Stellar Splitting and pairing NEW Black holes foun

More
16 years 2 months ago #15420 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Jim, I'm not avoiding force, I just don't understand it. If a cue ball hits a red ball, then ignoring any energy loss due to deformation, the kinetic energy of the red ball increases and its potential energy decreases. The cue ball loses kinetic energy and its potential energy increases. Neither ball has any change of mass, energy is conserved. When we talk about potential energy, then we are talking about energy of position. A rock on a mountain ledge has potential energy due to the fact that it can fall through an energy gradient. That gradient is what we call the force of gravity. that doesn't explain it, we can use it and name it but that's not really good enough.

Now, with a bec electron we have an energy profile that is "w" shaped. We also have over a tonne of gravitational mass hidden in the middle spike of the "w." My problem at the moment is one of being able to say where the position of e.m energy is. There's two sorts of space here.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 2 months ago #15422 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Sloat, For starters a photon interacts with a proton so the poolball model won't work. The photon is absorbed and whatever happens within the proton is not known at this time but might become clear at some time in the future. Anyway, it is clear from photosynthesis the photon does force stuff in that the process uses a very special size of photon(aka red) to transform CO2&H2O into CH2O&O-Not a simple feat.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 2 months ago #15425 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Jim, accepted wisdom states that the photon is the exchange particle of the electron. You can if you want ,say that it's not that way at all, it's rather an interaction with the proton but you can't simply state that without explanation. You also have to explain how, with a proton/photon interaction, the poolball model doesn't work. Energy is conserved, neither ball gains, or loses mass when they collide.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 2 months ago #15426 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Sloat, I don't mind sticking the electron in the model if that is needed to understand but you must ubderstand that is a model and has nothing to do with real events. It gets to be a problem when the model get a confused with real events and a "we make it fit" process develops in handling data.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 2 months ago #15429 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
First just a quick note to myself to follow up on something. The boys and girls at CERN are intothe idea that all particles are becs. Because they believe that the speed of gravity and of light are the same we have a cosine shaped energy well. But in order to hide gravitational energy we need to pop it into a very thin spike. A quick graph where y = cos (n * the natural log of x ) gives me something that looks as though it fits the bill. Here n is a very large number, the reciprocal of h.

The graph has a bunching of frequencies near zero then the wavelenght becomes larger and larger as x increases. What's odd about it, is that the cosine wave is at a maximum at one. A change in n, doesn't alter that peak at one. The wave propagates very fast at values above one and very slow, in the opposite direction, below one. It looks like that reverse slow wave alters the amplitude of the very dense cluster of frequencies near zero. It doesn't alter them all and I can't see any obvious pattern, they jump about all over the place as the slow wave does its plus and minus routine.

Hi Jim, implicit in what you say, is the notion tht you know what these "real events" are. You may well do but other people believe that they have an interpretation of "real events" that is at least adequate to an understanding of the universe. People are not being deliberately perverse, if you can explain "real events", even if it means that everything once believed gets stood on its head, then people will listen. They might not like it but they will listen, they'll have to. Note that I said stand on its head. We can have a view that is substantially correct but is a case of the tail wagging the dog. I think that that correction, when it comes, will let us move on in physics. The baby will not be thrown out with the bath water, and after a little while of calming ruffled feathers, everyone will be happy until the next crisis.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 2 months ago #20337 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Sloat, I say the model is not a real event. You say the model is a reflection of real events as well as you can determine.(if that is right press 1) A real event is when you unite 4x10E9kg of carbon and ~10E10kg oxygen and get CO2. If you look closely you will observe ~10kg is missing. If you fission ~100kg of uranium about 1kg is gone. Well,you say so what. Well, if E=mc2 is about right and the missing mass is gone to energy while no nucleons are gone then how did they(the protons/neutrons)loose mass? I guess they all lost mass by radiating photons. One cares about missing mass-everyone loves the energy and hates the left over mass. A very high placed science guy says new fission reactors convert all the mass to energy and if so where did the nucleons go?(this guy said this on TV so maybe something got misunderstood) Anyway, I hope these are examples of real events the model overlooks and can be studied.(or press 2 now)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.312 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum