size, but maybe this is not precisly measured and sciencists just thant that it would fit.
So, you're saying that because it's not on Wikipedia, scientists aren't doing it? 
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 16 2008, 04:02 PM)
So, you're saying that because it's not on Wikipedia, scientists aren't doing it?
YES. Show me some information about electron radiated energy!!! How much it radiates!?!?!? This is very hard to check, because in wires most energy need to atract electrons from atoms and friction and heat...
And to measure accelerated electrons energy is also hard, because wave spreading like spheres quadraticaly they amplitude decreasing and hard to check it and measure... To accelerate electrons and to stop is also hard, because you don't know, what was energy or kinetic creating waves or deacceleration. So actualy seems, taht there is so much formulas, but still living with knowleges like in midle ages. At all I almost don't trust to coliders results, becuase there can be many electrosn and unknow number of them and so on... But there must be some roughly formula to calculate radiated electrons energy. I suggesting that possible that this radiated energy is equal to electron kinetic energy and deaceleration also the same energy like kinetic. And then electron don't have mass if flying without acceleration.
Or possible that electron radiating like say very small energy and when flying at some speed also radiating, but nnot very much and thus almost don't loosing energy.
YES. Show me some information about electron radiated energy!!! How much it radiates!?!?!? This is very hard to check, because in wires most energy need to atract electrons from atoms and friction and heat...
And to measure accelerated electrons energy is also hard, because wave spreading like spheres quadraticaly they amplitude decreasing and hard to check it and measure... To accelerate electrons and to stop is also hard, because you don't know, what was energy or kinetic creating waves or deacceleration. So actualy seems, taht there is so much formulas, but still living with knowleges like in midle ages. At all I almost don't trust to coliders results, becuase there can be many electrosn and unknow number of them and so on... But there must be some roughly formula to calculate radiated electrons energy. I suggesting that possible that this radiated energy is equal to electron kinetic energy and deaceleration also the same energy like kinetic. And then electron don't have mass if flying without acceleration.
Or possible that electron radiating like say very small energy and when flying at some speed also radiating, but nnot very much and thus almost don't loosing energy.
Okay, found, that electron or few electrons orbiting around nuclear radiating ~0.6*10^{-7} J/s=0.6*10^{-7} J/s W. Untill electron(s) faling into nuclear he radiating ~2*10^{-13} J. Kinetic energy then have 2*10^{-18} J.
m*a=m*v^2 /r =k*Z*e^2 /r^2.
But this is leading nothere. There no any comparitions with kinetic and radiation energy. They don't giving any coeficients, how possible to be such stupid when writing textbook? I think, they don't know this koeficient, but how they to calcualte some joules?
So radiating prety much energy at aceleration, because falling into nuclear faster than per 1 second. But if particle flying witout acceleration then possible it radiates much less energy, I think nonody know this rpecisly and imposible to measure it precisly, because at diferent speed or aceleration radiating diferent energy amaount. I am suggesting that at v speed particle raiting v 'watts' energy. Maybe or particle radiation equal to kinetic energy.
m*a=m*v^2 /r =k*Z*e^2 /r^2.
But this is leading nothere. There no any comparitions with kinetic and radiation energy. They don't giving any coeficients, how possible to be such stupid when writing textbook? I think, they don't know this koeficient, but how they to calcualte some joules?
So radiating prety much energy at aceleration, because falling into nuclear faster than per 1 second. But if particle flying witout acceleration then possible it radiates much less energy, I think nonody know this rpecisly and imposible to measure it precisly, because at diferent speed or aceleration radiating diferent energy amaount. I am suggesting that at v speed particle raiting v 'watts' energy. Maybe or particle radiation equal to kinetic energy.
Okay, maybe I will calculate this comparition of kinetic energy and radiating energy.
So on orbit particle/electron radiating 0.6/10^7 W energy. So to accelerate to such energy seems need 0.6/10^7 J energy. So angular velocity is energy mv^2 /r, hydrogen radius (of first orbit) is 5/10^11 m. Electron mass roughly 1/10^30 kg. Velocity of electron is roughly c/30=10^7 m/s. So electron kinetic energy is
mv^2 /r=10^11 * 10^14 /(5*10^30)=0.000002 J=2*10^{-6} J. And power will be also 2 microW. So radiated energy 6 microJ and 600 microW power. So about 100 times less radiating than accelerating. I think all calcualte correctly, but this not very fits with my theory about very small radiation, when particle just flying without acceleration. So since there nobody measure precisly radiated electron energy I can conclude, that radiated energy is the same as kinetic energy and that particles don't have mass if they don't moving and that particles kinetic energy is actualy energy, which will be radiated, when particle will deaccelerate. So proton and neutron have about 2000 times bigger kinetic energy, because radiating electromagnetic waves 2000 times stronger. All this ramblings, that electron more loosing it energy is wrong and possible, that at relativistic speed particles radiating more energy, which is equal to kinetic energy of particle. So someone can ask, if to accelerate particle to kinetic energy it will radiates energy mv^2 /2, when how by deacelereated he can give also mv^2 /2 energy? So it's like twice it giving mv^2 /2 energy? When accelerated radiating and when deacelerated radiating. Well, its like you loosing energy when accelerating and giving when deacelerating, or not? But there is such thing as mc^2, which can give you energy to accelerate, so there is like mv^2, hm.... Possible that's why imposible to accelerate to speed c, because need energy mc^2=mv^2, so in closed system imposible to fly faster than light. So mv^2 /2 is for newton mechanic if not quanting radiated energy and for my theory mechanic need energy to accelerate to speed v is mv^2. So to accelerate spaceship to speed v need energy mv^2, which is equal to energy of spaceship (in anihilation with antispaceship). But why is imposible to accelerate electron in coliders to c speed? Well, because limitation of speed of coliders processors, joking... Well, maybe because particles which accelerating electron also loosing they energy, radiating mc^2, but just nobody know this, because for many particles it's almost invisible... Because beamoming stronger atraction force, but no,just relativity probably... So at big speed clse to c particle radiates energy to reach v speed is mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 - mc^2 and this equal mv^2 /2 for small speed. And by deaccelerating particle radiates energy also mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 - mc^2 . But then at bigger speed particle should stop in time linarly depnding on speed and not according to enshtein, but according to v^2, but maybe time stoping don't realted with radiation? maybe. Or time stoping just don't exist because don't exist all this mesons. Then according to my theoryto accelerate to speed v need mv^2 energy and possible, that any speed is possible, but any object which flying with big speed and pushing must also waste mv^2 energy and thus seems, that with any kinetic force inposible to acelerate to c speed, because also will need mv^2=mc^2 energy. But why not with magnetic field? Or why not, when bigger object giving his energy to smaler object? Well, because bigger object giving it energy through wave, and only the same small surfeace of waves can be absorbed so it's wil not work. How then with electric field to accelerate? Well, electric field alsogiving only energy of small ray, but no you say. When field acting particles loosing they mass between themselfs, so at very big field they becoming almost without mass (how this can be also for gravity?). And yes they still each atracting only with small ray. Then need bigger and bigger energy, but they are many, but there no many tricks to overcome faster than light comincation in particles accelerators, because all this stuff must work faster than light and thus imposible to accelerate particle to bigger than c speed. So I it explain with logic and without enshtein formula. Increasing mass? No! Time going slower? No! Particles becmoming shorter? NO! Enshtein was wrong? Particularly, because his part mc^2 is right, but all over rambling is wrong and it only mean somthign pseudo and not ture... So seems, taht mesons and leptons don't exist, huh (since neutron imposible to accelerate to relativistic speed)? When how about spin amount safing law? Well, maybe law is wrong or maybe there is two electrons and one proton in neutron (neutron mass then still bigger). Then those electrons spins antialigned and they are atracted by proton (because electrons can't ahve the same spin). So one electron in one side of neutron and one in over. Or just law about conservation spin is wrong, nature is law, not math...
So on orbit particle/electron radiating 0.6/10^7 W energy. So to accelerate to such energy seems need 0.6/10^7 J energy. So angular velocity is energy mv^2 /r, hydrogen radius (of first orbit) is 5/10^11 m. Electron mass roughly 1/10^30 kg. Velocity of electron is roughly c/30=10^7 m/s. So electron kinetic energy is
mv^2 /r=10^11 * 10^14 /(5*10^30)=0.000002 J=2*10^{-6} J. And power will be also 2 microW. So radiated energy 6 microJ and 600 microW power. So about 100 times less radiating than accelerating. I think all calcualte correctly, but this not very fits with my theory about very small radiation, when particle just flying without acceleration. So since there nobody measure precisly radiated electron energy I can conclude, that radiated energy is the same as kinetic energy and that particles don't have mass if they don't moving and that particles kinetic energy is actualy energy, which will be radiated, when particle will deaccelerate. So proton and neutron have about 2000 times bigger kinetic energy, because radiating electromagnetic waves 2000 times stronger. All this ramblings, that electron more loosing it energy is wrong and possible, that at relativistic speed particles radiating more energy, which is equal to kinetic energy of particle. So someone can ask, if to accelerate particle to kinetic energy it will radiates energy mv^2 /2, when how by deacelereated he can give also mv^2 /2 energy? So it's like twice it giving mv^2 /2 energy? When accelerated radiating and when deacelerated radiating. Well, its like you loosing energy when accelerating and giving when deacelerating, or not? But there is such thing as mc^2, which can give you energy to accelerate, so there is like mv^2, hm.... Possible that's why imposible to accelerate to speed c, because need energy mc^2=mv^2, so in closed system imposible to fly faster than light. So mv^2 /2 is for newton mechanic if not quanting radiated energy and for my theory mechanic need energy to accelerate to speed v is mv^2. So to accelerate spaceship to speed v need energy mv^2, which is equal to energy of spaceship (in anihilation with antispaceship). But why is imposible to accelerate electron in coliders to c speed? Well, because limitation of speed of coliders processors, joking... Well, maybe because particles which accelerating electron also loosing they energy, radiating mc^2, but just nobody know this, because for many particles it's almost invisible... Because beamoming stronger atraction force, but no,just relativity probably... So at big speed clse to c particle radiates energy to reach v speed is mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 - mc^2 and this equal mv^2 /2 for small speed. And by deaccelerating particle radiates energy also mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 - mc^2 . But then at bigger speed particle should stop in time linarly depnding on speed and not according to enshtein, but according to v^2, but maybe time stoping don't realted with radiation? maybe. Or time stoping just don't exist because don't exist all this mesons. Then according to my theoryto accelerate to speed v need mv^2 energy and possible, that any speed is possible, but any object which flying with big speed and pushing must also waste mv^2 energy and thus seems, that with any kinetic force inposible to acelerate to c speed, because also will need mv^2=mc^2 energy. But why not with magnetic field? Or why not, when bigger object giving his energy to smaler object? Well, because bigger object giving it energy through wave, and only the same small surfeace of waves can be absorbed so it's wil not work. How then with electric field to accelerate? Well, electric field alsogiving only energy of small ray, but no you say. When field acting particles loosing they mass between themselfs, so at very big field they becoming almost without mass (how this can be also for gravity?). And yes they still each atracting only with small ray. Then need bigger and bigger energy, but they are many, but there no many tricks to overcome faster than light comincation in particles accelerators, because all this stuff must work faster than light and thus imposible to accelerate particle to bigger than c speed. So I it explain with logic and without enshtein formula. Increasing mass? No! Time going slower? No! Particles becmoming shorter? NO! Enshtein was wrong? Particularly, because his part mc^2 is right, but all over rambling is wrong and it only mean somthign pseudo and not ture... So seems, taht mesons and leptons don't exist, huh (since neutron imposible to accelerate to relativistic speed)? When how about spin amount safing law? Well, maybe law is wrong or maybe there is two electrons and one proton in neutron (neutron mass then still bigger). Then those electrons spins antialigned and they are atracted by proton (because electrons can't ahve the same spin). So one electron in one side of neutron and one in over. Or just law about conservation spin is wrong, nature is law, not math...
Okay, I have another reason why imposible to accelerate to c, because if there radiated waves from spaceship by somthing burning like anihilation then those waves radiated equaly in all directions and thus only half or less will be used for pushing spacehsip. Thus only <mc^2 /2 nergy will be used for accelerating body. And only reflected waves pushing twice stronger and aborbed will push twice weaker... In short there will be emited all spaceship mass-energy. But as far as I know spaceship efiecency far wouldn't be 50%, but some 0.5% or 0.005%.
And everything is correct with theory, that particle kinetic energy is radiated energy. Just to accelerate particle to kinetic energy mv^2 /2 will be radiated mv^2 /2 energy. If want particle deaccelerate also need mv^2 / 2 energy, and if particle will bounce at somthing then there will be radiated energy, which is tahnks not to particle but to object, which don't moving, but anyway, when particle radiating energy they also they abosrbing and energy don't going nother (small amount maybe going, but this is exaclty deaf of universe after very long time). Neutrons and protons have bigger mass because they have bigger size and actualy all particles don't have mass. So even without enshtein (realativistic) formula imposible to fly faster than light. BTW according to formula
mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)-mc^2=mv^2 on small speads. So if is right 1/(1-(v/c)^2) instead 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5, then there is mc^2 /2 instead mc^2 !
Watch this:
m=m_0/(1-(v/c)^2)=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2-0.25*(v/c)^4],
Small value 0.25*(v/c)^4 is eliminated:
m=m_0/(1-(v/c)^2)=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2],
m=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2],
m=m_0/[1-0.25*(v/c)^2 - 0.25*(v/c)^4],
Again small value 0.25*(v/c)^4 eliminated:
m=m_0/[1-0.25*(v/c)^2],
Both sides times c^2:
mc^2=m_0[c^2-0.25*v^2],
2*mc^2=2*m_0*c^2-0.5*m_0*v^2,
hm, I was wrong, then W=2*m*c^2 .
And everything is correct with theory, that particle kinetic energy is radiated energy. Just to accelerate particle to kinetic energy mv^2 /2 will be radiated mv^2 /2 energy. If want particle deaccelerate also need mv^2 / 2 energy, and if particle will bounce at somthing then there will be radiated energy, which is tahnks not to particle but to object, which don't moving, but anyway, when particle radiating energy they also they abosrbing and energy don't going nother (small amount maybe going, but this is exaclty deaf of universe after very long time). Neutrons and protons have bigger mass because they have bigger size and actualy all particles don't have mass. So even without enshtein (realativistic) formula imposible to fly faster than light. BTW according to formula
mc^2 /(1-(v/c)^2)-mc^2=mv^2 on small speads. So if is right 1/(1-(v/c)^2) instead 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5, then there is mc^2 /2 instead mc^2 !
Watch this:
m=m_0/(1-(v/c)^2)=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2-0.25*(v/c)^4],
Small value 0.25*(v/c)^4 is eliminated:
m=m_0/(1-(v/c)^2)=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2],
m=m_0/[(1-0.5*(v/c)^2)^2],
m=m_0/[1-0.25*(v/c)^2 - 0.25*(v/c)^4],
Again small value 0.25*(v/c)^4 eliminated:
m=m_0/[1-0.25*(v/c)^2],
Both sides times c^2:
mc^2=m_0[c^2-0.25*v^2],
2*mc^2=2*m_0*c^2-0.5*m_0*v^2,
hm, I was wrong, then W=2*m*c^2 .
So my solution is that particle energy is 0.5mc^2 don't depending on what speed particle flying... And enshtein formula is just some intuition, that imposible to fly faster than ligh and about mc^2, but it all is wrong and no any time slowing. Don't matter how much big charge of electrons will be proton still never will be accelerated to speed of light, because charge power deacrease quadraticaly with distance and working in only small ray and when electron flying farhter charge becmoing quadraticaly weaker and weaker... With such trick like coliders alos imposible to accelerate to speed of light, because of finit speed of processors and so on... So more possible that all this mezons and hardrons and resonanse and leptons and over stupdions and cranckeons don't exist and this, which sciencists wahtcing is some over speed and energy particles or rays... Thye just like small kids very which, that there would be this particles, but they just don't exist. They just fiting they experimental rambling into some stupid theories and thinking, that they create somthing. There is some atoms "very precise" decaying measured speed, but this is just iliusion. No any time stoping exist. Exist just my mentioned law, that particles energy is mc^2 /2 and kienetic energy is radiation... There exist only 3 fundamental particles proton, electron and neutrons. And there probably no any law of conservation spin.
Theory about possible quantization of spin. Since particles don't have mass and they radiating kinetic energy only when moving, then possible, that for particle rotation don't need radiation of waves and thus spin alignation becmoming instantly, because particles radiating waves only when moving and rotation is not moving. Imagine, that you take perfect spherical ball and rotating it in air and waiting some sound. And sound will not be, just like with spin! So my conclusion that strong force is spin and that's why neutron can decay or somthing and electrons in superconductors becoming in pairs and this spins is probabilistic... Yes, spin are quantized, but not in superposition... So what is spin energy? No! This is not spin energy, but kinetic energy, which goten, when spin atracting each over and this energy radiated with waves. But since spin is probabilistic then they alligning always to little bit stronger field and thus in normal conditions, where field changing rapidly spins don't 'decaiding' where to aling. In atoms many electrons exchanging they magnetic fields and so on and don't fusing because of probabilistic unprecision... In superconductors possible all electrons aligning into one or over direction, but since electrons are in loop, then they can't decaide in which direction and thus possible this is "quantum superposition" in superconductors, which is just probabilistic playing of electrons spins and they fusing in pairs, because of better force at optimal distance...
So where it leads? To smallest balls theory of course. And to possibility, that gravity is random spins rambling. Imagine, spins aligning each time to more effient possition and thus always tend to hold and to fuse. So spins always very fast aligning, but since they frenquency is speed of light probably so we don't fell any very fast magnetic field. So, yes, spins are gravity!
So where it leads? To smallest balls theory of course. And to possibility, that gravity is random spins rambling. Imagine, spins aligning each time to more effient possition and thus always tend to hold and to fuse. So spins always very fast aligning, but since they frenquency is speed of light probably so we don't fell any very fast magnetic field. So, yes, spins are gravity!
According to my some postulates, even if particle flying into charged atracting matter, like proton flying to charged negative matter, then this matter each particle acting with same force as each over and thus they tend to spread or somthing... And thus they spreading and they charge deacreasing... and particle radiating some waves, which pushing it it. And thus particle never will bounce with bigger than c speed. Possible even taht in atoms electrons falling and radiating waves, which reflected from nuclear and thus protons don't fuse with electrons and with each over, but only with neutrons. Maybe sometimes fuse, who know there thery dificult processes, which involving spins and over electrons charges... Neutrons possible at all can be created only form waves... Possible antiparticles don't exist.
Possible, that my spin model explains, why is heavier separate particle than fused, because more spin power concentrated on holding nuclears, bu another explanation can be, that total value of nuclear is smaller or bigger. but possible, that nay smaller or bigger mass don't exist, just errors in measurment and all depending on energy of charge or spin. And if anihilation don't exist (positron-proton, etc) then no any strong evidence about, this, but only rambling about smaller mass from enshtein formula. How much can be smaller if there will be very storng gravity? Mass disapear? So mass model is wrong. But possible, that particles are not very spherical and thus when fusing two neutrons, then they making smaller gaps also with protons, because big value sphere have smaller surface, than many same value small spheres, so it's possible explain, that then smaller radiation energy, because surface is smaller, but value the same. But then it somthing means about deformation of particles, why not? But why not inprecision in measurmnets? Less more electrons and mass defect replaced...
Why electron(s) don't falling into nuclear? Because there is many waves around radiated from over particles, but still must deacelerate, unless rotation in orbit is not angular velocity like rotation of spin don't radiating waves, because only motion of particle radiating and not rotation in one place like air waves... So in air angular velocity is when one part of particle moving faser than over with orbital speed... But this don't counts! Need that particle would move with acceleration and not will rotates with acceleration. So it is very possible, that according to my theory electron don't radiating waves like earth if rotating at angular acceleration. Icentric... So my theory about, that kinetic energy is radiation explainging, why electron don't radiating waves and why spin can align with speed of light without any particle rotation. Acceleration is only if particle moving with acceleration in physical place and not if just rotates, everything depends of speed and not of acceleration directly... If particle moving faster and faster then he radiating electromagnetic waves and if he don't moving faster and faster like in atom electron, then he don't radiating electromagnetic waves. Radiation of waves like h*f can be if electron and proton structure somehow difracting or somthing beter absorbing waves then atoms absorbing and radiating because of atom structure only some waves much better than over. This all depending on electrons configuration and this somehow relates with waves, which is bunch of balls, which prefering more some structures beter and like there is some resonanse or somthing... The same like resonanse in radio or somthing.... So schrodinger equation using electrons phase and wavefunction and in my theory no any phase and wavefunctions. I don't know maybe schrodinger equation is correct, because it's use some very match data from experiments like emision spectr, quantum numbers likein borh model, but it can be wrong... And this phases cna mean something over...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 12:27 PM)
Why electron(s) don't falling into nuclear?
Why don't satellites plummet to the earth?
Do you know ANY physics?
Why don't satellites plummet to the earth?
Do you know ANY physics?
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 17 2008, 05:31 PM)
Why don't satellites plummet to the earth?
Because they don't flying with faster and faster speed but flying always with same speed and according to my theory if object don't increasing speed, then he don't radiating 'electromagnetic' waves. Accoding to classical theory seems, that earth must to fall into sun, huh? Why nobody analaizing it? Because accoding to current oficial theory particle radiating electromagnetic waves 100-10000 times weaker energy than kinetic energy (0.001*0.5mv^2). But then it must will fall satelities according to current theory unlees angular acceleration is very small, but still...
And according to my theory particles radiating energy whcih exactly equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2, because nobody precisly and correct measure radiation. According to my theory particles don't radiating energy at angular/orbital speed, because angular/orbital speed always keeping the same velocity! Of course possible, that according to current theory orbital acceleration is very small, distance to sun is 8 minutes of light so 60*8=480 s. 480*3*10^8=1.44*10^11 m. So orbital acceleration is mv^2 /r=6*10^24 (kg)*(465)^2 (m/s)^2 /(1.44*10^11 m)=9*10^18 Ws=9*10^18 J. So nuclear reactor have about 10^9 W power and earth should radiate about quadraticaly more power 9*10^18 W. Or at least if according to current official theory some 10^15 W. Maybe if earth is big this is not big deal, but through bilions years earth should radiate about 10^35 J energy. This energy equal to 'anihilation' of almost all earth like 10^18 kg and earth mass is 6*10^24 kg, so through billions years earth should radiate energy of anihilation all moon (according to mc^2)!
So my theory explains, that earth don't radiating waves like moon and like satelite.
Edit: 465 m/s is angular earth speed and orbital is much bigger 29873 m/s, so radiated energy would be only even bigger!...
My physic now is much more advanced than current incoherent rambling of crancks...
Now about rockets. For rockets need air, air density is small and I think, that that's why impsoible for any rocket to reach c speed. For rocket to rach c speed need fuel bilions times more than all rocket weight without fuel. So I think this is ridiculouse and nobody will not reach this speed even if enshtein relativity theory is wrong. First of all need to overcome gravity of earth and even from moon this will not work. I just think, that there would be energy waisting untill will be wasted such energy, that speed c will not be reached. And there no need any mass formules but only what we know from physic liek charge force spin(strong) force... Such amount of energy with air just deformate rocket walls and rocket will be damaged and fuel will goes out... There no any time stoping and lenght and mass increase. there is just finite speed of light and possible, that more particles without 3 ones don't exist, because diferent proton size creating diferent smallest balls combination and this combination acting diferently than electron smaller balls combiantion... Possible that neutron don't decayin, but possible that neutron can be created from proton and electron... Possible, that to kill and to produce all particles can only very very strong big low frenquency big amplitude very big amplitude wave, which will create some very big gap between spheres that electrons and protons and neutrons will just becmome random rambling of spheres without any information, which will be just taked and involved into this wave... Possible that two such waves bounce produce universe or somthing, but even possible that even such wave can't exist if per all universe there is only one gap of half sphere. So then just there exist those particel and nothing can stop them... Just they was from some combinations and nothing them can kill... Then universe just becmome when many particles by they gravitation spin forces become to atract each oevr and when they produce somthing realy nice...
Because they don't flying with faster and faster speed but flying always with same speed and according to my theory if object don't increasing speed, then he don't radiating 'electromagnetic' waves. Accoding to classical theory seems, that earth must to fall into sun, huh? Why nobody analaizing it? Because accoding to current oficial theory particle radiating electromagnetic waves 100-10000 times weaker energy than kinetic energy (0.001*0.5mv^2). But then it must will fall satelities according to current theory unlees angular acceleration is very small, but still...
And according to my theory particles radiating energy whcih exactly equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2, because nobody precisly and correct measure radiation. According to my theory particles don't radiating energy at angular/orbital speed, because angular/orbital speed always keeping the same velocity! Of course possible, that according to current theory orbital acceleration is very small, distance to sun is 8 minutes of light so 60*8=480 s. 480*3*10^8=1.44*10^11 m. So orbital acceleration is mv^2 /r=6*10^24 (kg)*(465)^2 (m/s)^2 /(1.44*10^11 m)=9*10^18 Ws=9*10^18 J. So nuclear reactor have about 10^9 W power and earth should radiate about quadraticaly more power 9*10^18 W. Or at least if according to current official theory some 10^15 W. Maybe if earth is big this is not big deal, but through bilions years earth should radiate about 10^35 J energy. This energy equal to 'anihilation' of almost all earth like 10^18 kg and earth mass is 6*10^24 kg, so through billions years earth should radiate energy of anihilation all moon (according to mc^2)!
So my theory explains, that earth don't radiating waves like moon and like satelite.
Edit: 465 m/s is angular earth speed and orbital is much bigger 29873 m/s, so radiated energy would be only even bigger!...
QUOTE
Do you know ANY physics?
My physic now is much more advanced than current incoherent rambling of crancks...
Now about rockets. For rockets need air, air density is small and I think, that that's why impsoible for any rocket to reach c speed. For rocket to rach c speed need fuel bilions times more than all rocket weight without fuel. So I think this is ridiculouse and nobody will not reach this speed even if enshtein relativity theory is wrong. First of all need to overcome gravity of earth and even from moon this will not work. I just think, that there would be energy waisting untill will be wasted such energy, that speed c will not be reached. And there no need any mass formules but only what we know from physic liek charge force spin(strong) force... Such amount of energy with air just deformate rocket walls and rocket will be damaged and fuel will goes out... There no any time stoping and lenght and mass increase. there is just finite speed of light and possible, that more particles without 3 ones don't exist, because diferent proton size creating diferent smallest balls combination and this combination acting diferently than electron smaller balls combiantion... Possible that neutron don't decayin, but possible that neutron can be created from proton and electron... Possible, that to kill and to produce all particles can only very very strong big low frenquency big amplitude very big amplitude wave, which will create some very big gap between spheres that electrons and protons and neutrons will just becmome random rambling of spheres without any information, which will be just taked and involved into this wave... Possible that two such waves bounce produce universe or somthing, but even possible that even such wave can't exist if per all universe there is only one gap of half sphere. So then just there exist those particel and nothing can stop them... Just they was from some combinations and nothing them can kill... Then universe just becmome when many particles by they gravitation spin forces become to atract each oevr and when they produce somthing realy nice...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 06:24 PM)
My physic now is much more advanced than current incoherent rambling of crancks...
I love the irony of this sentence.
I love the irony of this sentence.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 01:24 PM)
Accoding to classical theory seems, that earth must to fall into sun, huh?
No, you fuc*ing idiot! You don't even KNOW classical theory, you have no idea what it says!
Wrong.
Wrong.
impsoible for any rocket to reach c speed.
Correct, wrong reason
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
First of all need to overcome gravity of earth and even from moon this will not work.
Wrong, overcoming the gravity of the Earth is very possible, even from the moon. Learn physics.
No, you fuc*ing idiot! You don't even KNOW classical theory, you have no idea what it says!
QUOTE
For rockets need air
Wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For rockets need air |
Wrong.
impsoible for any rocket to reach c speed.
Correct, wrong reason
QUOTE
For rocket to rach c speed need fuel bilions times more than all rocket weight without fuel.
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For rocket to rach c speed need fuel bilions times more than all rocket weight without fuel. |
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
First of all need to overcome gravity of earth and even from moon this will not work.
Wrong, overcoming the gravity of the Earth is very possible, even from the moon. Learn physics.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 17 2008, 06:37 PM)
I love the irony of this sentence.
I love, that you become to love my theory.
I love, that you become to love my theory.
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 17 2008, 06:38 PM)
No, you fuc*ing idiot! You don't even KNOW classical theory, you have no idea what it says!
Wrong.
Correct, wrong reason
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
Wrong, overcoming the gravity of the Earth is very possible, even from the moon. Learn physics.
bla bla bla
Wrong.
Correct, wrong reason
Surprisingly, you actually got something correct.
Wrong, overcoming the gravity of the Earth is very possible, even from the moon. Learn physics.
bla bla bla
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 01:52 PM)
bla bla bla
I'm right, you're wrong. Try again soon.
Preferably after you learn physics.
I'm right, you're wrong. Try again soon.Preferably after you learn physics.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 06:52 PM)
bla bla bla
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 06:50 PM)
I love, that you become to love my theory.
You don't understand basic English. How do you expect to understand cutting edge physics. I really think you need to see a doctor about your delusions. Honestly, I'm not kidding.
You don't understand basic English. How do you expect to understand cutting edge physics. I really think you need to see a doctor about your delusions. Honestly, I'm not kidding.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 17 2008, 07:00 PM)
You don't understand basic English. How do you expect to understand cutting edge physics. I really think you need to see a doctor about your delusions. Honestly, I'm not kidding.
I think you need to see more dimensions to debunk my theory...
I think you need learn more psychology instead physics!
I think you need to see more dimensions to debunk my theory...
QUOTE
DavidD explained: DavidD's confesssion
I think you need learn more psychology instead physics!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 17 2008, 02:06 PM)
I think you need to see more dimensions to debunk my theory...
I think you need to learn physics and math before you can actually present a realistic theory.
I think you need to learn physics and math before you can actually present a realistic theory.
I'm not joking. Please do yourself a favour and make an appointment to see a GP.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 17 2008, 07:28 PM)
I'm not joking. Please do yourself a favour and make an appointment to see a GP.
Go away if you don't joking...
Go away if you don't joking...
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 17 2008, 07:27 PM)
I think you need to learn physics and math before you can actually present a realistic theory.
I think you need learn to think... 
Okay, new law for my theory. If particle don't changing speed, but only some force changing particle direction like in orbital or angular velocity, then particle don't radiating waves, but still need energy to change direction. This energy in earth or rotated disk is molecular forces which holding particles... So if you will rotate disk in vacum without/outside gravity then it will rotate forever (if no small atoms friction exist). So my this laws explaining why particle don't radiating waves, when rotating around nuclear or why earth don't radaiting 'electromagnetic waves'.
About magnetism in feromagnetic and paramagnetics, which caused by spins.
Feromagnetism is caused by atoms nuclears magnetism, because in nuclears there is already configured spins and they force much stronger than outside force, which hplding them, but to align them all - all nuclear need force, because in alignation proccess will be radiated waves, because in nuclears will move faster then slower and stop! Then for derotation this spins of nuclear need energy, because in derotation will be radiaed electromagnetic waves... Somthing similar can be with electrons, but electrons are prety separated and so electrons (spins) probably don't playing role in magnetism/feromagnetism, because they spins aligning to any magnetic field without any radiation of waves, because like I say in previous post for rotating (about his axis) spherical particle like electron don't need energy, because he don't radiating electromagnetic waves and spin can aling in any direction, just where magnetic field is bigger/stronger!
I think you need learn to think...
Okay, new law for my theory. If particle don't changing speed, but only some force changing particle direction like in orbital or angular velocity, then particle don't radiating waves, but still need energy to change direction. This energy in earth or rotated disk is molecular forces which holding particles... So if you will rotate disk in vacum without/outside gravity then it will rotate forever (if no small atoms friction exist). So my this laws explaining why particle don't radiating waves, when rotating around nuclear or why earth don't radaiting 'electromagnetic waves'.
About magnetism in feromagnetic and paramagnetics, which caused by spins.
Feromagnetism is caused by atoms nuclears magnetism, because in nuclears there is already configured spins and they force much stronger than outside force, which hplding them, but to align them all - all nuclear need force, because in alignation proccess will be radiated waves, because in nuclears will move faster then slower and stop! Then for derotation this spins of nuclear need energy, because in derotation will be radiaed electromagnetic waves... Somthing similar can be with electrons, but electrons are prety separated and so electrons (spins) probably don't playing role in magnetism/feromagnetism, because they spins aligning to any magnetic field without any radiation of waves, because like I say in previous post for rotating (about his axis) spherical particle like electron don't need energy, because he don't radiating electromagnetic waves and spin can aling in any direction, just where magnetic field is bigger/stronger!
Okey, my spin model predicts, that object can travel with infinity speed untill he rotates about some very big object with very big gravitation or somthing... So if our all universe rotating about very very big some over object and with speed much bigger than c, then there no any problem for as and for them... No time decrease no mass increase nor lenght decrease. Why I doubt about relativistic speed? Because time stoping was measured outside eath in cosmos or maybe in rocket, but earth traveling at some 300 km/s. So let's calculate time dilation:
1/(1-(300000/(3*10^8)^2)^0.5=1/(1-0.000001)^0.5=1/0.99999949999987499993749996093747=~1.0000005.
Per 1 hour =3600 seconds time will be 0.99999949999987499993749996093747*3600= 3599,9981999995499997749998593749.
After 24 hours time will be 86399,956799989199994599996624998 s instead 86400 s. After one mount = 30 days time will be normaly 30*86400=2592000 s, but stoped: 2591998,7039996759998379998987499 s.
2592000/3600=720 hours = 43200 minutes.
2591998,7039996759998379998987499/3600= 719,99963999990999995499997187498 hours = 43199,978399994599997299998312499 minutes.
So still will not be delay even one minute (after mounth)!
Okay, let's calcualte delay after year
normaly: 43200*12=518400 minutes;
relativisticaly: 43199,978399994599997299998312499*12= 518399,74079993519996759997974999 minutes.
So delay will be 26% of minute after year! 26%=x; 100%=60 s, 26*60/100=15.6 seconds delay will be after year! But who realy have so much energy to keep rocket in cosmos from gravity of sun or eart? And also need mv^2 /2 energy to deacelerate rocket from 300 km/s speed to 0 m/s, so need energy if rocket mass 100000 kg: 100000*300000^2 /2=4.5*10^15 J. This energy equal to nuclear reactor 1GW produce energy within about mounth. Not so much, huh?
To say, that they measure time delay of micro or nanoseconds is ridicolous. There no bigger precision possible than second or milisecond... Particles acceleration of course is just more particles atraction from walls of colider... And thus more those GeV...
But I think maybe more possible, that faster than light speed imposible, because some laws don't letting to create body, which would be able to capture very fast rotation about him smallest objects, because such big body would somehow split to smaller bodies or somthing...
But maybe enshtein theory is right and particles just radiating bigger amplitude waves, when flying with acceleration and when flying without deaceleration then just harder to slowdown them, because they will radiate bigger amplitude waves, because more smashed smallest balls will be with bigger speed/energy...
1/(1-(300000/(3*10^8)^2)^0.5=1/(1-0.000001)^0.5=1/0.99999949999987499993749996093747=~1.0000005.
Per 1 hour =3600 seconds time will be 0.99999949999987499993749996093747*3600= 3599,9981999995499997749998593749.
After 24 hours time will be 86399,956799989199994599996624998 s instead 86400 s. After one mount = 30 days time will be normaly 30*86400=2592000 s, but stoped: 2591998,7039996759998379998987499 s.
2592000/3600=720 hours = 43200 minutes.
2591998,7039996759998379998987499/3600= 719,99963999990999995499997187498 hours = 43199,978399994599997299998312499 minutes.
So still will not be delay even one minute (after mounth)!
Okay, let's calcualte delay after year
normaly: 43200*12=518400 minutes;
relativisticaly: 43199,978399994599997299998312499*12= 518399,74079993519996759997974999 minutes.
So delay will be 26% of minute after year! 26%=x; 100%=60 s, 26*60/100=15.6 seconds delay will be after year! But who realy have so much energy to keep rocket in cosmos from gravity of sun or eart? And also need mv^2 /2 energy to deacelerate rocket from 300 km/s speed to 0 m/s, so need energy if rocket mass 100000 kg: 100000*300000^2 /2=4.5*10^15 J. This energy equal to nuclear reactor 1GW produce energy within about mounth. Not so much, huh?
To say, that they measure time delay of micro or nanoseconds is ridicolous. There no bigger precision possible than second or milisecond... Particles acceleration of course is just more particles atraction from walls of colider... And thus more those GeV...
But I think maybe more possible, that faster than light speed imposible, because some laws don't letting to create body, which would be able to capture very fast rotation about him smallest objects, because such big body would somehow split to smaller bodies or somthing...
But maybe enshtein theory is right and particles just radiating bigger amplitude waves, when flying with acceleration and when flying without deaceleration then just harder to slowdown them, because they will radiate bigger amplitude waves, because more smashed smallest balls will be with bigger speed/energy...
Some info from my webpage:
"Another author statements:
1. Electromagnetic waves are the same waves like in air.
2. Flying particle untill speed v, radiating energy 0.5mv^2.
3. Particle which don't moving don't radiating energy and thus because for spin magnetic moment rotation don't need energy.
4. Thus because spin energy is gravitation force, because spins rapidly aligning without energy loosing to each over and thus creating gravity.
5. Spins holding nucleons in nuclears.
6. Any object or particle which flying with some speed, but without acceleration don't radiating electromagnetic waves; thus electrons don't falling into nuclear, because electrons flying with same speed; if particle flying without acceleration then for changing it direction, but don't changing speed, need energy - this explains electrons rotation in atom, that they have mass.
7. Feromagnetism is nuclear rotation, for what need energy, but nuclear nucleons spins don't rotating instead all nuclear, because spins force is stronger than outside magnetic field."
"Another author statements:
1. Electromagnetic waves are the same waves like in air.
2. Flying particle untill speed v, radiating energy 0.5mv^2.
3. Particle which don't moving don't radiating energy and thus because for spin magnetic moment rotation don't need energy.
4. Thus because spin energy is gravitation force, because spins rapidly aligning without energy loosing to each over and thus creating gravity.
5. Spins holding nucleons in nuclears.
6. Any object or particle which flying with some speed, but without acceleration don't radiating electromagnetic waves; thus electrons don't falling into nuclear, because electrons flying with same speed; if particle flying without acceleration then for changing it direction, but don't changing speed, need energy - this explains electrons rotation in atom, that they have mass.
7. Feromagnetism is nuclear rotation, for what need energy, but nuclear nucleons spins don't rotating instead all nuclear, because spins force is stronger than outside magnetic field."
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 04:04 AM)
6. Any object or particle which flying with some speed, but without acceleration don't radiating electromagnetic waves; thus electrons don't falling into nuclear, because electrons flying with same speed;
Anything in an orbit is constantly accelerating you fuc*ing idiot. Learn physics.
Anything in an orbit is constantly accelerating you fuc*ing idiot. Learn physics.
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 18 2008, 11:23 AM)
Anything in an orbit is constantly accelerating
I dont' understood this sentence.
I dont' understood this sentence.
If something is in orbit it is changing direction constantly. If it is changing direction then it is accelerating because the definition of acceleration is the rate of change of velocity and velocity is a vector quantity (acceleration is also a vector).
You really need to get back to school.
You really need to get back to school.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 18 2008, 12:43 PM)
If something is in orbit it is changing direction constantly. If it is changing direction then it is accelerating because the definition of acceleration is the rate of change of velocity and velocity is a vector quantity (acceleration is also a vector).
You really need to get back to school.
This according to official theory. According to my theory, when body or particle flying without acceleration, but only changing direction like in orbital rotation, then particle don't radiating electromagnetic waves, because he don't changing speed (twy to vibrate air without changing speed!).
According to your official current theory then Earth must radiate electromagnetic waves, because rotating about sun and spining aroun it axis... Then earth must slow donw and fall into sun, but this don't hapening and you know why? Because according to my theory earth don't changing speed and atoms within net don't changing speed and thus no radiation!!!
You really need to get back to school.
This according to official theory. According to my theory, when body or particle flying without acceleration, but only changing direction like in orbital rotation, then particle don't radiating electromagnetic waves, because he don't changing speed (twy to vibrate air without changing speed!).
According to your official current theory then Earth must radiate electromagnetic waves, because rotating about sun and spining aroun it axis... Then earth must slow donw and fall into sun, but this don't hapening and you know why? Because according to my theory earth don't changing speed and atoms within net don't changing speed and thus no radiation!!!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 02:16 PM)
According to your official current theory then Earth must radiate electromagnetic waves, because rotating about sun and spining aroun it axis... Then earth must slow donw and fall into sun, but this don't hapening and you know why? Because according to my theory earth don't changing speed and atoms within net don't changing speed and thus no radiation!!!
No, if the earth was charged then it would emit EM waves. It is not, therefore it doesn't. It certainly is accelerating though. You're arguing with Newton about that.
No, if the earth was charged then it would emit EM waves. It is not, therefore it doesn't. It certainly is accelerating though. You're arguing with Newton about that.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 18 2008, 02:26 PM)
No, if the earth was charged then it would emit EM waves. It is not, therefore it doesn't. It certainly is accelerating though. You're arguing with Newton about that.
Bla bla bla, how you smart, because nuclears are in atom and they also don't radiating and nothing radiating and electron alsways, probably somebody turn on magic?
Bla bla bla, how you smart, because nuclears are in atom and they also don't radiating and nothing radiating and electron alsways, probably somebody turn on magic?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 02:16 PM)
This according to official theory. According to my theory, when body or particle flying without acceleration, but only changing direction like in orbital rotation, then particle don't radiating electromagnetic waves, because he don't changing speed (twy to vibrate air without changing speed!).
First off, acceleration don't cause the emission o EM radiation. I dunno where ya got that from, but it's akin to sayin drinkin soda causes radiation poisoning; it jes don't make any sense, plus it's known to be wrong through experimental observation. (tape an amprobe to yerself, get a readin, then start drivin around in yer car an get readins as ya accelerate, to prove that idea wrong.)
Second, yer not jes arguin with Newton, as Prometheus said, but arguin with experimentally verified mathematics.
Acceleration
Velocity
Vector
If yer theory predicts that orbital motion contains no acceleration, then yer theory has already been experimentally falsified.
In other words, we already know it's wrong.
First off, acceleration don't cause the emission o EM radiation. I dunno where ya got that from, but it's akin to sayin drinkin soda causes radiation poisoning; it jes don't make any sense, plus it's known to be wrong through experimental observation. (tape an amprobe to yerself, get a readin, then start drivin around in yer car an get readins as ya accelerate, to prove that idea wrong.)
Second, yer not jes arguin with Newton, as Prometheus said, but arguin with experimentally verified mathematics.
Acceleration
Velocity
Vector
If yer theory predicts that orbital motion contains no acceleration, then yer theory has already been experimentally falsified.
In other words, we already know it's wrong.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 18 2008, 03:09 PM)
First off, acceleration don't cause the emission o EM radiation. I dunno where ya got that from, but it's akin to sayin drinkin soda causes radiation poisoning; it jes don't make any sense, plus it's known to be wrong through experimental observation. (tape an amprobe to yerself, get a readin, then start drivin around in yer car an get readins as ya accelerate, to prove that idea wrong.)
Second, yer not jes arguin with Newton, as Prometheus said, but arguin with experimentally verified mathematics.
Acceleration
Velocity
Vector
If yer theory predicts that orbital motion contains no acceleration, then yer theory has already been experimentally falsified.
In other words, we already know it's wrong.
In what you langueage talking some german or somthing (because I don't see any diference between british or us)? I even can write more correctly than you...
Yes it do, acceleration cause radiation of electromagnetic waves and my theory is absolutly right!!!
All experimental observations are in most cases wrong, I just was thinkg about it and was want to point some inportnat point, but you seems yourself ask...
You don't see all car radiated electromagnetic waves, because it radiates very much diferent frenquency waves and you all have no any chance to detect!!!
So yes, all objects radiating much more than we thinking also radiowaves maybe even shorter and so on...
For example if you will through two balls, then they will give not all they radiated energy to each over due to deacceleration! They will give only very small part of this energy, but since this energy will be all absorbed by over matter, then it's like it goe back and actualy this energy which was radiated when car was accelerated or deaccelerated now is used for heating you and your room to keep room temperature... So this energy nother disapearing! Thats because sciencists estimate that radiated by acceleration energy is about 100-1000 times smaller than kinetic energy... So it's like mass is bigger, but you have / there comes more energy from over sources like your car deaceleration and only small part of radiated energy, when car is deaccelerated is "used" for push car and deaccelerate. So possible, that benzine have more energy, than we think, much more and nuclear also...
Second, yer not jes arguin with Newton, as Prometheus said, but arguin with experimentally verified mathematics.
Acceleration
Velocity
Vector
If yer theory predicts that orbital motion contains no acceleration, then yer theory has already been experimentally falsified.
In other words, we already know it's wrong.
In what you langueage talking some german or somthing (because I don't see any diference between british or us)? I even can write more correctly than you...
Yes it do, acceleration cause radiation of electromagnetic waves and my theory is absolutly right!!!
All experimental observations are in most cases wrong, I just was thinkg about it and was want to point some inportnat point, but you seems yourself ask...
You don't see all car radiated electromagnetic waves, because it radiates very much diferent frenquency waves and you all have no any chance to detect!!!
So yes, all objects radiating much more than we thinking also radiowaves maybe even shorter and so on...
For example if you will through two balls, then they will give not all they radiated energy to each over due to deacceleration! They will give only very small part of this energy, but since this energy will be all absorbed by over matter, then it's like it goe back and actualy this energy which was radiated when car was accelerated or deaccelerated now is used for heating you and your room to keep room temperature... So this energy nother disapearing! Thats because sciencists estimate that radiated by acceleration energy is about 100-1000 times smaller than kinetic energy... So it's like mass is bigger, but you have / there comes more energy from over sources like your car deaceleration and only small part of radiated energy, when car is deaccelerated is "used" for push car and deaccelerate. So possible, that benzine have more energy, than we think, much more and nuclear also...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 03:42 PM)
In what you langueage talking some german or somthing (because I don't see any diference between british or us)? I even can write more correctly than you...
Wrong. If you were right, you'd have said "What language are you typing in, German? (I don't know of any differences between British English and American English.) Even I can write more correctly than you."
An ya wouldn't have misspelled "language" or "difference"
No, it doesn't. Try the experiment I mentioned, son.
No, it doesn't. Try the experiment I mentioned, son.
All experimental observations are in most cases wrong,
Ok, now yer tied with Zarkov fer the most idiotic thing I've ever seen posted on this forum. If that's true, then all theories in all sciences (includin yer own theory, dummy) would be pointless, as there's no way to prove any of them correct.
It would also indicate a complete breakdown of reality an the universe.
That would violate conservation of momentum.
That would violate conservation of momentum.
For example if you will through two balls
Here we go with the durn balls again... We already know mine are bigger
Gibberish.
Gibberish.
Thats because sciencists estimate that radiated by acceleration energy is about 100-1000 times smaller than kinetic energy...
Without a source, this is jes bullsh*t. Even if ya have a source, yer source is prolly jes bullsh*t. Meanin: This claim is jes bullsh*t. Period.
Wrong. If you were right, you'd have said "What language are you typing in, German? (I don't know of any differences between British English and American English.) Even I can write more correctly than you."
An ya wouldn't have misspelled "language" or "difference"
QUOTE
Yes it do, acceleration cause radiation of electromagnetic waves and my theory is absolutly right!!!
No, it doesn't. Try the experiment I mentioned, son.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes it do, acceleration cause radiation of electromagnetic waves and my theory is absolutly right!!! |
No, it doesn't. Try the experiment I mentioned, son.
All experimental observations are in most cases wrong,
Ok, now yer tied with Zarkov fer the most idiotic thing I've ever seen posted on this forum. If that's true, then all theories in all sciences (includin yer own theory, dummy) would be pointless, as there's no way to prove any of them correct.
It would also indicate a complete breakdown of reality an the universe.
QUOTE
You don't see all car radiated electromagnetic waves, because it radiates very much diferent frenquency waves and you all have no any chance to detect!!!
That would violate conservation of momentum.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You don't see all car radiated electromagnetic waves, because it radiates very much diferent frenquency waves and you all have no any chance to detect!!! |
That would violate conservation of momentum.
For example if you will through two balls
Here we go with the durn balls again... We already know mine are bigger
QUOTE
then they will give not all they radiated energy to each over due to deacceleration!
Gibberish.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| then they will give not all they radiated energy to each over due to deacceleration! |
Gibberish.
Thats because sciencists estimate that radiated by acceleration energy is about 100-1000 times smaller than kinetic energy...
Without a source, this is jes bullsh*t. Even if ya have a source, yer source is prolly jes bullsh*t. Meanin: This claim is jes bullsh*t. Period.
I lazy to copy and answer for crancks...
There no any conservation law broken...
About 100-1000 I conclude from textbook, if you have better and more precise parameters then show me them. But I think nobody actualy have them...
Distance between particles (nuclears) is smaller... They have more energy. But this energy you unable to detect, because of imprecision of your detectors!!!! Think in this way: if you detect one photon, then actualy there is in each point the same photon energy, but a litle little smaller amount and thus it is undetected for some time... So actualy there is much more energy in waves form around, but we can use only very small part from it. Why you can't create benzine? Because it have 1000 or maybe even milions times more energy than you think, but in your car driving there is used only 0.001% of energy. You eat food and you eat bilions times more energy than you think, but this energy was in reactions almost all radiated aoutside. Only very small amount of energy was taken for holding your live. Now you want to push some object. You coeficient of effiecncy pushing is some 0.001%. But from around, from infrared, radiowaves, gamma rays, xrays from sun uv waves from all over waves coming induction energy into your muscule cells and almost you doing for free all this. So you actualy is like radio, which consuming energy from outside/environment! Energy from food possible have much more energy, but still much mroe than you need to push.
To simplificay, think in this way: all reactions and so on have thousunds times more energy, but they effiecency is thousunds time smaller. I think now got it?
There no any conservation law broken...
About 100-1000 I conclude from textbook, if you have better and more precise parameters then show me them. But I think nobody actualy have them...
Distance between particles (nuclears) is smaller... They have more energy. But this energy you unable to detect, because of imprecision of your detectors!!!! Think in this way: if you detect one photon, then actualy there is in each point the same photon energy, but a litle little smaller amount and thus it is undetected for some time... So actualy there is much more energy in waves form around, but we can use only very small part from it. Why you can't create benzine? Because it have 1000 or maybe even milions times more energy than you think, but in your car driving there is used only 0.001% of energy. You eat food and you eat bilions times more energy than you think, but this energy was in reactions almost all radiated aoutside. Only very small amount of energy was taken for holding your live. Now you want to push some object. You coeficient of effiecncy pushing is some 0.001%. But from around, from infrared, radiowaves, gamma rays, xrays from sun uv waves from all over waves coming induction energy into your muscule cells and almost you doing for free all this. So you actualy is like radio, which consuming energy from outside/environment! Energy from food possible have much more energy, but still much mroe than you need to push.
To simplificay, think in this way: all reactions and so on have thousunds times more energy, but they effiecency is thousunds time smaller. I think now got it?
On the over hand charges pushing each over when two objects bounce and when object deaccelerating, but this is the same, but charges exsit always...
So okay, everything like was, but just kinetic energy is radiated energy by particles... So possible in particles and objects interaction the major and general role playing charge and magnetic force and radiated kinetic energy is just for fun. But since kinetic energy of particles in deacceleration is radiation then charge force is the same force like radiated pushing energy, only by small point. So nothing don't changing, except, that particles acceleration is radiation... Nobody precisly measure it and nobody know it for sure...
So okay, everything like was, but just kinetic energy is radiated energy by particles... So possible in particles and objects interaction the major and general role playing charge and magnetic force and radiated kinetic energy is just for fun. But since kinetic energy of particles in deacceleration is radiation then charge force is the same force like radiated pushing energy, only by small point. So nothing don't changing, except, that particles acceleration is radiation... Nobody precisly measure it and nobody know it for sure...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 05:36 PM)
I lazy
Yer spellin, grammar an comprehension o physics ensured I already knew that.
By absolutely no definition o the word am I a crank. I don't have any crank theories, I don't whine about dogma an elitism in mainstream physics, I don't buy pseudo-scientific theories, an I accept scientific consensus as likely true.
By absolutely no definition o the word am I a crank. I don't have any crank theories, I don't whine about dogma an elitism in mainstream physics, I don't buy pseudo-scientific theories, an I accept scientific consensus as likely true.
There no any conservation law broken...
Qualitatively, yer claim breaks conservation laws. If ya wanna prove that it don't, ya need maths to do so. I know fer a fact that ya don't have maths to do so.
Sayin "a textbook" ain't citin a source. It's jes another bit o bullsh*t intended to lend credence to the last bit o bullsh*t ya tried to feed me.
Sayin "a textbook" ain't citin a source. It's jes another bit o bullsh*t intended to lend credence to the last bit o bullsh*t ya tried to feed me.
Distance between particles (nuclears) is smaller... They have more energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement
That's arm wavin. Ya have to spell out exactly which detectors, exactly what sort o imprecision an exactly why they have this imprecision, considerin that those scientists an engineers operatin em disagree with ya.
That's arm wavin. Ya have to spell out exactly which detectors, exactly what sort o imprecision an exactly why they have this imprecision, considerin that those scientists an engineers operatin em disagree with ya.
Think in this way: if you detect one photon, then actualy there is in each point the same photon energy, but a litle little smaller amount and thus it is undetected for some time...
"Photon" is not a unit o measurment o energy content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Ya have to provide a model which shows this is so.
Ya have to provide a model which shows this is so.
Why you can't create benzine?
We can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzine
Arm wavin again... Provide a model or yer jes bullsh*ttin.
Arm wavin again... Provide a model or yer jes bullsh*ttin.
all reactions and so on have thousunds times more energy, but they effiecency is thousunds time smaller. I think now got it?
Wrong. Photovoltaic cells operate at about 10-15% efficiency. That's two orders o ten greater times efficiency than ya claim is possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_cell
Yer spellin, grammar an comprehension o physics ensured I already knew that.
QUOTE
to copy and answer for crancks...
By absolutely no definition o the word am I a crank. I don't have any crank theories, I don't whine about dogma an elitism in mainstream physics, I don't buy pseudo-scientific theories, an I accept scientific consensus as likely true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| to copy and answer for crancks... |
By absolutely no definition o the word am I a crank. I don't have any crank theories, I don't whine about dogma an elitism in mainstream physics, I don't buy pseudo-scientific theories, an I accept scientific consensus as likely true.
There no any conservation law broken...
Qualitatively, yer claim breaks conservation laws. If ya wanna prove that it don't, ya need maths to do so. I know fer a fact that ya don't have maths to do so.
QUOTE
About 100-1000 I conclude from textbook, if you have better and more precise parameters then show me them. But I think nobody actualy have them...
Sayin "a textbook" ain't citin a source. It's jes another bit o bullsh*t intended to lend credence to the last bit o bullsh*t ya tried to feed me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| About 100-1000 I conclude from textbook, if you have better and more precise parameters then show me them. But I think nobody actualy have them... |
Sayin "a textbook" ain't citin a source. It's jes another bit o bullsh*t intended to lend credence to the last bit o bullsh*t ya tried to feed me.
Distance between particles (nuclears) is smaller... They have more energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement
QUOTE
But this energy you unable to detect, because of imprecision of your detectors!!!!
That's arm wavin. Ya have to spell out exactly which detectors, exactly what sort o imprecision an exactly why they have this imprecision, considerin that those scientists an engineers operatin em disagree with ya.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But this energy you unable to detect, because of imprecision of your detectors!!!! |
That's arm wavin. Ya have to spell out exactly which detectors, exactly what sort o imprecision an exactly why they have this imprecision, considerin that those scientists an engineers operatin em disagree with ya.
Think in this way: if you detect one photon, then actualy there is in each point the same photon energy, but a litle little smaller amount and thus it is undetected for some time...
"Photon" is not a unit o measurment o energy content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
QUOTE
So actualy there is much more energy in waves form around, but we can use only very small part from it.
Ya have to provide a model which shows this is so.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So actualy there is much more energy in waves form around, but we can use only very small part from it. |
Ya have to provide a model which shows this is so.
Why you can't create benzine?
We can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzine
QUOTE
Because it have 1000 or maybe even milions times more energy than you think, but in your car driving there is used only 0.001% of energy. You eat food and you eat bilions times more energy than you think, but this energy was in reactions almost all radiated aoutside.
Arm wavin again... Provide a model or yer jes bullsh*ttin.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because it have 1000 or maybe even milions times more energy than you think, but in your car driving there is used only 0.001% of energy. You eat food and you eat bilions times more energy than you think, but this energy was in reactions almost all radiated aoutside. |
Arm wavin again... Provide a model or yer jes bullsh*ttin.
all reactions and so on have thousunds times more energy, but they effiecency is thousunds time smaller. I think now got it?
Wrong. Photovoltaic cells operate at about 10-15% efficiency. That's two orders o ten greater times efficiency than ya claim is possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_cell
You should read my last post instead posting this... Too bad
So okay, what for you is wrong with fact, that any object moving with acceleration (not angular or orbital...) radiating energy which is equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2 ? For example to accelerate 1 kg object to 1000 m/s speed need 0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 J, this energy would be radiated. Prove that this is not true!!!
Sciencists don't detect such amount of energy, because waves GOING through matter instead just alway making photoeffect, which probably more likely making electrons or protons or neutrons. You think all energy is going to detectors, huh? Tons of it going though detectors and tons is reflected and possible at all sciencists detecting only some electrons... Also many energy going deep into matter and becoming thermal energy instead just making for them photoeffect for they wishes and detectors. I give fine theory, that particle radiating energy mv^2 /2 and no you no any else can debunk it, because there no such information!!!!!!!!!
So okay, what for you is wrong with fact, that any object moving with acceleration (not angular or orbital...) radiating energy which is equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2 ? For example to accelerate 1 kg object to 1000 m/s speed need 0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 J, this energy would be radiated. Prove that this is not true!!!
Sciencists don't detect such amount of energy, because waves GOING through matter instead just alway making photoeffect, which probably more likely making electrons or protons or neutrons. You think all energy is going to detectors, huh? Tons of it going though detectors and tons is reflected and possible at all sciencists detecting only some electrons... Also many energy going deep into matter and becoming thermal energy instead just making for them photoeffect for they wishes and detectors. I give fine theory, that particle radiating energy mv^2 /2 and no you no any else can debunk it, because there no such information!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 18 2008, 06:51 PM)
You should read my last post instead posting this... Too bad
I did. It was more of the same idiocy.
1. The whole thing.
2. orbital motion contains constant acceleration.
3. The whole thing.
4. 0.5mv^2 is 0.25mv. It's also an arbitrary amount o electrical energy which is not a physical constant in any way, despite the fact that ya use it like one.
5. The whole thing.
6. The idea that acceleratin bodies emit electromagnetic radiation.
7. The whole thing.
1. The whole thing.
2. orbital motion contains constant acceleration.
3. The whole thing.
4. 0.5mv^2 is 0.25mv. It's also an arbitrary amount o electrical energy which is not a physical constant in any way, despite the fact that ya use it like one.
5. The whole thing.
6. The idea that acceleratin bodies emit electromagnetic radiation.
7. The whole thing.
For example to accelerate 1 kg object to 1000 m/s speed need 0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 J, this energy would be radiated. Prove that this is not true!!!
That 'equation' is barely even an equation, an it's certainly not a correct one. 0.5*1*1000^2 is almost gibberish, an the solution is not 5*10^5 J. Let me explain:
1. 0.5*1 is exactly 0.5. the *1 is extraneous.
2. 1000^2 is useless over complexity which would be better and properly expressed as 10^6.
3. J is not defined. It can either be a variable, a constant, or an abreviation of Joules.
4. There is no constant J that I know of, therefore, it must be a variable or Joules.
5. Since you do not define any parameter which J corresponds to, it must mean Joules.
6. In that case, the first half of the equation must be some other measurement o energy, an from the nature o yer earlier writins, I must assume ya mean millivolts.
7. The conversion o millivolts to joules is not possible without specifyin amperage.
8. The conversion o milliwatts (1mv @ 1a) to joules is not possible without specifyin a duration o time.
9. The conversion o milliwatts to joules is 10^6(T) where T is time in seconds, not 5*10^5.
Photons an electrons do interact with matter, at all energy levels.
Photons an electrons do interact with matter, at all energy levels.
You think all energy is going to detectors, huh?
No, some is burned off as heat or electromagnetic radiation. Jes not cause anythat was acceleratin.
O course. They only detect the electrons inside the detector. Those outside don't show up.
O course. They only detect the electrons inside the detector. Those outside don't show up.
Also many energy going deep into matter and becoming thermal energy instead just making for them photoeffect for they wishes and detectors.
Irrelevant, an nigh incomprehensible.
1. it's already been debunked, idiot. As I already explained.
2. Ya ain't given me no theory, jes a bunch o arm-wavey gibberish an a pitiful excuse fer an equation.
What? What you saying? Deep inelasting stupiding?
I it explain in over places many times, it can be anything and any eror and any scatering over any thing like all this mesons with diferent speed...
So what are mesons made of? You really are making no sense.
I have my doubts of technological subspace as well.
I did. It was more of the same idiocy.
QUOTE
So okay, what for you is wrong with fact, that any object moving with acceleration (not angular or orbital...) radiating energy which is equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2 ?
1. The whole thing.
2. orbital motion contains constant acceleration.
3. The whole thing.
4. 0.5mv^2 is 0.25mv. It's also an arbitrary amount o electrical energy which is not a physical constant in any way, despite the fact that ya use it like one.
5. The whole thing.
6. The idea that acceleratin bodies emit electromagnetic radiation.
7. The whole thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So okay, what for you is wrong with fact, that any object moving with acceleration (not angular or orbital...) radiating energy which is equal to kinetic energy 0.5mv^2 ? |
1. The whole thing.
2. orbital motion contains constant acceleration.
3. The whole thing.
4. 0.5mv^2 is 0.25mv. It's also an arbitrary amount o electrical energy which is not a physical constant in any way, despite the fact that ya use it like one.
5. The whole thing.
6. The idea that acceleratin bodies emit electromagnetic radiation.
7. The whole thing.
For example to accelerate 1 kg object to 1000 m/s speed need 0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 J, this energy would be radiated. Prove that this is not true!!!
That 'equation' is barely even an equation, an it's certainly not a correct one. 0.5*1*1000^2 is almost gibberish, an the solution is not 5*10^5 J. Let me explain:
1. 0.5*1 is exactly 0.5. the *1 is extraneous.
2. 1000^2 is useless over complexity which would be better and properly expressed as 10^6.
3. J is not defined. It can either be a variable, a constant, or an abreviation of Joules.
4. There is no constant J that I know of, therefore, it must be a variable or Joules.
5. Since you do not define any parameter which J corresponds to, it must mean Joules.
6. In that case, the first half of the equation must be some other measurement o energy, an from the nature o yer earlier writins, I must assume ya mean millivolts.
7. The conversion o millivolts to joules is not possible without specifyin amperage.
8. The conversion o milliwatts (1mv @ 1a) to joules is not possible without specifyin a duration o time.
9. The conversion o milliwatts to joules is 10^6(T) where T is time in seconds, not 5*10^5.
QUOTE
Sciencists don't detect such amount of energy, because waves GOING through matter instead just alway making photoeffect, which probably more likely making electrons or protons or neutrons.
Photons an electrons do interact with matter, at all energy levels.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sciencists don't detect such amount of energy, because waves GOING through matter instead just alway making photoeffect, which probably more likely making electrons or protons or neutrons. |
Photons an electrons do interact with matter, at all energy levels.
You think all energy is going to detectors, huh?
No, some is burned off as heat or electromagnetic radiation. Jes not cause anythat was acceleratin.
QUOTE
Tons of it going though detectors and tons is reflected and possible at all sciencists detecting only some electrons...
O course. They only detect the electrons inside the detector. Those outside don't show up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Tons of it going though detectors and tons is reflected and possible at all sciencists detecting only some electrons... |
O course. They only detect the electrons inside the detector. Those outside don't show up.
Also many energy going deep into matter and becoming thermal energy instead just making for them photoeffect for they wishes and detectors.
Irrelevant, an nigh incomprehensible.
QUOTE
I give fine theory, that particle radiating energy mv^2 /2 and no you no any else can debunk it, because there no such information!!!!!!!!!
1. it's already been debunked, idiot. As I already explained.
2. Ya ain't given me no theory, jes a bunch o arm-wavey gibberish an a pitiful excuse fer an equation.
I think you just don't understood at all waht I mean to say...
Imagine this: for aceelration 1 kg object in cosmos to speed 1000 meters/second need 0.5*m*v^2=0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 Joules ernergy. Now imagine that particle don't have mass! But when he flying (with acceleration) he radiating electromagnetic waves and so to accelerate particle from 0 m/s to 1000 m/s need energy 5*10^5 Joules. This energy can be coloumb (charge) force, but during this acceleration from 0 m/s to 1000 m/s will be radiated 5*10^5 joules of energy in electromagnetic waves phorm and particle will got 1000 m/s speed. Is this so hard to understood?
Imagine this: for aceelration 1 kg object in cosmos to speed 1000 meters/second need 0.5*m*v^2=0.5*1*1000^2=5*10^5 Joules ernergy. Now imagine that particle don't have mass! But when he flying (with acceleration) he radiating electromagnetic waves and so to accelerate particle from 0 m/s to 1000 m/s need energy 5*10^5 Joules. This energy can be coloumb (charge) force, but during this acceleration from 0 m/s to 1000 m/s will be radiated 5*10^5 joules of energy in electromagnetic waves phorm and particle will got 1000 m/s speed. Is this so hard to understood?
Possible, that electrons, protons and neutrons is just bubble gaps in smallest spheres structure. Those gaps such aranged smallest spheres, that they formating bubble for gaps electron mayby is smaller gaps, protons bigger and thus those gaps is like particles and have some properties depending on structure... And yes, I negeletic of existing any over particles except proton, neutrons and electron and even they antiparticles. Thus those gaps don't have mass and don't have kinetic energy, but for stoping them need/ will be radiation of electromagnetic waves mv^2 /2... Who know how big those gaps are, maybe there not size but structure somehow depending what electron radiating much less energy due acceleration... Thus whose gaps have some smallest spheres organization, which somehow creating around structure of smallest spheres, which is electric, magnetic field. Also creating strange law like lorence force...
Mystery of neutron spin is solved. Neutron consits of proton and electron. Proton is about 2000 times bigger value than electron.
Proton and electron spins in neutron are aligned not in this way:
SSSSeNNNN-SSSSpNNNN, where e and p means electron and proton. They aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN
NNNNpSSSS .
Then if aligned in second variant there is not 1/2+1/2=1, but there is (0.5+0.5)/2=0.5 ! If there is magnetic field then such combination aligns at 45 degres!
SSeNN
NNpSS
______N
_______N
________N
_________N
__________N
___________Magnetic field outside.
Thus efect will be like 0.5 spin!
So I prove that neutron consist of proton and electron.
Proton and electron spins in neutron are aligned not in this way:
SSSSeNNNN-SSSSpNNNN, where e and p means electron and proton. They aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN
NNNNpSSSS .
Then if aligned in second variant there is not 1/2+1/2=1, but there is (0.5+0.5)/2=0.5 ! If there is magnetic field then such combination aligns at 45 degres!
SSeNN
NNpSS
______N
_______N
________N
_________N
__________N
___________Magnetic field outside.
Thus efect will be like 0.5 spin!
So I prove that neutron consist of proton and electron.
Neutron usualy don't decaying and no reasons to decay probably except one big reason, when neutron flying in magnetic field then lorenze force electron and proton 'pushing' in oposit directions and thus proton and neutron spliting at big speed and in strong magnetic field, which can be field of some atoms nuclears... But in free izolated state seems there no any reasons for neutron decay!
Thus all matter consist of proton and electron!!! Thuts all light two poles of magnetism and two charges and lorence force and don't need any more laws to explain all physics!!
Thus all matter consist of proton and electron!!! Thuts all light two poles of magnetism and two charges and lorence force and don't need any more laws to explain all physics!!
Why electricity producing magnetic field? Because if electrons moving in wire then electrons spins with speed of light aligning to each over without any energy loosing and thus there is like river-long magnet. Thus this explains electromagnetism!
What about deep inelastic scattering experiments that prove the existence of quarks? Nature is wrong again huh?
Lorence forse can be inperfection of magnets, where on edges magnetism is tronger than in midle of magnets and then spins aligning and flying to eacdges... Anyway lorence force is not used in electric motors nor in speakers dynamics. So maybe lorence force is wake? Lorence force is big whiches of scoencists? Why nature should create lorence force if everything is possible to do with electrons spins, like motors or speakers or even "lorence force" with bigger magnetism of mangets on eadges...
Watch this:
___________N____
_________--__--__
______---______---___
___----___________----______
There magnet is like circle and on eadges magnetism is stronger, thus this can explain lorence force, which actualy accodring to my theory is spins of electrons.
When through wire going electricity all spins of electrons aligns to magnetic field or to each over if there no field...
So according to my theory possible electrons going to any direction or aligning to magnetic field of over wire spins... So lorence force accoding to my theory don't depending on electricity direction in wire...
Lorecne force is not needed for any reasons, because it can be simulated with circled magned (except maybe motion direction of wire). so maybe there is some wrong data about lorece force about direction of force depending on electricity direction in wire? Why nature create it if it is not usefull?
Also as I said electric field don't generating magnetic, but it doing electrons spins!
It can't be that nature create lorence force only for neutron decaying (but probably it can decay in circle magnet even without lorence force, yes!).
Watch this:
___________N____
_________--__--__
______---______---___
___----___________----______
There magnet is like circle and on eadges magnetism is stronger, thus this can explain lorence force, which actualy accodring to my theory is spins of electrons.
When through wire going electricity all spins of electrons aligns to magnetic field or to each over if there no field...
So according to my theory possible electrons going to any direction or aligning to magnetic field of over wire spins... So lorence force accoding to my theory don't depending on electricity direction in wire...
Lorecne force is not needed for any reasons, because it can be simulated with circled magned (except maybe motion direction of wire). so maybe there is some wrong data about lorece force about direction of force depending on electricity direction in wire? Why nature create it if it is not usefull?
Also as I said electric field don't generating magnetic, but it doing electrons spins!
It can't be that nature create lorence force only for neutron decaying (but probably it can decay in circle magnet even without lorence force, yes!).
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 19 2008, 11:35 AM)
What about deep inelastic scattering experiments that prove the existence of quarks? Nature is wrong again huh?
What? What you saying? Deep inelasting stupiding?
I it explain in over places many times, it can be anything and any eror and any scatering over any thing like all this mesons with diferent speed...
What? What you saying? Deep inelasting stupiding?
I it explain in over places many times, it can be anything and any eror and any scatering over any thing like all this mesons with diferent speed...
Okay now! Here is revolution idea! Charge does not exist! All charge can be explained with particles spins, when bigger magnet is less magnetic than smaller and thus charge is spins of electrons and protons...
this is new idea and somthere I can be now wrong, but thinking that nature is very simple there is good idea, that charge doesn't exist... Now I just give this revoliutional idea and then I will publish true it or not later...
but now i don't hary to see some imposiblities. Maybe it will explain lorence for maybe and so... But I now see, that then need asumtion, that in some direction particle always flying with some alignation of spin to that direction in which he flying, but damn if this idea is right then how revolutinoistic it would be
this is new idea and somthere I can be now wrong, but thinking that nature is very simple there is good idea, that charge doesn't exist... Now I just give this revoliutional idea and then I will publish true it or not later...
but now i don't hary to see some imposiblities. Maybe it will explain lorence for maybe and so... But I now see, that then need asumtion, that in some direction particle always flying with some alignation of spin to that direction in which he flying, but damn if this idea is right then how revolutinoistic it would be
Okay about atom emision with turno on and of magnetic field, where spin is higher or lower than usual line of emsion line. If magnetic field is on then some electrons which is closer to magnetic field going up from atom and thus aborbed or radiated line is diferent and which is farther from atom on another side of nuclear i mean, then is radietd higer line, i think you understood, so this don't negletic existation of spin-nuclear force, which holding electrons and atoms. Neutrons can be proton and electron fusion by spin, but can be just protons more in nuclear but they still have totla spin the same like in deuterium and thus still electron atracted the same (you don't see two protons system without neutron?).
Here I found model how possible electrons radiating some frenquency waves. Since nuclear have his own spin, then for rotation it need energy and this is not enough of electron (except hydrogen atom). Thus electron flying closer or farther. He then of course radiating electromagnetic waves, this is bad side of this mode and it still don't explains hydrogen atom, except if proton created of many electrons But then this neutrons making some domens like nucleons making atoms and more nucleons can't create atom bigger than some ~250 nucleons, but here somthing can be diferent and only stable are single electron and proton and neutorn mass subatoms... So if falling more neutrons into proton it becoming neutron and if in neutron falling even more electrons then it decaying to proton and electron...
But then this neutrons making some domens like nucleons making atoms and more nucleons can't create atom bigger than some ~250 nucleons, but here somthing can be diferent and only stable are single electron and proton and neutorn mass subatoms... So if falling more neutrons into proton it becoming neutron and if in neutron falling even more electrons then it decaying to proton and electron...
electricity is aligned spins of electrons, when electron go some amount, when there is gap which spin is over electrona taracted...
For charged positive objects energeticaly is not good be in such position and thus they pushing any over nuclears, but atracting electrons, which don't consits of somthing. electrons cloud around object possible making electrons to fuse and then also push, but somehow to be atracted by positive object, which atracting, this is hard calculations... This is like in egdesof magnet force is stronger because better arnagment... This is very hard and nobody can disprove... For example since magnet can't be inside smaller than outside then is pushed anotehr electrons from negative charged object... But at least I can't to put this idea in recycled bin now... Maybe it wrong maybe right
If right then our universe and word have rely simple shape: only one type of particles - electrons and only two magnetic poles for whcih rotation don't need force (or very small and it going on with speed of light) and if they flying in some direction then some pole is in fron and some in back. With this possible explain magnetism, gravity, electricity, lorence force atoms nucelars and so on. Only waves are just air type very simple waves and don't have any mysteries. Electrons at least must consist of 3 spheres, which configuration somehow creating all laws... So then between neutorn and proton seems no diference and between electron, but matter should interact all, but electron for realy diferently, but about proton and electron I am not sure, maybe diferently, but maybe the same... So possible there from sun coming many protons neutrons electrons, which is UV... Possible all light radiating them...
For charged positive objects energeticaly is not good be in such position and thus they pushing any over nuclears, but atracting electrons, which don't consits of somthing. electrons cloud around object possible making electrons to fuse and then also push, but somehow to be atracted by positive object, which atracting, this is hard calculations... This is like in egdesof magnet force is stronger because better arnagment... This is very hard and nobody can disprove... For example since magnet can't be inside smaller than outside then is pushed anotehr electrons from negative charged object... But at least I can't to put this idea in recycled bin now... Maybe it wrong maybe right
If right then our universe and word have rely simple shape: only one type of particles - electrons and only two magnetic poles for whcih rotation don't need force (or very small and it going on with speed of light) and if they flying in some direction then some pole is in fron and some in back. With this possible explain magnetism, gravity, electricity, lorence force atoms nucelars and so on. Only waves are just air type very simple waves and don't have any mysteries. Electrons at least must consist of 3 spheres, which configuration somehow creating all laws... So then between neutorn and proton seems no diference and between electron, but matter should interact all, but electron for realy diferently, but about proton and electron I am not sure, maybe diferently, but maybe the same... So possible there from sun coming many protons neutrons electrons, which is UV... Possible all light radiating them...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 19 2008, 12:35 PM)
What? What you saying? Deep inelasting stupiding?
I it explain in over places many times, it can be anything and any eror and any scatering over any thing like all this mesons with diferent speed...
So what are mesons made of? You really are making no sense.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 19 2008, 02:36 PM)
So what are mesons made of? You really are making no sense.
Of nothing, because they don't exist, it just over energy protons...
Of nothing, because they don't exist, it just over energy protons...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 19 2008, 02:41 PM)
Of nothing, because they don't exist, it just over energy protons...
Over energy protons?, please elucidate.
Over energy protons?, please elucidate.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 19 2008, 02:41 PM)
Of nothing, because they don't exist, it just over energy protons...
Your theory is not even close to consistent. Mesons hold nuclei together. If they didn't exist then nuclei wouldn't exit.
Your theory is not even close to consistent. Mesons hold nuclei together. If they didn't exist then nuclei wouldn't exit.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 19 2008, 03:09 PM)
Your theory is not even close to consistent. Mesons hold nuclei together. If they didn't exist then nuclei wouldn't exit.
bla bla, there tons of diferent mesons, pions, miuns and so on?
Hey, I found very interesting considence? that if lorece force wroking accoding my circle magnets theory, that on edges magnetism is bigger then it's explains positron, because then positron is actualy electron and electron can fly in any direction in magnetic field due "lorence force". So ery possible that lorence force is wrong. But only very hard to debunk lorence force in wires if it is realy properly observed. Maybe if only spins angle some diferent and all experiments for lorence force is maded with magnet like moon/bannana you know like half circul, then in such magnet there realy possible to explain lorence force without magic, but only with electrons spins, hm...
bla bla, there tons of diferent mesons, pions, miuns and so on?
Hey, I found very interesting considence? that if lorece force wroking accoding my circle magnets theory, that on edges magnetism is bigger then it's explains positron, because then positron is actualy electron and electron can fly in any direction in magnetic field due "lorence force". So ery possible that lorence force is wrong. But only very hard to debunk lorence force in wires if it is realy properly observed. Maybe if only spins angle some diferent and all experiments for lorence force is maded with magnet like moon/bannana you know like half circul, then in such magnet there realy possible to explain lorence force without magic, but only with electrons spins, hm...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 19 2008, 03:22 PM)
bla bla, there tons of diferent mesons, pions, miuns and so on?
Hey, I found very interesting considence? that if lorece force wroking accoding my circle magnets theory, that on edges magnetism is bigger then it's explains positron, because then positron is actualy electron and electron can fly in any direction in magnetic field due "lorence force". So ery possible that lorence force is wrong. But only very hard to debunk lorence force in wires if it is realy properly observed. Maybe if only spins angle some diferent and all experiments for lorence force is maded with magnet like moon/bannana you know like half circul, then in such magnet there realy possible to explain lorence force without magic, but only with electrons spins, hm...
DavidD, are you for real or just a comedy sketch?
Hey, I found very interesting considence? that if lorece force wroking accoding my circle magnets theory, that on edges magnetism is bigger then it's explains positron, because then positron is actualy electron and electron can fly in any direction in magnetic field due "lorence force". So ery possible that lorence force is wrong. But only very hard to debunk lorence force in wires if it is realy properly observed. Maybe if only spins angle some diferent and all experiments for lorence force is maded with magnet like moon/bannana you know like half circul, then in such magnet there realy possible to explain lorence force without magic, but only with electrons spins, hm...
DavidD, are you for real or just a comedy sketch?
QUOTE (Geoff Mollusc+Jul 19 2008, 02:56 PM)
Over energy protons?, please elucidate.
Meson is the same as proton, just lighter, thus it is faster or slower...
Meson is the same as proton, just lighter, thus it is faster or slower...
QUOTE (Geoff Mollusc+Jul 19 2008, 03:33 PM)
DavidD, are you for real or just a comedy sketch?
Accoding my theory lorence force with one magnet instead two shouldnt' work...
Accoding my theory lorence force with one magnet instead two shouldnt' work...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 19 2008, 03:35 PM)
Meson is the same as proton, just lighter, thus it is faster or slower...
Faster or Slower , thanks for your concise 'nail-on-the head' 'thoughts'
Faster or Slower
, thanks for your concise 'nail-on-the head' 'thoughts'
Okay, I realy now not sure does for rotating electron speed don't need energy, but still possible, that electrons spin aligning to most 'magnetic' position and he doing it very fast, because spin prety powerfull, but for sure can say, that at electron alignation he don't radiating electromagnetic waves.
So how to explain hydrogen atom? Proton is in center and he is like magnet of many electrons of spins, but which making all spin still 1/2, because of not veryu good alignation within... So when proton spin is this then electron flying around some static orbit and don't radiating electromagnetic waves because of mentioned law about direction changing, but speed don't changing don't making radiation, but for direction change need energy. So when electron flying around proton he always aligning with spin to proton spin and was always flying in same orbit. But sometimes this electron spin somehow changing net magnetism of proton and proton "recently" relaizing, that he consist of many electrons and making some smaller or bigger spin and thus electron jumping in over 'quantized' orbit with radiation electromagnetic waves. This jumps can more depend on all atoms spins configuration and not on absorbtion of waves. But on the over hand waves can push electron closer or farther to proton and thus proton will change spin size and will radiated be 'photon'. In short, if photon coming "from center" of atom then electron is pushed outside and if coming into atom then electron is pushed inside and then spins configuring it "quantizedly" and radiated some concrete wavelenght photon. The same for any over atoms... So my spin model, that proton consist of many thousunds(?) electrons explaining quantization of emited waves. Now with absorbtion of certain type of waves can be more dificult/complicated. Possible even that absorbtion is not related with some frenquency and so on and for example eye absorbing some frenquency waves and decoding some vibrations with neurons like in radio waves... But how grass absorbing over colourse and leaving only green, reemising? Well, possible, that grass them at all don't absorbing, but just some waves like was say pushing electron and electron then depending on spin in proton size changing it value and radiating say green waves and so there no any absorbtion but just radiation. Absorbing they I think almost all waves equaly and eyes probably working like I say, like radio. How you can know, that it was absorbed, hm? So no absorbtion of certain frenquency waves, but just radiation of certain frenquency waves, which probably can more depend on random "wishes" of proton and thermal and vibration processes of atoms they spin plays, than on incoming waves...
So my spin model very good explaining all quantized radiation. Also it explaining electricity, that spin of electrons going in some direction and they if going then some pole is first always! Lorence force I acn't explain logicaly, but it seems no diference does there is charge or spin effect. Neutron if consist of proton and electron then lorence force is in oposit direction and thus it spliting neutron to proton and electron.
For crancks this theory also have present, this all over mesons hardrons and barions and over crankeons can be result of many electrons, but they are because of spins not stable. But then very hard to explain positron and neutrino, except then everything consist of (electron) neutrino... But I think better just use electron like elementar particle and over doubfull things to leave for mistificators...
Now why neutron is not acting in electrical field, but proton do? Well possible, that electron very good rotates about proton in neutron and just they spins is like shoe/say in 45 deggress and no some one spin direction and thus neutron is not atracted nor by... hm somthing wrong... Maybe just energeticaly is not effiecnt for neutron to be atracted by positive or negative "charge". Maybe electron flying to it, but then relizing, that there he don't fit... Since magnetic field is like some equal alignation and charge is some electrons or protons disbalance then since neutron have both them then he don't fits here and it is as hard to explain as charge with spin, but also hard to debunk this... since neutron can consist of many electrons with diferent/dificult configurations...
So how to explain hydrogen atom? Proton is in center and he is like magnet of many electrons of spins, but which making all spin still 1/2, because of not veryu good alignation within... So when proton spin is this then electron flying around some static orbit and don't radiating electromagnetic waves because of mentioned law about direction changing, but speed don't changing don't making radiation, but for direction change need energy. So when electron flying around proton he always aligning with spin to proton spin and was always flying in same orbit. But sometimes this electron spin somehow changing net magnetism of proton and proton "recently" relaizing, that he consist of many electrons and making some smaller or bigger spin and thus electron jumping in over 'quantized' orbit with radiation electromagnetic waves. This jumps can more depend on all atoms spins configuration and not on absorbtion of waves. But on the over hand waves can push electron closer or farther to proton and thus proton will change spin size and will radiated be 'photon'. In short, if photon coming "from center" of atom then electron is pushed outside and if coming into atom then electron is pushed inside and then spins configuring it "quantizedly" and radiated some concrete wavelenght photon. The same for any over atoms... So my spin model, that proton consist of many thousunds(?) electrons explaining quantization of emited waves. Now with absorbtion of certain type of waves can be more dificult/complicated. Possible even that absorbtion is not related with some frenquency and so on and for example eye absorbing some frenquency waves and decoding some vibrations with neurons like in radio waves... But how grass absorbing over colourse and leaving only green, reemising? Well, possible, that grass them at all don't absorbing, but just some waves like was say pushing electron and electron then depending on spin in proton size changing it value and radiating say green waves and so there no any absorbtion but just radiation. Absorbing they I think almost all waves equaly and eyes probably working like I say, like radio. How you can know, that it was absorbed, hm? So no absorbtion of certain frenquency waves, but just radiation of certain frenquency waves, which probably can more depend on random "wishes" of proton and thermal and vibration processes of atoms they spin plays, than on incoming waves...
So my spin model very good explaining all quantized radiation. Also it explaining electricity, that spin of electrons going in some direction and they if going then some pole is first always! Lorence force I acn't explain logicaly, but it seems no diference does there is charge or spin effect. Neutron if consist of proton and electron then lorence force is in oposit direction and thus it spliting neutron to proton and electron.
For crancks this theory also have present, this all over mesons hardrons and barions and over crankeons can be result of many electrons, but they are because of spins not stable. But then very hard to explain positron and neutrino, except then everything consist of (electron) neutrino... But I think better just use electron like elementar particle and over doubfull things to leave for mistificators...
Now why neutron is not acting in electrical field, but proton do? Well possible, that electron very good rotates about proton in neutron and just they spins is like shoe/say in 45 deggress and no some one spin direction and thus neutron is not atracted nor by... hm somthing wrong... Maybe just energeticaly is not effiecnt for neutron to be atracted by positive or negative "charge". Maybe electron flying to it, but then relizing, that there he don't fit... Since magnetic field is like some equal alignation and charge is some electrons or protons disbalance then since neutron have both them then he don't fits here and it is as hard to explain as charge with spin, but also hard to debunk this... since neutron can consist of many electrons with diferent/dificult configurations...
I have my doubts of technological subspace as well.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric March 01+)
ALL of quantum systems have been ACCURATELY modelled using the notions of field theory and superpositions. QED explains all electromagnetic interactions and it's built on superposition. The description of the nucleus is built upon superposition and it's accurate enough to allow us to build nuclear reactors.
Posted by: thezman May 3 2005, 07:35 PM ...
QUOTE
The thought is why has Bohmian Mechanics not been more popular in the past? One reason (other than he is a "fruitcake") is there is no absolute mapping (one to one and onto) of measurables from our reference frame to that "particle/wave" reference frame........... The question is if Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is entirely relevant to this problem and then is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity entirely relevant as well. If so what modifications would be necessary to bring them both "up to speed" (if any?)?
We can make a mapping if we can agree that the wave functions and superpositions represent an actual distribution of some or all of the quantum systems actual properties. This should make quantum mechanics more compatible with SR and GR. Furthermore, this distribution would be continuous. Where it would seem not to be continuous, like spin formulations and EPR and zones of zero probability of occurance, the continuity is hidden in the structure of the basic scalar/vector/vector spin fields.
As long as the so-called wave packets are compatible with this view I would think the formulation method does not matter, as long as it works.
Forum= 16 Showtopic= 374 ---->Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories > The impossibility of something faster than light
Posted by: DavidD March 6 2008, 01:04 PM...
1 Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
2 D-Wave Systems, Inc., 4401 Still Creek Drive, Suite 100, Burnaby, BC V5C 6G9, Canada.
3 Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
* These authors contributed equally to this work.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: alan@aspuru.com
...
On classical computers, resource requirements for complete simulation of the time-independent Schrödinger equation scale exponentially with the number of atoms in a molecule, limiting such full configuration interaction (FCI) calculations to diatomic and triatomic molecules (7). Computational quantum chemistry is therefore based on approximate methods that often succeed in predicting chemical properties for larger systems, but their level of accuracy varies with the nature of the species, making more complete methods desirable (8).
Could quantum computation offer a new way forward for exact methods? Despite the formal promise, it has not been demonstrated ...
The phase-estimation algorithm (PEA) of Abrams and Lloyd (3, 4) can be used to obtain eigenvalues of Hermitian operators; we address issues concerning its implementation for molecular Hamiltonians.
...
The molecular wave function may be represented by a state of S in two basic ways. In the direct mapping, each qubit represents the fermionic occupation state of a particular atomic orbital, occupied or not. In this approach, a Fock space of the molecular system is mapped onto the Hilbert space of the qubits. This mapping is the least efficient but has advantages discussed later. In the more efficient compact mapping, only a subspace of the Fock space with fixed electron number is mapped onto the qubits. The states of the simulated system and of the qubit system are simply enumerated and equated.
...
The overlap of the initially prepared state with the exact state can be systematically improved by an adiabatic-state-preparation (ASP) algorithm, relying on the adiabatic theorem (10–12). The theorem states that a system will remain in its ground state if the Hamiltonian is changed slowly enough...
The accuracy and quantum-gate complexity of the algorithm depend on the specific gate decomposition of the unitary operators k, defined above. The factorization of unitary matrices into products of one- and two-qubit elementary gates is the fundamental problem of quantum circuit design. ...
The advantage of the direct mapping is that, at most, controlled four-qubit unitary operations are required. The number of one- and two-qubit elementary gates required to represent an arbitrary four-qubit gate has been shown to be always less than 400 (14); the structure of a controlled four-qubit unitary operation will allow a decomposition into a similar order of magnitude in the number of gates.
We have found that chemical precision can be achieved with modest qubit requirements for the representation of the wave function and for the readout register. The ASP algorithm has been shown to systematically improve the probability of success of the PEA. Although exponentially difficult on a classical computer, extension to larger molecules requires only linear growth in the number of qubits.
...
To repeat the calculations performed here with a high-quality basis set (cc-pVTZ) would require S to consist of 47 or 22 qubits for H2O or LiH, respectively, using the compact mapping of the full Hilbert space. For most molecules and basis set combinations shown in Fig. 1, an FCI calculation is certainly classically intractable. An FCI calculation for H2O with cc-pVTZ would be at the edge of what is presently possible. This demonstrates an often-stated conjecture, that quantum simulation algorithms with 30 to 100 qubits will be among the smallest applications of quantum computing that can exceed the limitations of classical computing.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a long link{250+kb},
http://individual.utoronto.ca/prugovecki/E...rspectives.html
that I found for this thread,
however, I did not have complete success;
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 74 already displayed. ...
Your search - "borel summability" "quantum computers" "no go theorem" - did not match any documents."
Anyway, this is striking (from someone who might have reason to take mathematics and negative energy seriously OR )...
"Unfortunately, after the Second World War this attitude towards epistemology and foundational issues in quantum physics became reversed2, as leading physicists of the post-war generation obviously decided that, contrary to the opinions of their great predecessors, it was legitimate to secure “the adaptation of the theory to the facts by means of additional artificial assumptions”. Thus, soon after the “triumph” of renormalization theory, Dirac (1951) felt compelled to point out in print that: “Recent work by Lamb, Schwinger and Feynman and others has been very successful . . . but the resulting theory is an ugly and incomplete one.”
He reiterated and expanded on this theme on many occasions. For example, in a 1968 lecture entitled “Methods in Theoretical Physics”, in which he explained the methodology and epistemology of his approach to developing new physical theories, he stated3: “The difficulty with divergencies proved to be a very bad one. No progress was made for twenty years. Then a development came, initiated by Lamb's discovery and explanation of the Lamb shift, which fundamentally changed the character of theoretical physics. It involved setting up rules for discarding the infinities, rules which are precise, so as to leave well-defined residues that can be compared with experiment. But still one is using working rules and not regular mathematics.
Most theoretical physicists nowadays appear to be satisfied with this situation, but I am not. I believe that theoretical physics has gone on the wrong track with such developments and one should not be complacent about it.”"
Your mileage may vary,
MrB.
Posted by: thezman May 3 2005, 07:35 PM ...
QUOTE
The thought is why has Bohmian Mechanics not been more popular in the past? One reason (other than he is a "fruitcake") is there is no absolute mapping (one to one and onto) of measurables from our reference frame to that "particle/wave" reference frame........... The question is if Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is entirely relevant to this problem and then is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity entirely relevant as well. If so what modifications would be necessary to bring them both "up to speed" (if any?)?
We can make a mapping if we can agree that the wave functions and superpositions represent an actual distribution of some or all of the quantum systems actual properties. This should make quantum mechanics more compatible with SR and GR. Furthermore, this distribution would be continuous. Where it would seem not to be continuous, like spin formulations and EPR and zones of zero probability of occurance, the continuity is hidden in the structure of the basic scalar/vector/vector spin fields.
As long as the so-called wave packets are compatible with this view I would think the formulation method does not matter, as long as it works.
Forum= 16 Showtopic= 374 ---->Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories > The impossibility of something faster than light
Posted by: DavidD March 6 2008, 01:04 PM...
1 Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
2 D-Wave Systems, Inc., 4401 Still Creek Drive, Suite 100, Burnaby, BC V5C 6G9, Canada.
3 Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
* These authors contributed equally to this work.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: alan@aspuru.com
...
On classical computers, resource requirements for complete simulation of the time-independent Schrödinger equation scale exponentially with the number of atoms in a molecule, limiting such full configuration interaction (FCI) calculations to diatomic and triatomic molecules (7). Computational quantum chemistry is therefore based on approximate methods that often succeed in predicting chemical properties for larger systems, but their level of accuracy varies with the nature of the species, making more complete methods desirable (8).
Could quantum computation offer a new way forward for exact methods? Despite the formal promise, it has not been demonstrated ...
The phase-estimation algorithm (PEA) of Abrams and Lloyd (3, 4) can be used to obtain eigenvalues of Hermitian operators; we address issues concerning its implementation for molecular Hamiltonians.
...
The molecular wave function may be represented by a state of S in two basic ways. In the direct mapping, each qubit represents the fermionic occupation state of a particular atomic orbital, occupied or not. In this approach, a Fock space of the molecular system is mapped onto the Hilbert space of the qubits. This mapping is the least efficient but has advantages discussed later. In the more efficient compact mapping, only a subspace of the Fock space with fixed electron number is mapped onto the qubits. The states of the simulated system and of the qubit system are simply enumerated and equated.
...
The overlap of the initially prepared state with the exact state can be systematically improved by an adiabatic-state-preparation (ASP) algorithm, relying on the adiabatic theorem (10–12). The theorem states that a system will remain in its ground state if the Hamiltonian is changed slowly enough...
The accuracy and quantum-gate complexity of the algorithm depend on the specific gate decomposition of the unitary operators k, defined above. The factorization of unitary matrices into products of one- and two-qubit elementary gates is the fundamental problem of quantum circuit design. ...
The advantage of the direct mapping is that, at most, controlled four-qubit unitary operations are required. The number of one- and two-qubit elementary gates required to represent an arbitrary four-qubit gate has been shown to be always less than 400 (14); the structure of a controlled four-qubit unitary operation will allow a decomposition into a similar order of magnitude in the number of gates.
We have found that chemical precision can be achieved with modest qubit requirements for the representation of the wave function and for the readout register. The ASP algorithm has been shown to systematically improve the probability of success of the PEA. Although exponentially difficult on a classical computer, extension to larger molecules requires only linear growth in the number of qubits.
...
To repeat the calculations performed here with a high-quality basis set (cc-pVTZ) would require S to consist of 47 or 22 qubits for H2O or LiH, respectively, using the compact mapping of the full Hilbert space. For most molecules and basis set combinations shown in Fig. 1, an FCI calculation is certainly classically intractable. An FCI calculation for H2O with cc-pVTZ would be at the edge of what is presently possible. This demonstrates an often-stated conjecture, that quantum simulation algorithms with 30 to 100 qubits will be among the smallest applications of quantum computing that can exceed the limitations of classical computing.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a long link{250+kb},
http://individual.utoronto.ca/prugovecki/E...rspectives.html
that I found for this thread,
however, I did not have complete success;
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 74 already displayed. ...
Your search - "borel summability" "quantum computers" "no go theorem" - did not match any documents."
Anyway, this is striking (from someone who might have reason to take mathematics and negative energy seriously
OR )..."Unfortunately, after the Second World War this attitude towards epistemology and foundational issues in quantum physics became reversed2, as leading physicists of the post-war generation obviously decided that, contrary to the opinions of their great predecessors, it was legitimate to secure “the adaptation of the theory to the facts by means of additional artificial assumptions”. Thus, soon after the “triumph” of renormalization theory, Dirac (1951) felt compelled to point out in print that: “Recent work by Lamb, Schwinger and Feynman and others has been very successful . . . but the resulting theory is an ugly and incomplete one.”
He reiterated and expanded on this theme on many occasions. For example, in a 1968 lecture entitled “Methods in Theoretical Physics”, in which he explained the methodology and epistemology of his approach to developing new physical theories, he stated3: “The difficulty with divergencies proved to be a very bad one. No progress was made for twenty years. Then a development came, initiated by Lamb's discovery and explanation of the Lamb shift, which fundamentally changed the character of theoretical physics. It involved setting up rules for discarding the infinities, rules which are precise, so as to leave well-defined residues that can be compared with experiment. But still one is using working rules and not regular mathematics.
Most theoretical physicists nowadays appear to be satisfied with this situation, but I am not. I believe that theoretical physics has gone on the wrong track with such developments and one should not be complacent about it.”"
Your mileage may vary,
MrB.
Showtopic= 22218 & Forum= 13 ----->
www.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/overview.html
In the language of the Quantum Field Theory branch of Physics, one can show that the residual polarization rotation can be generated by a coupling of the so-called "electromagnetic field tensor" to a new, four-dimensional vacuum field, whose "spatial part" is the anisotropy vector we discovered. Furthermore, when subjected to coordinate transformations such as "time reversal" and "space inversion," this new field behaves in the same manner that the intrinsic spin of an atom or elementary particle does, when the atom or particle is subjected to such transformations. One may therefore affix some sort of "spin" to the new vacuum field.
However, at this point in time, the question of what is truly underlying the effect we see is as wide open as Space itself. In nature, there are many experimentally verified imperfections, like "parity violations" of kaon decays for example. The fundamental conclusion from our finding is that our world seems to exhibit another special type of imperfection, or asymmetry, called "anisotropy." Nature never ceases to amaze us.
www.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/overview.html
In the language of the Quantum Field Theory branch of Physics, one can show that the residual polarization rotation can be generated by a coupling of the so-called "electromagnetic field tensor" to a new, four-dimensional vacuum field, whose "spatial part" is the anisotropy vector we discovered. Furthermore, when subjected to coordinate transformations such as "time reversal" and "space inversion," this new field behaves in the same manner that the intrinsic spin of an atom or elementary particle does, when the atom or particle is subjected to such transformations. One may therefore affix some sort of "spin" to the new vacuum field.
However, at this point in time, the question of what is truly underlying the effect we see is as wide open as Space itself. In nature, there are many experimentally verified imperfections, like "parity violations" of kaon decays for example. The fundamental conclusion from our finding is that our world seems to exhibit another special type of imperfection, or asymmetry, called "anisotropy." Nature never ceases to amaze us.
QUOTE
Also entangled(?) atoms talking through phonons (high frenquency sound), what is very strange. All this problems with entanglement of two atoms or electrons sounds very imposible. So I think 50% that maybe entangled elctrons was been demostrated.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also entangled(?) atoms talking through phonons (high frenquency sound), what is very strange. All this problems with entanglement of two atoms or electrons sounds very imposible. So I think 50% that maybe entangled elctrons was been demostrated. Why is it strange? Phonons are a well understood phenomena. They are experimentally verified. |
QUOTE
Phonons indeed can't create superposition or entanglement.
Quantum mechanic is indeed noisy and thus shrodinger equations are wrong about exponentional wave function, which describing quantum particles and they interaction.
Decoherence of a Superposition of Macroscopic Current States in a SQUID
E. M. Chudnovsky1
and A. B. Kuklov2
1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Lehman College, City University of New York,
250 Bedford Park Boulevard West, Bronx, New York 10468-1589
2 Department of Engineering Science and Physics, The College of Staten Island,
City University of New York, Staten Island, New York 10314
Any degree of freedom that interacts with the coherently oscillating variable can be the source of decoherence. One can divide all such sources into two groups, avoidable and unavoidable. Examples of avoidable sources are, e.g., nuclear spins and non-thermal noise. In this paper we study generic mechanisms of decoherence which are controlled by the conservation laws 10,11. In application to SQUIDs, such mechanisms are unavoidable as they originate from the fundamental symmetries of free space. ...
It is easy to see, however, that for a current oscillating at a high frequency, e.g., f0~ 109-10 10s-1, the analogy with the Mossbauer effect breaks down. Indeed, during the period of oscillations, the elastic deformation cannot travel more than a distance vs/f0 away from the current; vs being the speed of the transverse sound.
For, e.g., vs~ 5×10 3 m/s and f0~ 5×10 9 s-1 one obtains vs/f0~ 1 µm. Thus, the part of the solid involved in the conservation of the angular
momentum is small, not macroscopically large. Consequently, the torsional oscillations of the part of the solid matrix “co-wiggling” with the current must generate phonons of frequency f0 in the surrounding matter.
As long as the speed of sound is finite this should result in a decoherence of quantum oscillations of the current. Similar effect exists due to the interaction of the magnetic moment of the current with vacuum photons. The difference from the phonon problem is that at f0~ 5×109 s-1 the wavelength of the light, ?l= c/f0, is about five orders of magnitude larger than ?s. Consequently, the vacuum properties of the photons depend strongly on the geometry of the experiment, in particular, on the metal shielding of the SQUID.
The above picture is quasiclassical. From the quantum mechanical point of view, the states of the tunneling SC current are not classified by specific values of the angular momentum. The interaction of the current with the solid matrix entangles the angular momentum states of the current with the angular momentum states of the matrix. In the absence of the external noise, the total angular momentum is, of course, a well-defined conserved quantum number. In this respect, it is important to understand why the external noise acting on the macroscopic solid matrix (like, e.g., vibration of the building) does not instantaneously destroy the quantum entanglement between the angular momentum states of the current and the angular momentum states of the matrix. We will discuss this issue in the context of the local versus global mechanisms of decoherence.
Quantum mechanic is indeed noisy and thus shrodinger equations are wrong about exponentional wave function, which describing quantum particles and they interaction.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||
| Phonons indeed can't create superposition or entanglement. Quantum mechanic is indeed noisy and thus shrodinger equations are wrong about exponentional wave function, which describing quantum particles and they interaction. Phonons exhibit quantum properties, they are quantised sound oscillations. Find me a published paper showing classical mechanics can accurately explain phonons.
|
Decoherence of a Superposition of Macroscopic Current States in a SQUID
E. M. Chudnovsky1
and A. B. Kuklov2
1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Lehman College, City University of New York,
250 Bedford Park Boulevard West, Bronx, New York 10468-1589
2 Department of Engineering Science and Physics, The College of Staten Island,
City University of New York, Staten Island, New York 10314
Any degree of freedom that interacts with the coherently oscillating variable can be the source of decoherence. One can divide all such sources into two groups, avoidable and unavoidable. Examples of avoidable sources are, e.g., nuclear spins and non-thermal noise. In this paper we study generic mechanisms of decoherence which are controlled by the conservation laws 10,11. In application to SQUIDs, such mechanisms are unavoidable as they originate from the fundamental symmetries of free space. ...
It is easy to see, however, that for a current oscillating at a high frequency, e.g., f0~ 109-10 10s-1, the analogy with the Mossbauer effect breaks down. Indeed, during the period of oscillations, the elastic deformation cannot travel more than a distance vs/f0 away from the current; vs being the speed of the transverse sound.
For, e.g., vs~ 5×10 3 m/s and f0~ 5×10 9 s-1 one obtains vs/f0~ 1 µm. Thus, the part of the solid involved in the conservation of the angular
momentum is small, not macroscopically large. Consequently, the torsional oscillations of the part of the solid matrix “co-wiggling” with the current must generate phonons of frequency f0 in the surrounding matter.
As long as the speed of sound is finite this should result in a decoherence of quantum oscillations of the current. Similar effect exists due to the interaction of the magnetic moment of the current with vacuum photons. The difference from the phonon problem is that at f0~ 5×109 s-1 the wavelength of the light, ?l= c/f0, is about five orders of magnitude larger than ?s. Consequently, the vacuum properties of the photons depend strongly on the geometry of the experiment, in particular, on the metal shielding of the SQUID.
The above picture is quasiclassical. From the quantum mechanical point of view, the states of the tunneling SC current are not classified by specific values of the angular momentum. The interaction of the current with the solid matrix entangles the angular momentum states of the current with the angular momentum states of the matrix. In the absence of the external noise, the total angular momentum is, of course, a well-defined conserved quantum number. In this respect, it is important to understand why the external noise acting on the macroscopic solid matrix (like, e.g., vibration of the building) does not instantaneously destroy the quantum entanglement between the angular momentum states of the current and the angular momentum states of the matrix. We will discuss this issue in the context of the local versus global mechanisms of decoherence.
You can don't respond to my old post, because my opinion about some thigns and laws now changed radicaly...
Entanglement don't exist, like I prove(?) in over thread... Don't exist any superposition or waveparticle duality or photons... Exist only electromagnetic waves of diferent frenquency, but all flying with speed of light. This all waves are like sound waves in air!
Quantum computer imposible, because entanglement don't exist (maybe also because superposition don't exist...).
Don't need to simulate quantum mechanic, because quantum enetanglement don't exist.
_________
About hydrogen atom with spin theory. Possible, that even don't need proton more spins... Proton have spn 0.5, so first ground orbit of electron can be when there is 2 electrons and 1 proton in hydrogen, then they atracting each over and there is like long magnet... Second orbit can be 3 eleectrons and 1 proton, then electrons probably are little farther or maybe first orbit is with 3 electrons, whatever... Orbit number-3 is one proton and one electron and they spins are aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN-SSSSpNNNN, where e is electron and p is proton.
Orbit number 4 can be when spin of electron and proton is aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN
NNNNpSSSS,
or visaversa or two electrons in this way...
Orbit number 5 can be
SSSSeNNNN-NNNNpSSSS
Then electron and proton spin psuhing each over, but in this orbit electron don't being long time.. This is when over some electron magnetic field or somthing atracting electron...
So actualy there is so hard that for speculations end don't exist... But then proton in hydrogen very possible have more than one electron usualy. In heavier atoms possible becoming some over domination of closly spin atoms nuclears and so on, because for me now is unclear does proton spin can be rotated without radiating electromagnetic waves, because it can consist of electrons...
Entanglement don't exist, like I prove(?) in over thread... Don't exist any superposition or waveparticle duality or photons... Exist only electromagnetic waves of diferent frenquency, but all flying with speed of light. This all waves are like sound waves in air!
Quantum computer imposible, because entanglement don't exist (maybe also because superposition don't exist...).
Don't need to simulate quantum mechanic, because quantum enetanglement don't exist.
_________
About hydrogen atom with spin theory. Possible, that even don't need proton more spins... Proton have spn 0.5, so first ground orbit of electron can be when there is 2 electrons and 1 proton in hydrogen, then they atracting each over and there is like long magnet... Second orbit can be 3 eleectrons and 1 proton, then electrons probably are little farther or maybe first orbit is with 3 electrons, whatever... Orbit number-3 is one proton and one electron and they spins are aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN-SSSSpNNNN, where e is electron and p is proton.
Orbit number 4 can be when spin of electron and proton is aligned in this way:
SSSSeNNNN
NNNNpSSSS,
or visaversa or two electrons in this way...
Orbit number 5 can be
SSSSeNNNN-NNNNpSSSS
Then electron and proton spin psuhing each over, but in this orbit electron don't being long time.. This is when over some electron magnetic field or somthing atracting electron...
So actualy there is so hard that for speculations end don't exist... But then proton in hydrogen very possible have more than one electron usualy. In heavier atoms possible becoming some over domination of closly spin atoms nuclears and so on, because for me now is unclear does proton spin can be rotated without radiating electromagnetic waves, because it can consist of electrons...
Okay here is about electron spin resonance, that is very important in my spintheory...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/molecule/esr.html
Since with changing magnetic field possible to rotate spin and electron spin rotation will radiate some 20 GHz radiowaves. Then it's mean that spin aligning to magnetic field and radiating radio waves depending on strengh of amgnetic field. To weaker magnetic field spin of electron will align slower and will radiate radio waves lower frenquency. For stronger magnetic field spin rotation can radiate THz or maybe visible ligh or even gamma waves freqneuncy depending all on amgneti field strengh. So electron spin can't rotate without radiation electromagnetic waves and it's means, that spin of electron possible is not fundamental. So possible that all matter consis of electron neutrino. For rotating eletron neutrino possible no radiaton of electromagnetic waves. Or just possible, that electron spin radiating, because it moving with acceleration to align. But possible to change magnetic field, that it would move almost without acceleration. From one pole to over slowly according to electron spin, but possible that it will be with inprecision and electron still will radiate... Hm... Possible that electron consist just of some over spin particles, but this is very speculative all...
In link says, that even radiofrenquency can make spin transition, that is more than strange, but maybe it just somehow pushing electron if ti is long and not ball... But there also mentioned field, so possible only magnetic field all doing... If electron spin rotation in space requiring force and radiating energy then in atom electron also should radiate energy if rotating around proton, except if proton have spin, which can aling instantly and without radaition. Or possible, that such spin rotation radiation don't slowing down electron and this is realy possible, because radiation force is not oposit to electron flying direction force, yes! Even if electron spin radiation rotating electron it don't slowing down! Like in current theory... So electron spin radiation don't stoping from explaining gravity... OR possible, that spin radiation is from inperfection of rotation and in atom it don't radiates because speed is always equal... So even possible that gravitation producing energy, but this also doing spin electron rotation about nuclear... So from where come energy? Well possible from spins, which creating particle then decaying untill understanding, that they organization is 'wrong' and then and so there is more and more waves... But also spin choosing better and better configuration and then them harder and harder to decay... But possible that after some time them decayid over better configuration...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/molecule/esr.html
Since with changing magnetic field possible to rotate spin and electron spin rotation will radiate some 20 GHz radiowaves. Then it's mean that spin aligning to magnetic field and radiating radio waves depending on strengh of amgnetic field. To weaker magnetic field spin of electron will align slower and will radiate radio waves lower frenquency. For stronger magnetic field spin rotation can radiate THz or maybe visible ligh or even gamma waves freqneuncy depending all on amgneti field strengh. So electron spin can't rotate without radiation electromagnetic waves and it's means, that spin of electron possible is not fundamental. So possible that all matter consis of electron neutrino. For rotating eletron neutrino possible no radiaton of electromagnetic waves. Or just possible, that electron spin radiating, because it moving with acceleration to align. But possible to change magnetic field, that it would move almost without acceleration. From one pole to over slowly according to electron spin, but possible that it will be with inprecision and electron still will radiate... Hm... Possible that electron consist just of some over spin particles, but this is very speculative all...
In link says, that even radiofrenquency can make spin transition, that is more than strange, but maybe it just somehow pushing electron if ti is long and not ball... But there also mentioned field, so possible only magnetic field all doing... If electron spin rotation in space requiring force and radiating energy then in atom electron also should radiate energy if rotating around proton, except if proton have spin, which can aling instantly and without radaition. Or possible, that such spin rotation radiation don't slowing down electron and this is realy possible, because radiation force is not oposit to electron flying direction force, yes! Even if electron spin radiation rotating electron it don't slowing down! Like in current theory... So electron spin radiation don't stoping from explaining gravity... OR possible, that spin radiation is from inperfection of rotation and in atom it don't radiates because speed is always equal... So even possible that gravitation producing energy, but this also doing spin electron rotation about nuclear... So from where come energy? Well possible from spins, which creating particle then decaying untill understanding, that they organization is 'wrong' and then and so there is more and more waves... But also spin choosing better and better configuration and then them harder and harder to decay... But possible that after some time them decayid over better configuration...
Here fine atom model. Proton have spin and electron the same 1/2. But for alignation for electron need some energy which is radiated, when electron trying to align. Sometimes electron don't have enough time to align and then electron becmoing push prton and electron tranziting to over orbit. In this orbit he still don't have time to alignation and going to over orbit untill have time to align, because in farther orbit electron flying longer (but maybe faster?). Anyway electron many times jumping from one orbit to over and diferently aligning and this can explan emision lines quantizations 4 emision lines for hydrogen. Need 5 orbits. Possible that there is more than one electron in hydrogen atom, but possible that there is only one electron and just somewhot it creating resonase of spin alignation and thus becmoming only quantized orbits. Because electron going, then stoping aceelerating - deaccelerating. Thus this is emision of "photon". So magnetic atom model possible very good explaining quantization of emission lines. Which at all don't depend on absorbed light... Because there is imposible to prove, that absorbing somthing hydrogen... Just possible, that if there no vibrations of light then atoms don't moving and no so spin effects, but they configured in optimal stable state and then don't radiating some emision lines. How is possible to prove that hydrogen absorb some spectr of light??? radiate on green grass red light? Well possible red light puting in diferent resonanse of atoms and spin behavong in non resonse state and don' radiating green light...
My magnetism theory about spin very nicely explaining why moon is always aligned to earht with one side. Concidence, huh? Possible that sun rotation and at all rotation is caused by magnetic properties...
So all matter consist of small domens of spins - mangtes. Only one thing which can't be explained, that why there is lorence force?? Lorence force is some mystery, but seems, that it don't playing any role in matter formation except decay of neutron (and maybe overs?).
So all matter consist of small domens of spins - mangtes. Only one thing which can't be explained, that why there is lorence force?? Lorence force is some mystery, but seems, that it don't playing any role in matter formation except decay of neutron (and maybe overs?).
Okay, possible explanation of charge. S pole is inside spherical proton and N pole is outside. But actualy they are aligned int his way:
SNSNSNSNSNSN-inside
NSNSNSNSNSNSN-outisde,
Thus how you see ouside is one magnet more and this is explains why proton is "charged positivly". And also it explains spin. Thus actualy then there is only one spin. Proton have say N spin and electron have S spin. In magnetic field it is not diference, because of alignation, but wto electrons or two protons pushing each over. And also it explains why two protons never creating nuclear. But it don't explains why in superconductors electrons formating in pairs? Well, maybe they don't formating or maybe they changing they properties if no proton closely...
SNSNSNSNSNSN-inside
NSNSNSNSNSNSN-outisde,
Thus how you see ouside is one magnet more and this is explains why proton is "charged positivly". And also it explains spin. Thus actualy then there is only one spin. Proton have say N spin and electron have S spin. In magnetic field it is not diference, because of alignation, but wto electrons or two protons pushing each over. And also it explains why two protons never creating nuclear. But it don't explains why in superconductors electrons formating in pairs? Well, maybe they don't formating or maybe they changing they properties if no proton closely...
QUOTE (June 5 2008+ 07:25 PM)
I am just giving complete working model for farther development and to write it in terms of math, but indeed it already have all math, but described in words. It's like newton law described in words. So you see, you can't disprove my theory and not becouse it is too poorly described with math, but becouse theory is too hard for brain...
But my theory still is the most easy and provable and logical and mathematical theory of possible explanation how exactly universe working and what exactly the most elementary particles are. At least my assumptions and theory eliminating all over theories with geometrical over phygures and with over densities of particles. So if my theory is wrong then world consist of not geometrical particles, but of real magic like maybe string in many REAL dimensions like 5D or 12D... Then universe working not acording to newton law. Neither according to simple geometry, it then means, that univrse working according to God or magic or mysterie laws. Of course god can maybe fit in also in smallest spheres - god consist of smallest spheres. But why for smallest spheres first need to create god and after that - god creating universe? Direct way seems more logical...
Technology may work like magic. The instrumentalist is NP complete to build a qubit running computer. The NP here stands for nondeterministic polynomial technological achievement. Whatever is achieved is not by way of a fundamental theory classical or nonclassical.
Do you able to read? Read this topic http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=22346 in which I saying that enetanlgment can be explained without any magic but jsut with polarization... So any qunatum conundrums is not interesting for me, because entangmement is wrong... I simply disprove that it exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 How hard can be to understood this?????????!!!
Do you able to read? Read this topic http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=22346 in which I saying that enetanlgment can be explained without any magic but jsut with polarization... So any qunatum conundrums is not interesting for me, because entangmement is wrong... I simply disprove that it exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 How hard can be to understood this?????????!!!
Is it coincidence for the Allias Effect?
Well after lot's of rethinking I conclude that spin can't be charge... At all magnetism is very strange property, because if you puting many magnets in this way
SNSNSNSNSNSNSNS, then it is like SSSSSSSSSSS-NNNNNNNNNNNN and this is realy strange, because if you will put many protons and electrons in this way
pepepepepepepepepepe, then it will not be eeeeeeeeeeepppppppppppp. So magnetism is most mystical and mystrey which can't be understanded logicaly. So magnetism is mystery number one, second mystery is lorence force. Gravity possible is spins magnetism, but also possible that no, but if gravity can be spins magnetism then charge also...seems... Charge can be magnetism only in one case, but no, gravity more likely that is magnetism, because no positive gravity and negative like charge. So gravity is spin force. which fluctating...
But my theory still is the most easy and provable and logical and mathematical theory of possible explanation how exactly universe working and what exactly the most elementary particles are. At least my assumptions and theory eliminating all over theories with geometrical over phygures and with over densities of particles. So if my theory is wrong then world consist of not geometrical particles, but of real magic like maybe string in many REAL dimensions like 5D or 12D... Then universe working not acording to newton law. Neither according to simple geometry, it then means, that univrse working according to God or magic or mysterie laws. Of course god can maybe fit in also in smallest spheres - god consist of smallest spheres. But why for smallest spheres first need to create god and after that - god creating universe? Direct way seems more logical...
Technology may work like magic. The instrumentalist is NP complete to build a qubit running computer. The NP here stands for nondeterministic polynomial technological achievement. Whatever is achieved is not by way of a fundamental theory classical or nonclassical.
QUOTE (July 20th+ 'today')
Concidence, huh? Possible that sun rotation and at all rotation is caused by magnetic properties...
Is it coincidence for the Allias Effect?
MrB.
MrB.
QUOTE
Technology may work like magic. The instrumentalist is NP complete to build a qubit running computer. The NP here stands for nondeterministic polynomial technological achievement. Whatever is achieved is not by way of a fundamental theory classical or nonclassical.
Do you able to read? Read this topic http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=22346 in which I saying that enetanlgment can be explained without any magic but jsut with polarization... So any qunatum conundrums is not interesting for me, because entangmement is wrong... I simply disprove that it exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 How hard can be to understood this?????????!!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Technology may work like magic. The instrumentalist is NP complete to build a qubit running computer. The NP here stands for nondeterministic polynomial technological achievement. Whatever is achieved is not by way of a fundamental theory classical or nonclassical. |
Do you able to read? Read this topic http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=22346 in which I saying that enetanlgment can be explained without any magic but jsut with polarization... So any qunatum conundrums is not interesting for me, because entangmement is wrong... I simply disprove that it exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 How hard can be to understood this?????????!!!
Is it coincidence for the Allias Effect?
Well after lot's of rethinking I conclude that spin can't be charge... At all magnetism is very strange property, because if you puting many magnets in this way
SNSNSNSNSNSNSNS, then it is like SSSSSSSSSSS-NNNNNNNNNNNN and this is realy strange, because if you will put many protons and electrons in this way
pepepepepepepepepepe, then it will not be eeeeeeeeeeepppppppppppp. So magnetism is most mystical and mystrey which can't be understanded logicaly. So magnetism is mystery number one, second mystery is lorence force. Gravity possible is spins magnetism, but also possible that no, but if gravity can be spins magnetism then charge also...seems... Charge can be magnetism only in one case, but no, gravity more likely that is magnetism, because no positive gravity and negative like charge. So gravity is spin force. which fluctating...
Ok, here is aproximate theory of polarization light. Some crystals have such atoms organization structure, that there is like many vertical (or horizontal depending on rotation) strings, which can vibrate if there going some wave. So wave vibrating vertical strings and this vertical strings producing vertical polarized light and also in crystal is over place, which absorbing waves or maybe not, because all waves wehn produced are polarized at some angle... So if waves going from one vertical string in crystal to over then vibration given and thus through this strings vibrations light can travel like sound in (air)waves (remeber only that particles don't ahve mass and they kinetic energy is waves!). So string vibrating only in some fingers and there gaps probably between two polarized waves and strings also and all string are structurized each after over exactly in same symetry...each after another. So if there going polarized light waves like fingers and if there is horizontal crystal then strings don't vibrating in resonance and thus are absorbed. This can explain polarization with smallest spheres vibration exactly the same like sound vibrating in air.
P.S. One more time, in entanglement experiment wave - "photon" is already polarized, because it is lazer polarization or becoming polarized into some atom or electron. Thus two waves in oposit direction - think,- entangled "photons" traveling already with same polarization!!!! This is key in my theory about debunking entanglement!!!!!!! In official theory two "photons" traveling with diferent polarizations or at all 'without polarization' This wrong assumption creating needs for some magic like faster than light bullshits and over crap. With my theory all this crap is not needed and experimental data more fits with my theory, than with "noisy entanglement theory".
So if waves going from one vertical string in crystal to over then vibration given and thus through this strings vibrations light can travel like sound in (air)waves (remeber only that particles don't ahve mass and they kinetic energy is waves!). So string vibrating only in some fingers and there gaps probably between two polarized waves and strings also and all string are structurized each after over exactly in same symetry...each after another. So if there going polarized light waves like fingers and if there is horizontal crystal then strings don't vibrating in resonance and thus are absorbed. This can explain polarization with smallest spheres vibration exactly the same like sound vibrating in air. P.S. One more time, in entanglement experiment wave - "photon" is already polarized, because it is lazer polarization or becoming polarized into some atom or electron. Thus two waves in oposit direction - think,- entangled "photons" traveling already with same polarization!!!! This is key in my theory about debunking entanglement!!!!!!! In official theory two "photons" traveling with diferent polarizations or at all 'without polarization'
This wrong assumption creating needs for some magic like faster than light bullshits and over crap. With my theory all this crap is not needed and experimental data more fits with my theory, than with "noisy entanglement theory".
OK, philosophycal part. Smallest spheres don't have mass. Thus any configuration of particles also can't have mass. Between smallest spheres is infinty small distance gaps or half sphere gap per all universe. This somehow couse energy... Energy is also infinity small. But since spheres don't have mass then they flying with infinity speed. Thus we all doing with infinity speed! You say how? But there is trick. There possible in infinity universe to reach infinity precision of this infinity small energy bounce two energies... And then one things will go slower than over. Thus there can be some balanced force which balancing how to us seems light speed and how we moving. When particle moving between spheres then he don't slowing down and don't loosing his energy... Thus particle without any momentum friction of spheres pushing them, but for faster pushing them (acceleration) need energy, because waves going very fast and untill relizing that there is more waves with same energy and this making them opist force and thus waves have some finit biger than particle speed. This paradox is to explain why particle don't loosing his momentum mv, then flying between spheres which need to push up and donw, even in though there no friction. So I solve this with assumption of diferent force separation with infinity precision and since particle flying slower then his pushed energy can spread and this possible explains relativity on bigger speeds...
I don't know do you understood but it seems prety logical. And another fact - particle don't radiating waves if flying with acceleration untill his acceleration don't changings! Because if he moving with acceleration he creating amplitude of wave and then deacelerating then amplitude getting 'negative' phase. this explains radiowaves... In over words dureing acceleration particle colecting amplitude and during deaceleration l;eting goi.. Then need that universe will fluctate like maybe in air. But in air sound waves seems thjat vibration speed must be equal to sound (Waves) speed in air. For particle this possible imposible so possible that radio theory is wrong, but hard to explain radiowaves interference, then maybe realy waves are not like air type waves? But how it can be? Then again for me need back to theory about spheres without even smallest gaps, but seems not nessasary... But how can be such waves like on water? Unless some strings vibrating OR radio waves interference is fake... OR! Unles gaps no, but waves are still like in air and then they traveling with infinity speed, but then my this my model separating this forces and this force creating some finite speed and freelyzing particle to fly freely without loosing energy, because sphers without mass... Seems solve
Some few words about electorn. Electron spin rotation can be performed with or magnetic field or AC~magnetic field, but resonanse need to do with AC only. But like say, can be inperfect acceleration and it is actualy acceleration. But then this means, that electron have mas when rotating, but it is not clear do it radiating electronmagnetic waves if just rotating at same speed? according to my theory nor angular nor orbital rotation shouldn't radiate electromagnetic waaaaaaaaaves if particle rotates at same speed. So this most possible answer but I can be wrong here... But anyway spin aligantion radiates waves, because is acceleration and deaceleration... Possible that spin in hydrogen of electron somehow don't letting to fall into proton, beacasue always need unrotate and aling spin and this can push electron, but then still electron must loose energy and fly slower. So I don't have one answer does electron radiating energy at angular and orbital flying/aceleration... maybe yes, maybe no.
I don't know do you understood but it seems prety logical. And another fact - particle don't radiating waves if flying with acceleration untill his acceleration don't changings! Because if he moving with acceleration he creating amplitude of wave and then deacelerating then amplitude getting 'negative' phase. this explains radiowaves... In over words dureing acceleration particle colecting amplitude and during deaceleration l;eting goi.. Then need that universe will fluctate like maybe in air. But in air sound waves seems thjat vibration speed must be equal to sound (Waves) speed in air. For particle this possible imposible so possible that radio theory is wrong, but hard to explain radiowaves interference, then maybe realy waves are not like air type waves?
But how it can be? Then again for me need back to theory about spheres without even smallest gaps, but seems not nessasary... But how can be such waves like on water? Unless some strings vibrating OR radio waves interference is fake... OR! Unles gaps no, but waves are still like in air and then they traveling with infinity speed, but then my this my model separating this forces and this force creating some finite speed and freelyzing particle to fly freely without loosing energy, because sphers without mass... Seems solve Some few words about electorn. Electron spin rotation can be performed with or magnetic field or AC~magnetic field, but resonanse need to do with AC only. But like say, can be inperfect acceleration and it is actualy acceleration. But then this means, that electron have mas when rotating, but it is not clear do it radiating electronmagnetic waves if just rotating at same speed? according to my theory nor angular nor orbital rotation shouldn't radiate electromagnetic waaaaaaaaaves if particle rotates at same speed. So this most possible answer but I can be wrong here... But anyway spin aligantion radiates waves, because is acceleration and deaceleration... Possible that spin in hydrogen of electron somehow don't letting to fall into proton, beacasue always need unrotate and aling spin and this can push electron, but then still electron must loose energy and fly slower. So I don't have one answer does electron radiating energy at angular and orbital flying/aceleration... maybe yes, maybe no.
According to my theory that energy needed to accelerate particle/object to speed v is mv^2 /2 inelectromagnetic waves form radiated, then not hard to made conclusion that thermonuclear reactor will radiate gamma rays or at least x-rays similar like nucler reactor. In decaying uranium there is produced about 200 MeV energy (accoding to officlal theory), 168 MeV is uranium splited atoms kinetic energy and som 5-10 MeV is 2-3 neutrons kinetic energy and probably some 10 MeV is gamma rays energy. In tritium and deuterium fussion there is produced helium (3.5 MeV) and one neutron (~14MeV) with total energy of about 17-18 MeV, so 10 times smaller kinetic energy and thus according to my theory must be about 10 times smaller radiation or ampliture and or more probably frenquency, but if there is many such atoms then amplite will be the same of say x-rays and will compensate frenquency... So according to my theory fussion reactors will produce more dangerouse radiation than fission reactors. But why then in thremonuclear bomb there no(?) any gamma radiation? Well possible, that gamma radiation is not dangerouse at all, because it is absorbed by thery small amount and thus giving energy to atoms/molecules of air only by very samll amount and thus decreasing amplitude very rapidly and also because of quadraticaly decreasing amplitude of distance. Too bad I don't know what thicknes of plumbum or any over matal can absorb uranium decayed atoms. Possible, that those atoms are very energetical and can go at least few metters through plumbum with prety big kinetic energy. So my conclusion that possible gamma rays are not dangerouse at all, but dangerouse are atoms with ~85 MeV each, like when 100 nucleons weight atom flying with 1 m/s have kinetic energy 100*2/10^27 *1^2 /=10^{-25} J=6.25*10^{-7} eV=625 neV. So it is possible to calculate speed of atom with energy 85 MeV=1.36*10^{-11} J:
1.36*10^{-11}=0.5*100*2*10^{-27} *v^2,
8.5*10^7 *10^27 /100=v^2,
1.36*10^14=v^2,
v=11661903 m/s =10^7 m/s .
So particle even not accelerated to speed of light (like by my theory, that particles won't such acceleration...). But only ~1/30 speed of light. At most say 1/15 speed of light (c/15).
Let's calcualte to what speed accelerated neutron in fussion reaction with ~14 MeV=2.24/10^12 J energy:
2.24/10^12 =0.5*1.67*10^{-27} *v^2,
2.24*10^{-12} *2*10^27 /1.67 =v^2,
1.34*10^15 =v^2,
v=36623999.85 m/s=3.7*10^7 m/s . Not so much
Crankcs can say, that I bad calcualte, but true is that to accelerate to 2 times bigger speed need 4 times more energy. So seems neutron also hate c speed... So neutron flying at about c/8 speed. And nobody can stop him. But electrons seems is less(?) dangerouse than the same energy atom, because smaller and better difusing... So or in sun and in thermonuclear reactor radiatioin is the same almost like in fission reaction or gamma rays is absolutly not dangerouse (except maybe in ery big doses like 1 kg mass object have mc^2=9*10^16 J or 90000 TW power, but probably it exploding faster than per 1 second and so power is probably milions or bilions of TW so such radiation at close distance maybe is dangerouse, but it depends how close it is going... IF say it is at about 1 m is 1 milion terawatts then at distance of say 10 km power will be 10^18 W /10000^2= 10 GW. Still big, but if much radiation will become kinetic energy of air then this can be thousunds or bilions times less and like 10 W energy will split though your body and also only small amount will be absorbed, say 10 mW, then it is much less than thoughet to you some small 10 g object with 10 m/s speed. But how realy fast exploding nuclear bomb? Well bomb size is about say 1 meter or better 1 cm=0.01 m, then such distance light can travel with ~15~30 GHz frenquency and time for it is about 3*10^{-11} second, so about 30 ps. Per this time will be radiated 9*10^16 J energy of atomic bomb explotion. So need calculate power per this time and not per second. So power per this time 30 ps will be 9*10^16 Ws/(3*10^{-11} s)=3*10^27 W . This energy is say in 1 cm distance and then after 1 m this energy(power) will be 10000 times smaller (I mean now only radiation energy): 3*10^23 W. After 10 km energy will be 10^8 times smaler: 3*10^15 W. But only very smal part of this say radiation energy will be absorbed by body, this part can be at most 1 and at least 1/10^9 or maybe even some 1/10^15 and then can be or some terawatt or 1 W. 1W and some 10 W probably can't make damage. But also possible, that big part absorbed by air. Also som 1000 times slower can go processes in explotion or maybe even milions times slower. But still arived radiation energy will be some GW or MW... Anyway nuclear fussion must radiate gamma or x rays. If this don't hapening then dangerouse are only atoms and neutrons are less dangerouse and plazmeons nuclears of helium is also much less dangerouse because of small size. Then it measn taht gamma rays are very undangerouse, because think 10^5 atoms is bigger than nuclear or maybe even more and than electron, then will be absorbed 10^15 less energy than should to such value. In some medicine aparatus then there must be 80% that electrons instead gamma rays. But it easy to check by , but no electrons with high energy are almost unabsorbed... But radio wavse pushing prety well electrons for radio, but maybe because long antena have may electrons...
Yes, BTW, why possible in sun there is radiation but we don't see it? Because it is very deep in sun and it psuhing vibrating upper layers and all gamma energy becmoing some infrared or visible light energy and UV...
Now fussion reactor have probably about few MW power and so possible there is not feeled gamma or x rays radiation... Or maybe just nobody can't check that nuclear fussion goes on and maybe they are always misleaded by wrong experimental results and actualy they never get fussion. And also possible that Fussion bomb produce lots of gamma rays, but from (very) big (and very safe) distance nobody observe them or jsut think that this is some 100 times bigger radiation from nuclear bomb explotion inside fusion bomb (because ~1% of fussion bomb is nuclear bomb). So possible they don't sow diference between 1% radiation and 100%. Maybe because radiation very good, perty good absorbed by air? Air density is 'only' about milions times smaller than water or bilions trilions than metal... So 10 km thickness of air is the same as some 1-1000 metters thickness metal/plumbum.
1.36*10^{-11}=0.5*100*2*10^{-27} *v^2,
8.5*10^7 *10^27 /100=v^2,
1.36*10^14=v^2,
v=11661903 m/s =10^7 m/s .
So particle even not accelerated to speed of light
(like by my theory, that particles won't such acceleration...). But only ~1/30 speed of light. At most say 1/15 speed of light (c/15). Let's calcualte to what speed accelerated neutron in fussion reaction with ~14 MeV=2.24/10^12 J energy:
2.24/10^12 =0.5*1.67*10^{-27} *v^2,
2.24*10^{-12} *2*10^27 /1.67 =v^2,
1.34*10^15 =v^2,
v=36623999.85 m/s=3.7*10^7 m/s . Not so much
Crankcs can say, that I bad calcualte, but true is that to accelerate to 2 times bigger speed need 4 times more energy. So seems neutron also hate c speed... So neutron flying at about c/8 speed. And nobody can stop him. But electrons seems is less(?) dangerouse than the same energy atom, because smaller and better difusing... So or in sun and in thermonuclear reactor radiatioin is the same almost like in fission reaction or gamma rays is absolutly not dangerouse (except maybe in ery big doses like 1 kg mass object have mc^2=9*10^16 J or 90000 TW power, but probably it exploding faster than per 1 second and so power is probably milions or bilions of TW so such radiation at close distance maybe is dangerouse, but it depends how close it is going... IF say it is at about 1 m is 1 milion terawatts then at distance of say 10 km power will be 10^18 W /10000^2= 10 GW. Still big, but if much radiation will become kinetic energy of air then this can be thousunds or bilions times less and like 10 W energy will split though your body and also only small amount will be absorbed, say 10 mW, then it is much less than thoughet to you some small 10 g object with 10 m/s speed. But how realy fast exploding nuclear bomb? Well bomb size is about say 1 meter or better 1 cm=0.01 m, then such distance light can travel with ~15~30 GHz frenquency and time for it is about 3*10^{-11} second, so about 30 ps. Per this time will be radiated 9*10^16 J energy of atomic bomb explotion. So need calculate power per this time and not per second. So power per this time 30 ps will be 9*10^16 Ws/(3*10^{-11} s)=3*10^27 W . This energy is say in 1 cm distance and then after 1 m this energy(power) will be 10000 times smaller (I mean now only radiation energy): 3*10^23 W. After 10 km energy will be 10^8 times smaler: 3*10^15 W. But only very smal part of this say radiation energy will be absorbed by body, this part can be at most 1 and at least 1/10^9 or maybe even some 1/10^15 and then can be or some terawatt or 1 W. 1W and some 10 W probably can't make damage. But also possible, that big part absorbed by air. Also som 1000 times slower can go processes in explotion or maybe even milions times slower. But still arived radiation energy will be some GW or MW... Anyway nuclear fussion must radiate gamma or x rays. If this don't hapening then dangerouse are only atoms and neutrons are less dangerouse and plazmeons nuclears of helium is also much less dangerouse because of small size. Then it measn taht gamma rays are very undangerouse, because think 10^5 atoms is bigger than nuclear or maybe even more and than electron, then will be absorbed 10^15 less energy than should to such value. In some medicine aparatus then there must be 80% that electrons instead gamma rays. But it easy to check by , but no electrons with high energy are almost unabsorbed... But radio wavse pushing prety well electrons for radio, but maybe because long antena have may electrons...
Yes, BTW, why possible in sun there is radiation but we don't see it? Because it is very deep in sun and it psuhing vibrating upper layers and all gamma energy becmoing some infrared or visible light energy and UV...
Now fussion reactor have probably about few MW power and so possible there is not feeled gamma or x rays radiation... Or maybe just nobody can't check that nuclear fussion goes on and maybe they are always misleaded by wrong experimental results and actualy they never get fussion. And also possible that Fussion bomb produce lots of gamma rays, but from (very) big (and very safe) distance nobody observe them or jsut think that this is some 100 times bigger radiation from nuclear bomb explotion inside fusion bomb (because ~1% of fussion bomb is nuclear bomb). So possible they don't sow diference between 1% radiation and 100%. Maybe because radiation very good, perty good absorbed by air? Air density is 'only' about milions times smaller than water or bilions trilions than metal... So 10 km thickness of air is the same as some 1-1000 metters thickness metal/plumbum.
Possible that thermonuclear fussion at all don't producing energy, but only consuming it or producing no more than chemical reactions! If some fussion reactions goes on in Sun it don't means, that those reactions producing the biggest part of energy or maybe them goes much more than sciencists thinking and they are very weak actualy...
Why is raised doubt? Because if you exploaded fusion bomb a little bit higher or closer from earth then you get 100 or 1 times bigger vibration of earth or 100 times bigger radiation or somthing registration if you stating just 10 times closer or father... Maybe, but there is over calculations according to which if bomb will be exploaded 10-100 metters higher or closer then registred explotion will be 100 times bigger. Imagine that bomb explotion is in 1 m^3 space then after 100 metters explotions stranght will be 10000 times weaker than at 1 metter distance. So just need to exploed bomb in some 10-100 metters closer or farther distance from earth and earth vibration will be ~100 times bigger or smaller... And registred radiation also working in similar way and more correctly... So I think since all thermonuclear bombs consist of ~1% uranium bombs power then all this explotion energy is uranium bombs and nobody able precisly to measure explotion power, because at 100 metters misscalculated distance of explotion of bomb will give 100 timess bigger or smaller result of radiation and explotion. Explotion to earth power probably depending linarly and radiation quadraticaly. Why there is so 'stupid' calculations instead for example at 10 times bigger distance is 100 times smaller radiation and 10 times smaller vibration? Probably because bomb is like tiny point instead like sun is big... or i somthing misscalculating... Maybe may calulations are wrong because of explotion radius, but for gamm radiation it seems must be correct. So my conclusion for radiation, that if in point A bomb explode then in point B radiation will be A/r^2 strenght, where r distance between A and B and if point C is at distance 2*r from point A, then radiation strengh in point B will be A/(4*r). But if point A move to point B and C by amount of r/10, then radiation in point C can be as previous was radiation in point B. Or at all radiation can become 100 times stronger in point B. I can't get it 
Seems that if source moving closer 10 metters then radiation increasing 100 times and if you going to source closer 10 times then radiation also increasing 100 times. How can this be? Only in one way if you don't know precisly where is source! So I think thermonuclear bomb can be fake 
Why is raised doubt? Because if you exploaded fusion bomb a little bit higher or closer from earth then you get 100 or 1 times bigger vibration of earth or 100 times bigger radiation or somthing registration if you stating just 10 times closer or father... Maybe, but there is over calculations according to which if bomb will be exploaded 10-100 metters higher or closer then registred explotion will be 100 times bigger. Imagine that bomb explotion is in 1 m^3 space then after 100 metters explotions stranght will be 10000 times weaker than at 1 metter distance. So just need to exploed bomb in some 10-100 metters closer or farther distance from earth and earth vibration will be ~100 times bigger or smaller... And registred radiation also working in similar way and more correctly... So I think since all thermonuclear bombs consist of ~1% uranium bombs power then all this explotion energy is uranium bombs and nobody able precisly to measure explotion power, because at 100 metters misscalculated distance of explotion of bomb will give 100 timess bigger or smaller result of radiation and explotion. Explotion to earth power probably depending linarly and radiation quadraticaly. Why there is so 'stupid' calculations instead for example at 10 times bigger distance is 100 times smaller radiation and 10 times smaller vibration? Probably because bomb is like tiny point instead like sun is big... or i somthing misscalculating... Maybe may calulations are wrong because of explotion radius, but for gamm radiation it seems must be correct. So my conclusion for radiation, that if in point A bomb explode then in point B radiation will be A/r^2 strenght, where r distance between A and B and if point C is at distance 2*r from point A, then radiation strengh in point B will be A/(4*r). But if point A move to point B and C by amount of r/10, then radiation in point C can be as previous was radiation in point B. Or at all radiation can become 100 times stronger in point B. I can't get it
Seems that if source moving closer 10 metters then radiation increasing 100 times and if you going to source closer 10 times then radiation also increasing 100 times. How can this be? Only in one way if you don't know precisly where is source! So I think thermonuclear bomb can be fake
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 21 2008, 03:00 AM)
So I think thermonuclear bomb can be fake
bzzzt, wrong. Try again.
bzzzt, wrong. Try again.
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 21 2008, 10:46 AM)
bzzzt, wrong. Try again.
Maybe wrong, maybe no.
Okay there crancks. Why mirror reflecting almost all light 80-95%? You would say, that mirror have some sphecial structure and long certain types waves going better than over because of some difractions difusion and so on... Bu I have theory, that mirror don't reflecting all light, but only some 1/10^6 % of light. How it can be? Well amplitude is increased by all over waves and reflected waves are combined with over energy and energy becoming enough to excide retina or somthing. So mirror reflectin like say only some 1/10^9 part of light. But this amount of light combined with all over infrared waves inducting in retina some small wave, which can be measured... Or in over case electrons and neutrons and protons must be much bigger. I suggesting that say nuclear in atom is some 10 times smaller radius than atom radius. And electron is ~2000 times smaller than nucleon. Some nuclears/particles scatering simply over nuclear. But radio waves prety good going through matter and this is very starnge unless some wave difracting very well and thus some can go and some no. But waves reflection in air simple because atoms have coloumb force and are the same as matter atoms, but in my smallest spheres theory nucleons and electrons are bigger than spheres. So how all light can be reflected? And if it is combined with some infrared waves then how neurons felling so small amplitude diference, because infrared waves should also... Cranck would say that this is photon... Visible light wave is 500 nm and atomsize 0.2 nm, so about 2500 atoms passing wave, but this still even not close to amount of nuclears, which can fit in one surface of atom. Maybe realy photons are high energy electrons? If electrons are 2000 times smaller than nucleons then they charge is...no... Electrons interference of course ridiculouse, but polarization not very... Unless electrons interference can be, that in noraml conditions there flying many electrons then small amount then agin big, then small like .... ... .. . .. ... .... or more shortly ......____.......____...... and so if electrons always pushing then there no chance to go back electrons in wire back and they are like holded and we thing that there no waves. Of course it is ridiculouse, but why not? Ah, yes why they don't flying with speed of light? Well, again back to theory, that slow observation and actualy no time to check this precisly... So then electricity is faster than light.... But this seems still don't explaining why can be mirrored almost all electrons? Well, because of charge. Electrons are crancks, huh, falling into nuclear and then emmited, maybe this going even somehow coherently... Some objects don't reflecting electrons because maybe are somehow mosre positive... Radiowaves are slow and electrons slowly difusing and then incoming into wire there is somepositive cahrge somewhere or somthing... But how electrons emitted from wire? Well, they flying with acceleration and then don't stoping! or atracted from atom and flying or in positive place there is emision of electrons from atoms in which electrons fall into nuclears. Some electrons don't loosing energy and thus reaching with same frenquency with impulses of bunch of electrons.... Or maybe light is neutrons-spinotrosn interaction... Electrons theory seems prety logical now... Electrons difraction of course is them scar\tering over nuclears or somthing and polarization is through fingers going fingers of electrons... Entangled electrons also then are polarized fingers of electrons. Seems electrons them most logicaly explaining diferent type of waves reflection and absorbtion... Or if you like electrons polarization is that they flying with same spins, then light realy ahve spin
But why nature then don't using waves? Well in air there is also only atoms... This theory not very good explains how electrons can't not loose energy in glass, except if glass is positive... Why electron should losse energy if it is very small and almost can't bounce, but sometimes is atracted, somtimes pushed? At all it is like neutral, but maybe neutrons? Maybe electron charge is very concenrated and thus electron is about 2000 times less sensitive to charge than proton, but still... Then milions or no, 2000*10^5=10^8 atoms is like very weak interaction... This is about 1 cm, but glass is thicker than 1 cm... but it is maybe positive and somehow... Electrons theory better fits with experimental data... Maybe that's what is photons?
Then faster electrons better difracting in prizme, because reflecting... And then in atoms there is radiation all matter synchronized electrons falling into nuclears and then decaying...
Maybe wrong, maybe no.
Okay there crancks. Why mirror reflecting almost all light 80-95%? You would say, that mirror have some sphecial structure and long certain types waves going better than over because of some difractions difusion and so on... Bu I have theory, that mirror don't reflecting all light, but only some 1/10^6 % of light. How it can be? Well amplitude is increased by all over waves and reflected waves are combined with over energy and energy becoming enough to excide retina or somthing. So mirror reflectin like say only some 1/10^9 part of light. But this amount of light combined with all over infrared waves inducting in retina some small wave, which can be measured... Or in over case electrons and neutrons and protons must be much bigger. I suggesting that say nuclear in atom is some 10 times smaller radius than atom radius. And electron is ~2000 times smaller than nucleon. Some nuclears/particles scatering simply over nuclear. But radio waves prety good going through matter and this is very starnge unless some wave difracting very well and thus some can go and some no. But waves reflection in air simple because atoms have coloumb force and are the same as matter atoms, but in my smallest spheres theory nucleons and electrons are bigger than spheres. So how all light can be reflected? And if it is combined with some infrared waves then how neurons felling so small amplitude diference, because infrared waves should also... Cranck would say that this is photon... Visible light wave is 500 nm and atomsize 0.2 nm, so about 2500 atoms passing wave, but this still even not close to amount of nuclears, which can fit in one surface of atom. Maybe realy photons are high energy electrons? If electrons are 2000 times smaller than nucleons then they charge is...no... Electrons interference of course ridiculouse, but polarization not very... Unless electrons interference can be, that in noraml conditions there flying many electrons then small amount then agin big, then small like .... ... .. . .. ... .... or more shortly ......____.......____...... and so if electrons always pushing then there no chance to go back electrons in wire back and they are like holded and we thing that there no waves. Of course it is ridiculouse, but why not? Ah, yes why they don't flying with speed of light? Well, again back to theory, that slow observation and actualy no time to check this precisly... So then electricity is faster than light.... But this seems still don't explaining why can be mirrored almost all electrons? Well, because of charge. Electrons are crancks, huh, falling into nuclear and then emmited, maybe this going even somehow coherently... Some objects don't reflecting electrons because maybe are somehow mosre positive... Radiowaves are slow and electrons slowly difusing and then incoming into wire there is somepositive cahrge somewhere or somthing... But how electrons emitted from wire? Well, they flying with acceleration and then don't stoping! or atracted from atom and flying or in positive place there is emision of electrons from atoms in which electrons fall into nuclears. Some electrons don't loosing energy and thus reaching with same frenquency with impulses of bunch of electrons.... Or maybe light is neutrons-spinotrosn interaction... Electrons theory seems prety logical now... Electrons difraction of course is them scar\tering over nuclears or somthing and polarization is through fingers going fingers of electrons... Entangled electrons also then are polarized fingers of electrons. Seems electrons them most logicaly explaining diferent type of waves reflection and absorbtion... Or if you like electrons polarization is that they flying with same spins, then light realy ahve spin
But why nature then don't using waves? Well in air there is also only atoms... This theory not very good explains how electrons can't not loose energy in glass, except if glass is positive... Why electron should losse energy if it is very small and almost can't bounce, but sometimes is atracted, somtimes pushed? At all it is like neutral, but maybe neutrons? Maybe electron charge is very concenrated and thus electron is about 2000 times less sensitive to charge than proton, but still... Then milions or no, 2000*10^5=10^8 atoms is like very weak interaction... This is about 1 cm, but glass is thicker than 1 cm... but it is maybe positive and somehow... Electrons theory better fits with experimental data... Maybe that's what is photons?
Then faster electrons better difracting in prizme, because reflecting... And then in atoms there is radiation all matter synchronized electrons falling into nuclears and then decaying...
Electrons light theory almost can't explain March-Zenergher interferometer with sinle(?) electron, but maybe can if there is more electrons and some one shofter because stoped, but prety unrealistic this model and more real, that nuclears size in atoms is bigger...
I analize spin, learn it and mke condlusion, that spin is small magnet and it can very fast be rotated to some possition and sciencists which say that spin is some superposition quantized are JUST DUMB! And want that experiments would fit with stupid entanglement theory... To rotate electron don't need so much energy like to hight up electron on it size or at most by two electron sizes. So if electron is pushed down or up by one electron size because need to rotate magnet for external magnetic field for alignation then this amount of pushing electron in z direction is invisible for measurment and thus seems that it is quantized. I can't believe that sciencists are so stupid with such stupid assumtions about electron spin. For proton spin it is the same and neutron... Sciencists are just very stupid crancks!!! Unless spin in homogenouse magnetic field (with only one S or N magnet) acting the same as in inhomogenouse magnetic field (with both S and N magnets). But everywhere writen that in such quantized way acting spin in inhomogenouse field and thus probably in homogenouse field it will acts like normal magnet flying only in one "quantization"... So I think sciencists are jsut incredibly stupid 
I analize spin, learn it and mke condlusion, that spin is small magnet and it can very fast be rotated to some possition and sciencists which say that spin is some superposition quantized are JUST DUMB! And want that experiments would fit with stupid entanglement theory... To rotate electron don't need so much energy like to hight up electron on it size or at most by two electron sizes. So if electron is pushed down or up by one electron size because need to rotate magnet for external magnetic field for alignation then this amount of pushing electron in z direction is invisible for measurment and thus seems that it is quantized. I can't believe that sciencists are so stupid with such stupid assumtions about electron spin. For proton spin it is the same and neutron... Sciencists are just very stupid crancks!!! Unless spin in homogenouse magnetic field (with only one S or N magnet) acting the same as in inhomogenouse magnetic field (with both S and N magnets). But everywhere writen that in such quantized way acting spin in inhomogenouse field and thus probably in homogenouse field it will acts like normal magnet flying only in one "quantization"... So I think sciencists are jsut incredibly stupid
How come, with all the "maybes" you're tossing around, the thought of "maybe I'm wrong" or "maybe I should actually go to school or spend time learning this stuff instead of making things up" doesn't appear at all?
This is not my "maybe", but them "maybe", because in science "maybe" is all problems and not someone one. So
1) maybe thermonuclear reactor explotion will radiate gamma rays the same as fission reactor explotion,
2) maybe thermonuclear reactions is not more powerfull than chemical...
So then if 1) is right, then only one small plus of fussion reactor would be if ti would be builded, the not existation of radioctive 'junk'... But there is opinions that neutrons stacked in matterial is radioactive and dangerouse, but I think they are not so dangerouse like uranium decaying...
1) maybe thermonuclear reactor explotion will radiate gamma rays the same as fission reactor explotion,
2) maybe thermonuclear reactions is not more powerfull than chemical...
So then if 1) is right, then only one small plus of fussion reactor would be if ti would be builded, the not existation of radioctive 'junk'... But there is opinions that neutrons stacked in matterial is radioactive and dangerouse, but I think they are not so dangerouse like uranium decaying...
Another phylosophycal thoughts on my smallest spheres theory.
If formula of kinetic energy of particle is bad like radiation equivalanet and if particles have mass then waves must be somehow lighter than particles. IF say to acclerate particle to v speed will be radiated not 0.5mv^2 energy, but 0.001*0.5*m*v^2 energy. Then particles mass bee consist of smallest spheres without buble gaps and all over matter consist then of lighter with gaps organized particles. Then this means, taht vibrating not smallest spheres but some combination of this spheres in which vacum is inside. Then this (let's call them) bubleons are lighter than say protons or electrons and then proton flying in this bubleons like stone in air (stone is about milions or bilions times heavier than air amount of same value) or water (stone is 50-80 times heavier than water of same value). So if particles flying in bubleons "air" like plaines in air then they must deaccelerate and radiated electromagnetic waves. Possible that exactly this is. then meteorits should deacelerate slowly like human in spaceship with air without gravitation slowly deacelerating because of air moment "give it to me". NASA would not want to agree with this, that moon flying about earth deaccelerating (but it still must deaccelerate because of angular velocisty of acceleration and radiation). deacleration can be defeated if moon acting according my spin model gravity, when moon trying to fall, but then is pushed because of imposiblity to aling and this previous speed becoming force flying around and not falling... only my spin model can explain why earth and moon don't falling into sun and earth if they radiating energy (because of orbital/angular acceleration...)... But then still for spaceship to fly to mars need more energy then than they think, up to bilions times from thousunds i mean this is part of how much time heavier spaceship than bubleons same value. But bubleons then must be bigger than smallest spheres of about 1000-10^9 times. If bubleons are very light then this possible explains why we almost don't fell bubleons momentum in cosmos. But then radiation must be of about 1000-10^9 times bigger and at big speeds also bigger than on small speeds like air resistance at high speed seems much bigger. Or not? But probably yes, because meteorits burning in air, but maybe it's don't means, that if they will be unable to burn they can't fly very fast and that stop will bery fast? So at small speed without acceleration particles almost don't radaiting electromagnetic waves or radiating like electric/magnetic field, but maybe also little bit electromagnetic waves. But then radio rays must be very strong for radio signal catching. At least this theory don't have mystic about don't existation of mass. Then bubleons can be somthing like proton size, but of course distance between bubleons is very small - smaller than half sphere... Bubleons maybe fluctating like air molecules 'thermaly', maybe not... Gamma rays not nessary traveling through matter, but just bubleons vibrating matter... and then matter giving impulse to over bubleons and so on. So bubleons can be even atom size, but probably smaller and are possible like electron size or nuclear... Then say if from radio stateion to radio is distance of 100 km =10^5 m. And say one bubleon is of size of atom, then in such distance fits about 10^15 bubleons. Radio station taking say 100 MW=10^8 W, then after 10^15 bubleons there signal will decrease quadraticaly and singal strenght at radio antena will be 10^8 W/10^15= 10^{-7} W =100 nW. 100 nW =0.0003 A *0.0003 V=300 microVolts *300 microAmpers. Prety realistic. But 100 MW radio big part of energy waisting for kinetic energy, because resistance of bubleons can't be big. If say antena size is 1 metter then possible, that will be 10^-7 W *10^10 bubleons = 10^3 W... Damn forget 1/r^2, then will be only signal few pW. Maybe bubleons resistance is not very diferent from air resistance and nobody actualy know how is resistance in space? Maybe NASA thinking that this is some few atoms in cosmos resistance, but actualy there is bubleons resistance? But still then atoms there must be some only say bilions or milions times less than of that consist matter and then resistance of space must be not smaller than air, unless bubleons have very small resistence because are very big crancks with empty space... But then very hard to explain radiosingal incoming, that enough stranght... But I not very good know about radios so possible that enough even very small strenght... Or possible that at bigger speed more and more energy becoming resistance electromagnetic energy of bubleons than kinetic energy of mass and momentum of particles (I not very good understand newton momentus and so on, but seems, that this is very possible) and then radiated energy becmoing enough for radio... So possible that everything is fine wirh radio and that radio y^4 radiates... Maybe NASA calculating some small metoers/asteroids part, which slowing down they rockets, but which actualy are bubleons? I need to fill some gaps in my physics acceleration resitance knowleges, but somthing telling me, that cracks unable to fill this gaps...
But it's would be very clear and would explain all about all universe and maybe relativity (except time and lenght dilation...probably). Bubleons theory prety atractive now looks from logical perspective...
If formula of kinetic energy of particle is bad like radiation equivalanet and if particles have mass then waves must be somehow lighter than particles. IF say to acclerate particle to v speed will be radiated not 0.5mv^2 energy, but 0.001*0.5*m*v^2 energy. Then particles mass bee consist of smallest spheres without buble gaps and all over matter consist then of lighter with gaps organized particles. Then this means, taht vibrating not smallest spheres but some combination of this spheres in which vacum is inside. Then this (let's call them) bubleons are lighter than say protons or electrons and then proton flying in this bubleons like stone in air (stone is about milions or bilions times heavier than air amount of same value) or water (stone is 50-80 times heavier than water of same value). So if particles flying in bubleons "air" like plaines in air then they must deaccelerate and radiated electromagnetic waves. Possible that exactly this is. then meteorits should deacelerate slowly like human in spaceship with air without gravitation slowly deacelerating because of air moment "give it to me". NASA would not want to agree with this, that moon flying about earth deaccelerating (but it still must deaccelerate because of angular velocisty of acceleration and radiation). deacleration can be defeated if moon acting according my spin model gravity, when moon trying to fall, but then is pushed because of imposiblity to aling and this previous speed becoming force flying around and not falling... only my spin model can explain why earth and moon don't falling into sun and earth if they radiating energy (because of orbital/angular acceleration...)... But then still for spaceship to fly to mars need more energy then than they think, up to bilions times from thousunds i mean this is part of how much time heavier spaceship than bubleons same value. But bubleons then must be bigger than smallest spheres of about 1000-10^9 times. If bubleons are very light then this possible explains why we almost don't fell bubleons momentum in cosmos. But then radiation must be of about 1000-10^9 times bigger and at big speeds also bigger than on small speeds like air resistance at high speed seems much bigger. Or not? But probably yes, because meteorits burning in air, but maybe it's don't means, that if they will be unable to burn they can't fly very fast and that stop will bery fast? So at small speed without acceleration particles almost don't radaiting electromagnetic waves or radiating like electric/magnetic field, but maybe also little bit electromagnetic waves. But then radio rays must be very strong for radio signal catching. At least this theory don't have mystic about don't existation of mass. Then bubleons can be somthing like proton size, but of course distance between bubleons is very small - smaller than half sphere... Bubleons maybe fluctating like air molecules 'thermaly', maybe not... Gamma rays not nessary traveling through matter, but just bubleons vibrating matter... and then matter giving impulse to over bubleons and so on. So bubleons can be even atom size, but probably smaller and are possible like electron size or nuclear... Then say if from radio stateion to radio is distance of 100 km =10^5 m. And say one bubleon is of size of atom, then in such distance fits about 10^15 bubleons. Radio station taking say 100 MW=10^8 W, then after 10^15 bubleons there signal will decrease quadraticaly and singal strenght at radio antena will be 10^8 W/10^15= 10^{-7} W =100 nW. 100 nW =0.0003 A *0.0003 V=300 microVolts *300 microAmpers. Prety realistic. But 100 MW radio big part of energy waisting for kinetic energy, because resistance of bubleons can't be big. If say antena size is 1 metter then possible, that will be 10^-7 W *10^10 bubleons = 10^3 W... Damn forget 1/r^2, then will be only signal few pW. Maybe bubleons resistance is not very diferent from air resistance and nobody actualy know how is resistance in space? Maybe NASA thinking that this is some few atoms in cosmos resistance, but actualy there is bubleons resistance? But still then atoms there must be some only say bilions or milions times less than of that consist matter and then resistance of space must be not smaller than air, unless bubleons have very small resistence because are very big crancks with empty space... But then very hard to explain radiosingal incoming, that enough stranght... But I not very good know about radios so possible that enough even very small strenght... Or possible that at bigger speed more and more energy becoming resistance electromagnetic energy of bubleons than kinetic energy of mass and momentum of particles (I not very good understand newton momentus and so on, but seems, that this is very possible) and then radiated energy becmoing enough for radio... So possible that everything is fine wirh radio and that radio y^4 radiates... Maybe NASA calculating some small metoers/asteroids part, which slowing down they rockets, but which actualy are bubleons? I need to fill some gaps in my physics acceleration resitance knowleges, but somthing telling me, that cracks unable to fill this gaps...
But it's would be very clear and would explain all about all universe and maybe relativity (except time and lenght dilation...probably). Bubleons theory prety atractive now looks from logical perspective...
After little bit rething conclude, that momentum of deaccelrating to particles of don't moving bubleons must be bigger if particle moving at big speed. So then it's very simple that only at big acceleration and at big speed radiation is bigger. so thats why NASA don't fell resistance of bubleons at small speed and thats why radiowaves at bigger speed are much much more powerfull and then radiation energy becmoing equal to kinetic energy...
Now seems bubleons theory is most advanced. Possible that between bubleons is smallest spheres and bubleons is like arcks and that's why they won't blow up inside! Hm, maybe no this reason, anyway, bubleons exist maybe even without smalles sphers theory.
So all then physics is imprecisly becasue don't counting bubleons or bubleons is enshtein relativity theory, but I doubt that electrons for radio flying at such speeds...
Possible even that there is many diferent size of balls and particles conssits of smaller spheres and bubleons are bigger spheres (and lighter at same value).
So what, ha? I explain all physics, huh? Oh, yes arks theory is very good explaining bubleons. spheres creating arcks in 3D and this is bubleons and between bubleons gaps filled with smallest spheres. Even possible that each sphere consist of over bubleons and so on, but particles consist of some spheres directly instead through bubleons... But there is then limit of how much big smallest spheres can be... So probably there exist just one type spheres and of which consist bubleons and particles like electron. Why universe should create bubleons? Well, it's just some acident probably. Why there no bigger bubleons, but only some one type? Well, maybe because bigger bubleons are unstable and then arc not becmoing arc type and spheres falling inside big bubleon. Why bubleons don't phormating bigger bubleons? Probably the same reason - such structure will not be stable, because of some distance between spheres... So yes it is possible that there is many size of bubleons consitent of same size spheres, but maybe no - I don't know. But anyway this don't seems that doing some troubles like in air is many types molecules and atoms... Possible that this explains some anomalies of light traveling reflection and over waves and so on...
Charge and spin and lorence force nobody will explain anyway with some stupid strings or somthing like I can't sciencificly to explain gravity and to prove that this is realy spins effect, but I can try to explain uranium decay with theory, that spins holding nucleons and they are strong force. So uranium (nuclear) is like magnet and in this nuclear are spin forces holding it and charge forces trying to split it. Then coming neutron into uranium nuclear and uranium then energeticaly more better spliting into two big magnets instead one and then between those two magnets magnetic force is smaller than charge force and thus charge force pushing those two magnets from each over and thus there becoming two atoms. At big distance some magnets don't fuse because they are not more energeticaly effeicent than separate magnets, but sometimes like in dueterium and tritium fusion there is more energeticaly better to fuse and then at some big temperature they fusing then electrons shells don't making probelm and becmoing plazma at big temperature. But also possible, that just distance is bigger between two nuclears and thus atoms comunicating though charges of electrons... Fussion process is not proved at all and we don't know from where goes energy in sun, maybe some gnome producing it... But my spin theory seems don't have problems of explaining nuclear fussion, but possible that in sun there is deuterium fusion with deuterium and on earth triutium - bad... And like say possible thermonuclaer bomb is not proved...
Now seems bubleons theory is most advanced. Possible that between bubleons is smallest spheres and bubleons is like arcks and that's why they won't blow up inside! Hm, maybe no this reason, anyway, bubleons exist maybe even without smalles sphers theory.
So all then physics is imprecisly becasue don't counting bubleons or bubleons is enshtein relativity theory, but I doubt that electrons for radio flying at such speeds...
Possible even that there is many diferent size of balls and particles conssits of smaller spheres and bubleons are bigger spheres (and lighter at same value).
So what, ha? I explain all physics, huh?
Oh, yes arks theory is very good explaining bubleons. spheres creating arcks in 3D and this is bubleons and between bubleons gaps filled with smallest spheres. Even possible that each sphere consist of over bubleons and so on, but particles consist of some spheres directly instead through bubleons... But there is then limit of how much big smallest spheres can be... So probably there exist just one type spheres and of which consist bubleons and particles like electron. Why universe should create bubleons? Well, it's just some acident probably. Why there no bigger bubleons, but only some one type? Well, maybe because bigger bubleons are unstable and then arc not becmoing arc type and spheres falling inside big bubleon. Why bubleons don't phormating bigger bubleons? Probably the same reason - such structure will not be stable, because of some distance between spheres... So yes it is possible that there is many size of bubleons consitent of same size spheres, but maybe no - I don't know. But anyway this don't seems that doing some troubles like in air is many types molecules and atoms... Possible that this explains some anomalies of light traveling reflection and over waves and so on... Charge and spin and lorence force nobody will explain anyway with some stupid strings or somthing like I can't sciencificly to explain gravity and to prove that this is realy spins effect, but I can try to explain uranium decay with theory, that spins holding nucleons and they are strong force. So uranium (nuclear) is like magnet and in this nuclear are spin forces holding it and charge forces trying to split it. Then coming neutron into uranium nuclear and uranium then energeticaly more better spliting into two big magnets instead one and then between those two magnets magnetic force is smaller than charge force and thus charge force pushing those two magnets from each over and thus there becoming two atoms. At big distance some magnets don't fuse because they are not more energeticaly effeicent than separate magnets, but sometimes like in dueterium and tritium fusion there is more energeticaly better to fuse and then at some big temperature they fusing then electrons shells don't making probelm and becmoing plazma at big temperature. But also possible, that just distance is bigger between two nuclears and thus atoms comunicating though charges of electrons... Fussion process is not proved at all and we don't know from where goes energy in sun, maybe some gnome producing it... But my spin theory seems don't have problems of explaining nuclear fussion, but possible that in sun there is deuterium fusion with deuterium and on earth triutium - bad... And like say possible thermonuclaer bomb is not proved...
YES!!! I understand for what Lorence force created by nature!!! Nothing is possible to accelerate to speed of light and ALL particles accelerators are total bullshits!
For example if you want to make big big, I mean long long particles accelerator colider of say 10 km long. Then you will conect your bullshits slow processors which working on some ns speed like electricity is in wires ~0.7*c. So you want to accelerate particle say electron to c speed. Then you seting many baries of charged positive some walls (why electron shouldn't wly to angle at walls?) and say electron don't flying into walls but flying stright -----. Then need with processors very fast charge walls closer and closer to processor when electron flying at bigger and bigger speed. Since processor is slower than speed of we want to get - electron speed=c, then walls need to put closer and closer to processor (electron flying from farthest point from processor). This distance will be bigger and bigger because electron will fly faster and electricity speed is 0.7c, so you accelerate electron in this way:
|_|__|___|____|_____|_______|_________| and so on. There "|" is positive charged wall in some small amount of colider surface. And "_" is distance. So to remove imposiblity we will create only one wall side charged positivly or more precisly one small point on wall one side with very strong positive charge. Electron then tend to fly to wall point charged positivly and you are "smart guy" and put up or/and down in colider magnet (not electrical magnet) and this magnet will push electrons with lorence force to oposit direction from charged positvly point on wall. If electrons reaching one point then this point is truned off and turned on closer to processor (charged) point and electrons flying to it and magnet pushing electron, that electron would fly straight and not bounce into wall, where is point. So since electron will fly faster and faster then distance between point will increase each time/step, because need to don't delaid and turn off and on in time (points). So distance will increase and increase and lorence force will make to loose electron energy and so electrons will never reach speed c, because theoreticaly it is imposible (I don't know maybe they reach only 0.7c - the speed of electricity). You of course are "smart guy" and think how to eliminate lorence force and you then 'inventing' model, that electrons will fly to some positive charged wires net. Then electrons when reach wires net will net be turned off and turned on next net of wires. But electrons then still loose energy, by flying to not very closely to net and anyway distance will increase exponentionaly to over net if electron flying faster and faster and thus he never will reach speed of light even without relativistic theory limits and he can reach only some 0.9999c, but not bigger and he kinetic energy will never be bigger than <0.5mc^2. But you are "smart guy" and create colider which is cirlce phorm like 0, o. So you think, that you will put charged (wires) nets in some point of colider and processor closly to this point and you will be able very fast to turn on this net (or point) or off. Or more precisly you will put processor in center of circle colider and will turn off and on two points in two oposit directions like
,
O
'
and you think you will turn on rapidly and for you will enough time, because colider radius is say 1km and diameter 2 km, then flying distance from one point to over is 3.14 and so you think you will be able faster to turn on and off than 'speed of light', because 3.14/2=1.57 times faster and if your electricity speed is 0.7 then 0.7*1.57=1.099 and you are faster than speed of light you think. You think particle will loose some energy for angular acceleration, but it's don't means, that imposible more to accelerate and you will put magnets that lorence force will push particle to some direction that it will not bounce into wall ). boom... So you think that lorence force will hold particle from bouncing to colider wall. Well for lorence force will go some energy of particle also. And thus particle will loose energy and thus you will never accelerate electron to c speed even if enshtein is wrong with his relativistic theory. So you then realizing that you are just stupid cranck and that you never be able to accelerate particle to bigger speed than electricity
For example if you want to make big big, I mean long long particles accelerator colider of say 10 km long. Then you will conect your bullshits slow processors which working on some ns speed like electricity is in wires ~0.7*c. So you want to accelerate particle say electron to c speed. Then you seting many baries of charged positive some walls (why electron shouldn't wly to angle at walls?) and say electron don't flying into walls but flying stright -----. Then need with processors very fast charge walls closer and closer to processor when electron flying at bigger and bigger speed. Since processor is slower than speed of we want to get - electron speed=c, then walls need to put closer and closer to processor (electron flying from farthest point from processor). This distance will be bigger and bigger because electron will fly faster and electricity speed is 0.7c, so you accelerate electron in this way:
|_|__|___|____|_____|_______|_________| and so on. There "|" is positive charged wall in some small amount of colider surface. And "_" is distance. So to remove imposiblity we will create only one wall side charged positivly or more precisly one small point on wall one side with very strong positive charge. Electron then tend to fly to wall point charged positivly and you are "smart guy" and put up or/and down in colider magnet (not electrical magnet) and this magnet will push electrons with lorence force to oposit direction from charged positvly point on wall. If electrons reaching one point then this point is truned off and turned on closer to processor (charged) point and electrons flying to it and magnet pushing electron, that electron would fly straight and not bounce into wall, where is point. So since electron will fly faster and faster then distance between point will increase each time/step, because need to don't delaid and turn off and on in time (points). So distance will increase and increase and lorence force will make to loose electron energy and so electrons will never reach speed c, because theoreticaly it is imposible (I don't know maybe they reach only 0.7c - the speed of electricity). You of course are "smart guy" and think how to eliminate lorence force and you then 'inventing' model, that electrons will fly to some positive charged wires net. Then electrons when reach wires net will net be turned off and turned on next net of wires. But electrons then still loose energy, by flying to not very closely to net and anyway distance will increase exponentionaly to over net if electron flying faster and faster and thus he never will reach speed of light even without relativistic theory limits and he can reach only some 0.9999c, but not bigger and he kinetic energy will never be bigger than <0.5mc^2. But you are "smart guy" and create colider which is cirlce phorm like 0, o. So you think, that you will put charged (wires) nets in some point of colider and processor closly to this point and you will be able very fast to turn on this net (or point) or off. Or more precisly you will put processor in center of circle colider and will turn off and on two points in two oposit directions like
,
O
'
and you think you will turn on rapidly and for you will enough time, because colider radius is say 1km and diameter 2 km, then flying distance from one point to over is 3.14 and so you think you will be able faster to turn on and off than 'speed of light', because 3.14/2=1.57 times faster and if your electricity speed is 0.7 then 0.7*1.57=1.099 and you are faster than speed of light you think. You think particle will loose some energy for angular acceleration, but it's don't means, that imposible more to accelerate and you will put magnets that lorence force will push particle to some direction that it will not bounce into wall ). boom... So you think that lorence force will hold particle from bouncing to colider wall. Well for lorence force will go some energy of particle also. And thus particle will loose energy and thus you will never accelerate electron to c speed even if enshtein is wrong with his relativistic theory. So you then realizing that you are just stupid cranck and that you never be able to accelerate particle to bigger speed than electricity
Light 1 meter can travel per 3.(3) ns. 100 metes distance light can travel per 333 ns. 1 km per 10/3 microsecond. IF there to program some points and then to put them at net charged wires at distance of 10-1000 meters (from each over) then they will work synchronized (programed/seted) and particle will be accelerated to c speed... Seems everything correct? Maybe in such way working coliders? Then seems processors in those points have precision to work at 1 microsecond. Or no? But precision there seems is not fatal? realy? after many rotations/cicles? Possible that precision will fail, but seems, that at very big distance at about 1000 km particle will flying at speed c fly this distance per 10/3 ms. Precision should be enough or it will be disbalanced untill particle will reach such speed after very much rotations beacause field will be very small. Or for first to accelerate with closer point and then with farther, when speed of c will be reached. But does reayly processor capable to work at ~3 ms precision? But also question does at such distance charge size can be with such precision? Because will be asynchroned those points and maybe speed c will not be reached? It's mean taht each point swiched off too late will slowdonw particle, but if to leave some amount of time for this then this don't happen... Hm... But then acceleration can be slower and net effect will be, that can be assynchronization by half cycle and then never acceleration will be succesfully performed... Seems that it can be accelerated and no, depending on some precision... So coliders can be fake... Seems, that precision will not be enough of charges amount and so on... So According to my assumptions particles coliders are fake and they experimental result can be equaly wrong as good... More "eV" of particle can be gotten if more same particles atracted from colider wall, net or somthing...
OK, few words about black holes. Black holes don't exist. Accodring to my gravity-spins theory particles fussion producing gamma or x rays. Possible that those "black holes" x radiation is product of nucleons fussion and not at all product of "black holes". Sine gas cloud is very big and expanded possible, that it don't radiating almost all over light, but only fussion product - x-rays. This cloud don't spliting into two magnets, because it still will be a cloud and it he maybe was doen long time ago when exploed... This fussion radiation possible pushing electrons from atoms orbits and there becmoing plazma in which fuse nuclears... There can be tons of diferent possiblities of explaining black holes without assuming that they exist. According to my spin theory bigger gravity can create more energetic waves which are like air resistance and radiating much more energy at big speed and thus it pushing particles at big speed and thus black hole and super big gravity never can exist!
Some rambling thoughts on Lorence force.
Between two magnets up and down or just one magnet creating tornado, which rotates in some direction and if charged particles going into this tornado between two magnets or just on one magnet and flying then this tornado pushing electron say through such
____
_/_(_)
O_( __)
_\_(_)
such hole not sure do you undetstood, maybe only in 2D plane...:
____/
___/
__/
_/
/
e
\
_\
__\
___\
____\
Then electron can go easily only in one directin of rotated tornado, because magnetic field creating such "piramides" (i don't know how to call it...). So in one direction electron can go and in over not and proton behaving opositly. How it can be? well maybe there is some small gnomes which leting to go and controling... How realy to do electron and protons filters? (damn if lorence force will not exist then all will be much simpler and it still nowhere used...but I make myself lorence force experiment with one(!) magnet...) Maybe protons in lorece force behaving the same as electrons? OR maybe is iliusion that lorence force exist and for proptons nobody make not fake? Then wires just rotates between magnets or on magnetic field and not moving in some direction... And this is the same for protons and electrons... Of course lorence force needed for neutron decay into electron and proton of what it consist... Classical theory http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=358950 prety "logical" explaining lorence force... But it don't making sence for me. Maybe magnetic field creating some structure, which atracting some positions, which are invisible and which shooting into electron untill it going from amgnetic field but only from some direction and then it's means, nah... The simplest is tornado model and that there is some sistem to control how proton or electron can go through piramides, maybe they have diferent shape like electron is tetraedr and proton is like cube or somthing... Then they going better only through they piramids... So no any mystic...
Between two magnets up and down or just one magnet creating tornado, which rotates in some direction and if charged particles going into this tornado between two magnets or just on one magnet and flying then this tornado pushing electron say through such
____
_/_(_)
O_( __)
_\_(_)
such hole not sure do you undetstood, maybe only in 2D plane...:
____/
___/
__/
_/
/
e
\
_\
__\
___\
____\
Then electron can go easily only in one directin of rotated tornado, because magnetic field creating such "piramides" (i don't know how to call it...). So in one direction electron can go and in over not and proton behaving opositly. How it can be? well maybe there is some small gnomes which leting to go and controling... How realy to do electron and protons filters? (damn if lorence force will not exist then all will be much simpler and it still nowhere used...but I make myself lorence force experiment with one(!) magnet...) Maybe protons in lorece force behaving the same as electrons? OR maybe is iliusion that lorence force exist and for proptons nobody make not fake? Then wires just rotates between magnets or on magnetic field and not moving in some direction... And this is the same for protons and electrons... Of course lorence force needed for neutron decay into electron and proton of what it consist... Classical theory http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=358950 prety "logical" explaining lorence force... But it don't making sence for me. Maybe magnetic field creating some structure, which atracting some positions, which are invisible and which shooting into electron untill it going from amgnetic field but only from some direction and then it's means, nah... The simplest is tornado model and that there is some sistem to control how proton or electron can go through piramides, maybe they have diferent shape like electron is tetraedr and proton is like cube or somthing... Then they going better only through they piramids... So no any mystic...
Okay, my spins theory seems is wrong and good is theory about electric field around magnetic and magnetic around electric... So in this http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutori...ires/index.html experiment and in lorenze force experiment http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/lorentzforce.htm it's very easy to explain with wheel rotations... IF two wills rotations are in good combination when wires atracting each over and if in bad combination - then pushing. But there is oposit efect. Inverse of space? No... Then well there is magnets two and like one magnet atracting over. Lorenze force is like rotation of wheel... All this is prety mystical. And there realy need some piramids filters... for lorenze force explanation... But then tornados don't nessasry to be very small but can be electric field...
I saying you, proton mass, electron charge and neutron decay because of lorence force creating all this laws of physics, and also rotation of electron and proton and how I explain neutron spin with fusion of proton and electron.
Why electron should rotates to produce spin? Electron is very small and thus don't need to raotates faster than light. And is possible that it rotates anyway, because enshtein is wrong and any over particles than those 3 don't exist and even antiparticles! So doesn't our world very simple and creates all laws with electromagnetism? BTW, I still don't think that electromagnetic waves is electric and magnetics, but bubleons vibrations, which for polarization can be not sure like airs waves of sound...
And yes, bubleons making bigger resistance at bigger speed and thus at bigger speed is radiated electromagnetic waves stronger than at small speed... Resistance at big speed becoming prety visible and this is another limits for aliens fast travels to as with very big speed close to c or even to c/100. At big speed they spacship will radiates waves and they will waste very much energy and energeticaly is no reason to fly for us, because they will waste more energy than is on earth... Except if they want to live here, but still they are the same crancks and will not be able to reach even c/1000 before they die...
I saying you, proton mass, electron charge and neutron decay because of lorence force creating all this laws of physics, and also rotation of electron and proton and how I explain neutron spin with fusion of proton and electron.
Why electron should rotates to produce spin? Electron is very small and thus don't need to raotates faster than light. And is possible that it rotates anyway, because enshtein is wrong and any over particles than those 3 don't exist and even antiparticles! So doesn't our world very simple and creates all laws with electromagnetism? BTW, I still don't think that electromagnetic waves is electric and magnetics, but bubleons vibrations, which for polarization can be not sure like airs waves of sound...
And yes, bubleons making bigger resistance at bigger speed and thus at bigger speed is radiated electromagnetic waves stronger than at small speed... Resistance at big speed becoming prety visible and this is another limits for aliens fast travels to as with very big speed close to c or even to c/100. At big speed they spacship will radiates waves and they will waste very much energy and energeticaly is no reason to fly for us, because they will waste more energy than is on earth... Except if they want to live here, but still they are the same crancks and will not be able to reach even c/1000 before they die...
I here http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=359218 give some variants. And now rethink little bit and variant 2) can explain all wires atractions and electric motor and dynamics without magnet. There is spins which flying in some orentation and if wires are the same then they can accoding to link to do exactly like in link, because need to orentates opositly, but if two wires pushing even with diferent source of electricity then my theory can't explain this... Dynamic cna be explained with spins of electrons resonanse alignation... Motor also aligning to any magnetic field independitly... But seems, that in motor there must be some oposit process, which is not predicted by my theory...
If variant 3) is right then I possible know how to improve electric motors effiecncy about 10-100 times. But this sounds ridiculouse, because there sciencists already saying that motor effiecency is ~75% instead some 0.1-1% (how they check it?).
But probably between my theory and normal no diference and so thre just invention of another magic...
If variant 3) is right then I possible know how to improve electric motors effiecncy about 10-100 times. But this sounds ridiculouse, because there sciencists already saying that motor effiecency is ~75% instead some 0.1-1% (how they check it?).
But probably between my theory and normal no diference and so thre just invention of another magic...
Just theoretical thoughts. Accodring to my theory there neutron existation is not nessasary for building universe. Because nuclear fission can go on with protons, because proton ahve spin and spin atracting to unclear stronger than charge pushing and thus fission can be only with protons and then spliting nuclear to two parts, ebcause spins is more efectivly organized in two parts and then charge force becoming bigger... This all rambling about isotopes can be ucheked nonsense... Only hard thing to explain what going on if proton fussing with electron? I can't answer to this in crancks words: electron can't fall to nuclear! Maybe it can't fall, because of some spinms effects like moon don't falling into earth, because are gravitotional magnet... But sometimes still electrons have to fall to nuclear or proton except it always falling unprecisly and somehow with spin force don't falling. Or if falling then becoming to radiate more energy than could take and never falling until some wave blassting him... this can be because in oposit direction easier to blast than to accelerate, like with big energy fast car, which making resistance into air is easier to stop with less energy than it have kinetic energy...
Or there is some neutron in center and positrons and electrons flaying around with spin forces...
Of course maybe there is posible to calculate somehow electrons number on orbits of atom and then is possible to establish matter mass. But how actualy to calcualte number of electrons?
enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection
Or there is some neutron in center and positrons and electrons flaying around with spin forces...
Of course maybe there is posible to calculate somehow electrons number on orbits of atom and then is possible to establish matter mass. But how actualy to calcualte number of electrons?
enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection
Here I seems found evidence for my theory, that neutrons don't exist. Deuterium and hydrogen emision spectrums are diferent!
There is deuterium emision spectrum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deuterium_lamp_1.png
http://www.assumption.edu/users/bniece/Spe.../Deuteriumg.pdf
And here is hyrdogen emission spectrum:
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topi...p/ch6/bohr.html
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/spectra.html
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Electr...n-Spectrum.html
http://www.doctortang.com/AP%20Chemistry/L...%20Spectrum.pdf
Maybe hydrogen emision spectrum (like deuterium) also is not so nice and quantized?
My theory better predicts, that neutron don't exist or that instead neutrons in fission reaction there is emited protons or gamma waves. Like you see deuterium emission spectrum is so at all not quantized and diferent than hydrogen emision spectrum (maybe nobody actualy measure precisly hydrogen emisions?).
Here is helium emision lines:
http://www.trschools.com/staff/g/cgirtain/...um_emission.htm
http://web.centre.edu/che/che131_lab/emission.htm
And here is sodium emission:
http://www.trschools.com/staff/G/CGirtain/...um_emission.htm
and somthing over says wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sodium_spectrum.jpg
here sodium is also not so quantized http://www.assumption.edu/users/bniece/Spe...olution/Nag.pdf (edit: this PDF link need to reload if don't working...)
So what I think? I think, that possible physics grasp those atoms and give to them "protons" name, which more or less emiting (and absorbing) quantized lines. But in real each izotop is another atom!
There is deuterium emision spectrum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deuterium_lamp_1.png
http://www.assumption.edu/users/bniece/Spe.../Deuteriumg.pdf
And here is hyrdogen emission spectrum:
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topi...p/ch6/bohr.html
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/spectra.html
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Electr...n-Spectrum.html
http://www.doctortang.com/AP%20Chemistry/L...%20Spectrum.pdf
Maybe hydrogen emision spectrum (like deuterium) also is not so nice and quantized?
My theory better predicts, that neutron don't exist or that instead neutrons in fission reaction there is emited protons or gamma waves. Like you see deuterium emission spectrum is so at all not quantized and diferent than hydrogen emision spectrum (maybe nobody actualy measure precisly hydrogen emisions?).
Here is helium emision lines:
http://www.trschools.com/staff/g/cgirtain/...um_emission.htm
http://web.centre.edu/che/che131_lab/emission.htm
And here is sodium emission:
http://www.trschools.com/staff/G/CGirtain/...um_emission.htm
and somthing over says wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sodium_spectrum.jpg
here sodium is also not so quantized http://www.assumption.edu/users/bniece/Spe...olution/Nag.pdf (edit: this PDF link need to reload if don't working...)
So what I think? I think, that possible physics grasp those atoms and give to them "protons" name, which more or less emiting (and absorbing) quantized lines. But in real each izotop is another atom!
Why would deuterium and hydrogen emission spectrums be the same?
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 25 2008, 10:56 AM)
Why would deuterium and hydrogen emission spectrums be the same?
Because schrodinger equation is the same for all isotopes! Or not?
Because schrodinger equation is the same for all isotopes! Or not?
Ugh.
Is he still at it?
Is he still at it?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 25 2008, 11:02 AM)
Ugh.
Is he still at it?
I don't believe, that you can explain this! Schrodinger equation can explain only hydrogen atoms emission lines, because it is equal to quardatic diferentiation Like (all) string theory is equal (between and) to don't thinking
Is he still at it?
I don't believe, that you can explain this! Schrodinger equation can explain only hydrogen atoms emission lines, because it is equal to quardatic diferentiation
Like (all) string theory is equal (between and) to don't thinking
Okay, here is my "schrodinger equation" (in one dimension):
dF/dt=0.5*m*d^2(F)/dx^2.
And solution for this equation is e^{v*x+E*t}. Check this out:
d(e^{v*x+E*t})/dt=0.5*m*d^2(e^{v*x+E*t})/dx^2,
E*e^{v*x+E*t}=0.5*m*v^2 *e^{v*x+E*t},
E=0.5*m*v^2.
Thats all! This is not wave equation but I a long long time was have intuition that imaginary unit is fake and bullshit...
So if my or original (schrodinger) equation is right then very possible that neutrons exist... Electrons between protons can increase hodling nuclear force toghether with spins...
And here is schrodinger equation in 3D in spherical coordinates:
http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/9743/cf...e1fa8eb6kj0.png
Here to show that I understand some diferentiation math..:
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/3604/simplifedyc2.png ,
where -k*e^2 /r =V( r ) is potentional energy of electron which atracted by proton/nuclear charge. e is electron charge r is distance to proton and k probably is 2/m...
dF/dt=0.5*m*d^2(F)/dx^2.
And solution for this equation is e^{v*x+E*t}. Check this out:
d(e^{v*x+E*t})/dt=0.5*m*d^2(e^{v*x+E*t})/dx^2,
E*e^{v*x+E*t}=0.5*m*v^2 *e^{v*x+E*t},
E=0.5*m*v^2.
Thats all! This is not wave equation but I a long long time was have intuition that imaginary unit is fake and bullshit...
So if my or original (schrodinger) equation is right then very possible that neutrons exist... Electrons between protons can increase hodling nuclear force toghether with spins...
And here is schrodinger equation in 3D in spherical coordinates:
http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/9743/cf...e1fa8eb6kj0.png
Here to show that I understand some diferentiation math..:
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/3604/simplifedyc2.png ,
where -k*e^2 /r =V( r ) is potentional energy of electron which atracted by proton/nuclear charge. e is electron charge r is distance to proton and k probably is 2/m...
Here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../hydrad.html#c3 seems that energies of hydrogen emision lines are taked from experiment and not arising from schrodinger equation, what is big minus for schrodinger equation, ebcause it can't solve and "invent"/describe hydrogen emision spectrum itself without data from experiment... So what then give schrodinger equation? Some mystical chemical properties? Anyway for precise schrodnger equatio need normal spins and not quantized, but rotaion of electron spins is not hard work and so it's almost no diference does they quantized or not... So possible that schrodinger equation can give answers about chemical some primitive reactions, but maybe no...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 27 2008, 07:31 PM)
Here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../hydrad.html#c3 seems that energies of hydrogen emision lines are taked from experiment and not arising from schrodinger equation, what is big minus for schrodinger equation, ebcause it can't solve and "invent"/describe hydrogen emision spectrum itself without data from experiment... So what then give schrodinger equation? Some mystical chemical properties? Anyway for precise schrodnger equatio need normal spins and not quantized, but rotaion of electron spins is not hard work and so it's almost no diference does they quantized or not... So possible that schrodinger equation can give answers about chemical some primitive reactions, but maybe no...
Wrong, again.
The wave equation was derived to explain experimental results.
A rather salient point that you seem to have missed - Quantum mechanics is based in experimental observations.
Schematic view of the Hydrogen emission spectrum:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://www.ktf-split.hr/glossary/image/emission_spectrum_of_hydrogen.gif'>User posted image</a>
Actual photograph of the Hydrogen emission spectrum:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap04/FG04_03.jpg'>User posted image</a>
So emission spectra are in fact quantized, which requires quantum mechanics.
User posted image: User posted image
Wrong, again.
The wave equation was derived to explain experimental results.
A rather salient point that you seem to have missed - Quantum mechanics is based in experimental observations.
Schematic view of the Hydrogen emission spectrum:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://www.ktf-split.hr/glossary/image/emission_spectrum_of_hydrogen.gif'>User posted image</a>
Actual photograph of the Hydrogen emission spectrum:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap04/FG04_03.jpg'>User posted image</a>
So emission spectra are in fact quantized, which requires quantum mechanics.
User posted image: User posted image
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.