Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Then I'm good with that.
Just remember, though, the photons are destroying the chair in place! It takes a while, though.
Quantifying gravity's mechanism
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
Then I'm good with that.
Just remember, though, the photons are destroying the chair in place! It takes a while, though.
Lol, how long will it take to have us called two peas in a pod?Then I'm good with that.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Well, the difference being, I have a way to measure the velocity of the chair in space while it has a zero velocity in the room. I am the only pea in that pod!
I know, but since you make it public knowledge, it is there for all of us to refer to.Well, the difference being, I have a way to measure the velocity of the chair in space while it has a zero velocity in the room. I am the only pea in that pod!
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
It's an arbitrary choice. You're evidently a car mechanic, RPM is convenient for you. The intenational standard is radians per second, but it really doesn't matter. We all all have computers and can convert units effortlessly.
If you ever get a chance to take any math or science classes you'll notice that we work with evidence. We usually start out with a framework of definitions the keeps folks on the same page. We import principles already proven in other modules of math and scienc that we can refer back to if we have questions about the adequacy of the proofs. It's not a method that relies on wild claims, although I understand that's your belief as an outsider.
I can say something has rotation because I understand the definitions of those words, because I have observed rotation, as we all have, because I have worked with rotating machines and the math and science that produced them, and for any number of more specific reasons. Until now I haven't had to consider that my knowledge of rotation is considered suspect.
I see you struggling to apply your layman's understanding of science but not without thinking errors. Let me see if I can reach you since I know you hate criticism, even when we're trying to be constructive. Notice you said velocity, not speed. Now I ask you if you know the precise difference in meaning between the two terms and how it relates to the question of how a wheel rotating at a constant speed develops a centripetal acceleration. The answer is this. A wheel at a constant speed is undergoing a perpetual change in velocity. This gets down to understanding that speed is only one component of the velocity vector. The second is direction. I'm well aware you haven't taken linear algebra so you are skeptical about what I'm talking about. But we generally define velocity as speed times the unit vector of its direction. In this case the unit vector is pointing radially away from the hub of the wheel. I'm skipping the more accurate definition of the kinematics of rotation because I recognize you have no interest in learning it. Anyway, this vector is changing direction with respect to time, and that satisfies the definition of acceleration.
The reason you feel G forces in a turn is because of centripetal acceleration. As you should know by know, there can not be force of this kind without an acceleration and vice versa. So you have practical experience knocking at your back door telling you to try to understand what we're telling you. You will feel those forces even though your speed is constant, and they fade when you return to straight line travel.
Another example of centripetal acceleration is the centrifuge. The container will be lifted up on its swivel, acting against the force of gravity, even though it's rotating at a constant speed. This demonstrates the presence of a force, a force attended by an acceleration, that is purely created from spinning the direction of the vector, not a change in its magnitude.
You mean 'multiply'. It was explained to you above that these are integrals. I understand you don't know what that means, but in layman's terms an integral is the area under a curve. If the power is constant, then the "area under the curve" (power times time) is a rectangle, and simple multiplication works. But if the power fluctuates, then to get the correct answer you have to develop the equation that plots the fluctuation over time, and take the area under the curve. Otherwise bad things can happen (especially with machines). So we try to be accurate.
I'm talking about the mechanics of kinematics and you're talking about car mechanics. As I said, no work is done in accelerating the particles in a wheel. Since it's a rigid body there is no radial motion of the particles, and without displacement of mass there is no work done, no energy required. That's a principle from science that overrides your concerns about driving a wheel from an engine. From your standpoint, you should incorporate this as a definition, since you're struggling to understand basic principles of mechanics as we mean the term in physics. As I'm sure you've figured out by now, it's the controlling set of principles that govern all physical properties and states of objects in stasis or in motion. It explains the physical laws that you are grappling with as an auto mechanic.
Now you have a new piece of information to learn: an object in rotation develops an acceleration even though it my be turning at a constant speed. The force that accompanies this acceleration is called the centripetal force. As you know force implies acceleration and vice versa. Therefore if you feel a force when you go into a turn you can be sure you are accelerating. Yet you feel the force when turning at a constant speed. So right off the bat you have to recognize that there's something wrong with your understanding of the statement acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity". And the mistake you made was that you confused velocity with speed, neglecting the significance of the unit vector. If the vector changes with time, the velocity changes with time, even though the speed may be held steady. And this can be done without expending any energy, since an object placed in motion will remain in motion until opposed by force. Thus acceleration can exist when no work is done.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Aqueous, Your word salad is useless to me. When you learn what mass, distance, time, force, work, power, energy, velocity, and acceleration are, then we can talk. Your ignorance is laughable, get a clue. I'm not going to waste my time with someone that isn't sincere, but just wants to cloud the issue with word salad so as to make himself appear to understand. Your understanding of how to measure motion is laughable. If you ever decide to be honest and show a willingness to learn then maybe you will start to learn, but not before that.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
How about instead of running your mouth and letting out more BS you address undefined's post #370?
That's the kind of asshole you are.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
What's to be addressed is why you go on other forums and make posts talking shit about James R behind his back?
Thankyou for your response as far as it goes. I agree that all personal and off-topic distractions should be kept to an absolute minimum. Let everyone stick to that and no one should have cause for complaint in that direction in future? Enough said on that I trust.
As to the on-topic aspects, I mentioned certain relevant things which you did not include in your quote of my post. I especially would like your informed opinion on the connections (if any) between q-w's fundamental waves, foundational medium (or whatever one wants to label it), and the "energy waves" and "scale effectiveness" etc interaction/propagation processes of chaos theory dynamics. Here is the sections I refer to in my post:
I, and no doubt also q-w and other participants/viewers of this thread, would be quite interested to know if you yourself can see any worthwhile lines of enquiry/comparison between some interesting chaos theory scenario/fundamentals which I mentioned and q-w's hypothetical scenario as OP'd by him so far? Please bear in mind when next responding that this is an amateur Alternative Theories section where discussion is not limited or automatically dependent on professional authority or qualification, but rather only new ideas for discussion between willing participants who, as you hinted, should stay on topic and not bring irrelevant arguments regarding the person or qualification "necessary" for presenting/discussing the OP ideas involved? Thankyou, Cheezle.
Everything I said is in the common vernacular of scientists. I'm posting in the language of science in a thread about science on a science site, which negates your bizarre attack on the language of my post. My science terminology may be useless to you, but that's not a reflection of any shortcoming of mine.
My education is not at issue here, nor are you justified in attacking my knowledge of basic terms of science. You may feel limited in your ability to talk about science in the language of science, but that has nothing to do with me.
There is nothing ignorant or laughable about what I said, although your own limitations explain why you would say such a thing.
There was nothing insincere in my post. Attacking me for correcting you is.
So far I have stuck to the topic you opened, which was a denial that acceleration can occur without work being done. All the unrelated stuff you brought up about burning gasoline, auto mechanics plus the unjustified attacks, fit into the area of clouding the issue. There is nothing wrong with the language I used in my post, although I can understand how it would confuse you. Nor is there anything I said that I did not understand, although I recognize why you fail to understand it.
You know nothing about my knowledge of measurement, since I haven't discussed it. You have no working knowledge of measurement science, so you wouldn't begin to have a basis for evaluating me even if I had broached the subject.
Since I'm not the one evading the question of centripetal acceleration under constant speed of rotation, I'm not the reason you are questioning the honesty here. If you want to advocate for honesty, begin by answering that rebuttal truthfully. Nor have I ever posted anything except the highest regard for education, which is precisely why I am encouraging you to get one.
The question then, was whether acceleration can occur without work being done. The answer given was, yes, there is an acceleration which accompanies rotation. You incorrectly said this is wrong. I have demonstrated that you will feel the force that accompanies this acceleration when you go into a turn, even though you are turning at a constant speed. Therefore, there is an acceleration that accompanies constant speed of rotation, which refutes your claim. I further gave the example that the particles in a wheel undergo this acceleration without the expenditure of work, since they are held in place. (This requires you to understand that work is only done in the radial direction if the particles undergo radial translation which is why I chose this scenario as proof.)
Therefore you stand corrected.
I already addressed this chaos aspect of quantum_wave's theory. And that is what I was saying when I said that quantum_wave's theory is stalled and that he is stuck. He does not have the ability to take his theory forward. That is why this thread's OP was posted in Math and Physics. He was asking for help. And later he asked again with his swarm of gnats post. As I had mentioned, a possible way to move forward on his theory is to do some "large" scale simulations of his "wowions" to see if any of the features he is hoping for emerge. I suggested one tool that could possibly be used toward that goal that is fairly easy to use. IPython or even just Python using pylab, scipy, numpy, pandas, etc. Python can be learned in an after noon but like all things using a tool expertly takes more time.
I am pretty sure as I stated before that his chosen tool, Excel, is not up to the task, though I have seen some very impressive things done with Excel. I doubt anyone here that has the ability to use Python or any other tools is going to invest the time to help him. Though I might be wrong about that since many people here seem to be very generous with their expertise and time. Perhaps you, Undefined, should help him since you are somehow very interested in his so called model. I am sure you guys will let us all know how it all works out.
But to answer your question, no, I don't think there are any "worthwhile lines of enquiry" into quantum_waves theory. First because nobody understands exactly what he is talking about and he will not answer questions. And second because from what I think I understand of it, the theory is just plain wrong. Sure, a person like me could learn something from investigating his theory even though it is wrong, but I could probably learn more elsewhere.
Last edited:
You can't have energy in and out of a standing wave unless you mean something other than what you seem to mean. It's a standing wave because it's confined within a reflective cavity (and there are other ways standing waves manifest but they don't apply here). The reflector isolates the wave, renders it undetectable, and prevents it from mixing with any wave arriving from elsewhere. Any outside wave would be reflected. (I have no idea what you think produces a standing wave, so I'm left to call it a cavity.)
If a particle is such a wave, this statement implies that particles can not move, which is impossible. You should at least begin with the concept that particles are in perpetual motion.
That doesn't relate to the world as we know it. We know about energy quantization because it was observed, and gave us the orbitals and means for getting from the principal quantum numbers and their layering, to build out the whole periodic table in a way that fits that data together like puzzle pieces. Incidentally, if you were assume that an electron were a standing wave, then the only frequencies it could conceivably take on are in its harmonic series. All of the orbitals would have to follow suit. I think if you pursue this a little further you'll realize that it's the other way around - allowable quantum states predict that no such constraint is possible, at least not for the electron, and that's where any investigation of wave-particle nature begins. Even if you forego this, you're still stuck with some nagging issues that don't flesh out of a description like the one you've given: the nature of static charge and propagation of the static electric field, the correspondence between quarks and standing waves, the meaning of quark attributes in regard to your waves, and the reason for them to cluster in triads to form the elementary particles. I could go on but you get my drift.
Help inventing something that appeals to you or help figuring out how things actually work?
It's not a system if it can't get from Hydrogen to Helium to Lithium etc by ringing out the harmonic series for the standing waves you imagine. (We can try this in musical notation if you wish.)
You first have to overcome the very serious hurdle of how to set up a standing wave that's not really a standing wave since it leaks. What you're trying to describe sounds a little more like a resonator, with some kind of arbitrary exciter of unknown properties, giving it pipes. That too would be a monumental task to use as a model while trying to climb the periodic table. Remember, you have to synthesize the known energy levels - you can't just make them up or leave them undefined. As for the rest of what you just said above, I have no idea what you're talking about. It may mean something to you, but I would need to be stoned to think I followed what you just said.
What does that mean? What environment? Little is known about the spacetime properties of quantum particles, but it would be safe to assume they are nothing like the properties we observe at macro scale. We certainly understand the behavior as you leave the orbitals - principally the propagation of photons in accordance with Maxwell's equations. None of that suggests standing waves and their allowable frequencies. Nor does spacetime provide support for standing waves since it's not made of reflective cavities, and if it were, it would do nothing more than scatter rays. And none of that actually happens.
Huh? Are you sure you're talking about energy quantization? You are severely hampered in this idea by the reality of photon propagation. Presumably, by "quanta in the environment" you mean photons propagating in free space, because if you're not, you're describing another universe. You can't have the one we live in if you shut down the photon or its means of propagating. The other side of the coin is the photoelectric effect. In order for you to be relating this to the actual universe we live in, you've got to have electrons and their energy levels behind the creation and annihilation of photons. Otherwise your universe never even gets to Hydrogen, not to mention the rest of the elements you need to build the place where we actually live.
Well, don't you think you need to know your way around a place before you to map it out for others? And when you see a bunch of hikers coming down off the mountain on your way up, aren't you going to ask them to map it out before you try to take it on yourself? I think that sums up the way the scientific method tends to work.
As I'm sure you're well aware a lot of knuckleheads like to post wild claims on science sites, invariably because they need validation for something that came to them while smoking a joint or who knows what. Some of them seem to thrive on irritating the nice folks who are trying to enjoy the "forum experience", as it were. When you put up some roadmap of the trek we've already been on, with all the landmarks jumbled up, we may at times confuse you with the crackheads. In that case you may get some undeserved disparagement. But of course you can try to actually act on the advice you're getting and turn this into a learning experience. I would hate to try to figure out how many ways I could create standing waves that exhibit the actual energy levels needed to build the elements orbital by orbital. It seems so futile. But an exercise like that might serve as a learning experience, so if that's you goal, I would point you in that direction.
Those two comments use my statement as a basis, and I remember butchering that statement after I wrote it because while proof reading it I tried to make two sentences out of it because often my sentences seem too complex when I re-read them.
Here is the paragraph that includes the two sentences you quote, and then the paragraph that I originally wrote and butchered when I tried to simplify it by breaking it into two sentences:
Butchered: In regard to motion, the standing wave particle has a constant amount of energy quanta contained within it and as long as the inflowing and outflowing wave energy is equal. That standing wave pattern has no motion relative to its immediate surrounding environment, and no change in the energy quanta contained.
Original: In regard to motion, the standing wave particle that has a constant amount of energy quanta contained within it and as long as the inflowing and outflowing wave energy is equal, that standing wave pattern has no motion relative to its immediate surrounding environment, and no change in the energy quanta contained.
Do you acknowledge that if the medium of space is as I described it post #378, (which I can tell you didn't read, or didn't grasp) that space is filled with gravity waves, then the entire underpinning of the things you want me to learn is changed?
There is a disconnect between your approach to discussing my ideas, and my concept of discussion of my ideas. You like to tell me obvious things, things I often already know about and that are generally accepted. You then dispute my statements from the context of the things you take from generally accepted science. In addition, you suggest if I could learn the things I already know or more of the things that are generally accepted, then I wouldn't have such erroneous concepts of what nature was all about. That is why I sometimes don't respond to your posts; after a few doses of your "mainstream attitude" and my inability to get you to discuss my ideas as if they are built from different underpinnings of the nature of nature, I just think I we are wasting bandwidth.
If you want to accept my explanation about the erroneous correction I made to the paragraph you started your post by quoting, then you may want to re-address the comments you made about it and comment to it as it was intended to be written; sorry for that goof-up.
If you want to take all of the rest of your post back to the drawing board, and re-read post #378 before you respond, then I will be glad to get into it with you.
After that, we might get to your comment: "Huh? Are you sure you're talking about energy quantization? You are severely hampered in this idea by the reality of photon propagation". That is an area that could be fun to discuss, but let's see if you take this post under advisement as it pertains to the error I made proof reading, and if you take my post #378 as the underpinning of what I mean by quantization at the foundational level where particles form and where their presence is continually being refreshed. Then you may realize that in my so called model the electron is composed of a huge number of quanta as I define them, and the photon is a particle that gets all of its inflowing wave energy component for the direction of motion because it is emitted at the speed of light in that direction. But that is an advanced topic in my so called model
. We will see if you want to discuss my so called model, or if you want me to learn your version of the invariant laws of nature. Your version has a few bugs in it too if you consider the inconsistencies between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Neither of us has nailed reality, and when you seem to acknowledge that, we might get along better. The discussion is about my ideas, and I appreciate that you are responding to the challenge of showing where those ideas are not internally consistent and are inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. You are just not quite there yet because you don't grasp what I am saying and how it would change the generally accepted views you keep espousing.
(11065)
Aqueous, I snipped off most of your post in the quote because the first sentence sums up the whole of the problem. Even a simple term like "wave" means something completely different when quantum_wave uses it. If you notice in the diagrams he has posted, there is just an expanding circle and inside the circle the energy density is completely flat. There is no internal structure. Everything in quantum_wave's so called model uses what looks like terms we all know, but he has different definitions for them. It is as if when he says 'apple', he might really mean 'cloud', or 'glass', or 'toenail'. And because he will not provide a glossary it is going to be very hard to figure out what he is talking about. His attitude is that it isn't his failure to explain, it is your failure to understand. Tell that to a grade school english teacher when your essay comes back with a big red 'F' marked on it. So when you read what he writes, keep in mind that every term, no matter how seemingly simple, probably means something different than you would expect. When he says standing waves or even just waves, you can't really know for sure what he is talking about. And that is why I asked him to define some terms, like energy and standing wave. Not because I wanted to catch him using a term incorrectly, but to try and decipher his so called model. And for some strange reason, even when he does answer, it does not help one iota.
CHEEZLE! Hi there, for some reason I really just like saying that.
OK since I didn't understand his reply your remarks help me calibrate. Let's see where this goes. . .
OK since I didn't understand his reply your remarks help me calibrate. Let's see where this goes. . .
Let me see if I understand. Your are using Cheezle's understanding of my so called model to calibrate. That is not even wrong, lol. And to say you don't understand my response just confirms that we cannot communicate. But let's see where it goes after you answer from the perspective of #378. You might want to ask for further explanations, but I'm not looking for more "mainstream" views, so save the bandwidth if that is what you come up with.
No one picked up on this invitation in a meaningful way, but it is a good starting point for discussion because it is one of the favorite targets for detractors.from post #378: said:
Compare that with some things about the Standard Cosmology, and by that I mean Big Bang Theory with Inflation, that are targets for detractors as well.
Let's suppose you are actually impartial, and you are choosing between a cosmology that mentions a beginning at t=0 as a start point, and one that mentions a universe where space is a medium that has always exited. That is the most obvious distinction between my so called model and BBT, the beginning.
That start in point in BBT is described is an infinitely dense point in space before space or time existed. Here is just one website, http://www.big-bang-theory.com/, but there are many links to BBT that describe the infinitely dense point in space that the theory invokes. My so called model does not invoke any condition in nature that can be described as an infinitely dense point with zero volume, and in fact, instead it invokes a natural finite limit to energy density as part of the invariant natural laws of the universe. That limit is what is reached at the instant of the big bang; I refer to the critical capacity of a big crunch as nature's maximum density limit.
Being impartial, doesn't the idea of preconditions to the big bang in my so called model seem more rational? Doesn't an infinitely dense, zero volume point space seem like an over shoot of reversing the observed expansion?
This short discussion brings us to another important distinction; preconditions. BBT has no preconditions unless you want to wax theoretical about infinite density. I don't, but I don't mind waxing hypothetically about preconditions to the big bang, and so I do.
(11372)