Do you know somthing called water?

Dr Kynes · May 10, 2012

delvite said:
...........................................another answer to the same question ;

I am an Electrical Engineer, BE, and a magnetic system design specialist. We have designed systems since 1991 when our shareholder was the CSIRO. The science of the transformation is not easily understood. The fact is that we have done trials in agriculture and mining. In mining applications we have engineers not believing the results but they have no choice but to buy the units because they clear the pipes. The deal was they pay only if it removes the scale. Within a few months they bought a second unit for a second line because it worked. Removed years of scale build up in a 6 inch underground coal mine pipeline at Mandalong in the Hunter NSW Australia. The fact is the magnetic field must be strong enough and the magnetic profile must be right. The laws of physics used are clear they are related to Lorentz theory. It is all about charged particles moving in magnetic fields. Just like an electric generator. Just like the old style TV or computer screen. Crystals just have to form differently. The difference between strings and balls coming together. The naivety of the so call intellectuals who are not willing to believe their own eyes. Reminds me of when the first positron was discovered. It appeared in an experiment with electrons which are negative. The positron positive charge was considered an error until some more open minded scientist realised that a positron may exist. Magnetic water conditioning works in most situations but it has some limitations controlled by the water chemistry. Certain element combinations are not as effected as others. That is true with all chemistry as not all chemicals react with every known element. There is a limited range of cases for their reactions. The truth about magnetic systems test results is that when scientist do tests on the treated water they are not doing correct tests. They do tests that test for certain reactions that would normally imply a certain substance present not the effect of the magnetic field. So the science being used to contradict the magnetic influences is based on limited scientific practices not real scientific research. They should be trying to work out why some observations do exist rather than saying that sometimes it doesn't work. I bet no one can pass a charged particle straight through any of our magnetic water conditioners without its trajectory being influenced by the magnetic fields. Scientists should realise that science isn't and end. It is a journey.

...................so does ts make no sense?

Yep, still makes no sense. The author makes no attempt to conceal his vested interest in "proving" the "technology" works. His statements include several fundamental errors

1) Lorentz theory: 19th century humbug about a mysterious "Aether" (think The Force) a mystical aura which cannot be perceived by science but surely must exist, because some of my favorite theories are dependent on it's existence
2) Electrical generators do not operate on Lorentz theory. they operate quite normally through the boring old fashioned principles of induction and electromagnetism
3) "old style TVs or computer screens" (Cathode Ray Tubes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube Yes i know, wikipedia, but it is a really good overview) also do not operate under Lorentz's theory (actually, NOTHING works under Lorentz;'s theory, as it was discarded around 1910)
4) None of these things has anything to do with crystals, their formation or how they can be dissolved.

Every now and again somebody digs up some old discarded scientific theory, blows the dust off that turd, and polishes it up real shiney. Then he uses it to flog his latest snakeoil, backed up with a huge supply of sciencey sounding words (cause they used to be real science), real scientists you might even of heard of, and can look up, and a metric ton of scientific journals to reference, secure in the knowledge than none of his potential suckers are gonna read 145 pages of methodology and data sets and probably wont be willing or able to do the research that would uncover the later theory that made the hucksters' doggerel into rubbish (Lorentz was superseded by Einstein's Theory of relativity, and the Quantum Theory revolution)

Doer · May 10, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
If, as most astrophysicists contend, a singularity is formed by the intense gravity of a collapsing star or other massive celestial body (mass) then it stands to reason that the mass will still be present in the center of the event. the event still exerts gravitic forces on nearby bodies, therefore, logically it still has mass. Asserting that mass can somehow be converted into space (of any flavor you wish) while still exerting gravity seems more like sophistry than science. Kip thorne could declare a mathematical proof that the Milky Way's center is filled with nougat and peanuts (a theory supported by several small scale models currently residing in my freezer) and it would make more sense than a space thats not made of space, but rather inter-twining knots of energy that used to be matter before it was transformed into both energy and space which are niether energy, or space. His theories of a "dark side" dimension are similarly unprovable, and will continue to face my personal rejection until i, with my own eyes, see Spock's Beard.

As there is clearly no way to empirically observe a singularity, much less the forces that are operating within it, no-one can make positive factual statements about what they are, or are not. For the casual observer, the science newb, or those without graduate level degrees in the appropriate disciplines (thats about 99% of the population), what some mathematician, physicist or other sliderule jockey claims his mathematical models "prove" regarding a phenomenon so removed from everyday life, and the newtonian universe is frankly irrelevant. We can observe what they do to objects near them, and most people who ask "whats a black hole" really just want to know if the earth is gonna be swallowed up in one when the LHC opens a rift in the brane and headcrabs start spilling out on the streets of geneva.

Instead of just talk they have set out to prove gravity waves compress space. So, just conjecture, Mr. Science, but matter itself seems to be the illusion in Quautum speak. It could all just be Space twisted in other dimensions. In this conjecture, twisted space is Gravity. Matter could be a, flatlander like, intersection of some other form into this dimension. Also, in this conjecture, Dark matter, could be photons trapped in an inetia-less point dimension, and their tiny circle track velocity gives apparent mass. A photon striking a light sail has apparent mass transfer due to velocity alone.

Who really cares what is believed by whom?

Dr Kynes · May 10, 2012

Doer said:
Instead of just talk they have set out to prove gravity waves compress space. So, just conjecture, Mr. Science, but matter itself seems to be the illusion in Quautum speak. It could all just be Space twisted in other dimensions. In this conjecture, twisted space is Gravity. Matter could be a, flatlander like, intersection of some other form into this dimension. Also, in this conjecture, Dark matter, could be photons trapped in an inetia-less point dimension, and their tiny circle track velocity gives apparent mass. A photon striking a light sail has apparent mass transfer due to velocity alone.

Who really cares what is believed by whom?

Not hating bro, but that sounds like sophistry, not science.

Nobody can honestly claim to have proven that gravity can compress or alter space in any way . Gravity can alter the trajectory of photons, as they have mass. Gravity can therefore distort our perception of space. Distorting observations of a phenomenon is not necessarily equivalent to a distortion of the phenomenon itself. The compressed space statements, giant cosmic funnel diagrams and discussions of ants, bowling balls and trampolines are all analogies and similes, attempting to make understandable things and events which are fundamentally removed from any human experience. Grappling with cosmological mindbenders like singularities (note i am using the classical meaning, wherein the singularity is the "object" Black Hole, and the Event Horizon is in fact the actual Horizon of the Event or in layman's terms, the point where normal physical laws stop functioning and the unknowable begins) Anyone who claims to have the facts of singularities all locked up, i got one word for you. Heisenberg.

Quantum theory is fun to talk about, exciting to ponder a pain in the ass to calculate, but fundamentally un-provable. It is also largely irrelevant to the vast majority of the physical universe, and completely meaningless on a human scale. Cern can make all the 75% C protons they want and smash them together like retards in bumper cars, until they all sick up on their shoes, but in the end, the earth still rotates on it's axis, ice is still cold, fire is still hot, and bacon is still nature's perfect food. Until somebody comes up with an experiment that proves the existence of dark matter, parallel dimensions, wormhole travel, artificial gravity, anti-gravity, zero point energy, cold fusion, the easter bunny and Pauly Shore's talent, i'll remain a skeptic. Still it would be nice if a few of these things existed.

mindphuk · May 10, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
Yep, still makes no sense. The author makes no attempt to conceal his vested interest in "proving" the "technology" works. His statements include several fundamental errors

1) Lorentz theory: 19th century humbug about a mysterious "Aether" (think The Force) a mystical aura which cannot be perceived by science but surely must exist, because some of my favorite theories are dependent on it's existence
2) Electrical generators do not operate on Lorentz theory. they operate quite normally through the boring old fashioned principles of induction and electromagnetism
3) "old style TVs or computer screens" (Cathode Ray Tubes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube Yes i know, wikipedia, but it is a really good overview) also do not operate under Lorentz's theory (actually, NOTHING works under Lorentz;'s theory, as it was discarded around 1910)
4) None of these things has anything to do with crystals, their formation or how they can be dissolved.

I actually think he was referring to the Lorentz force, not the ether theory.

Gravity can alter the trajectory of photons, as they have mass.

That's one I have never heard. They can transfer their energy as mass because they have momentum but a photon is massless. This was one of the ways that GR was demonstrated because it was shown that light was affected by strong gravitational fields not because it has mass but because spacetime becomes warped.

Dr Kynes · May 10, 2012

mindphuk said:
I actually think he was referring to the Lorentz force, not the ether theory.

That's one I have never heard. They can transfer their energy as mass because they have momentum but a photon is massless. This was one of the ways that GR was demonstrated because it was shown that light was affected by strong gravitational fields not because it has mass but because spacetime becomes warped.

In Newtonian physics velocity is a multiplier of mass. If photons have a mass of zero, then velocity has nothing to multiply

All the theoreticians i listen to talk about light, and it's constituent photons as either having mass or behaving as if they have mass. In the dynamic of Hawking's strong force/weak force model, to be effected by the weak force, photons should have mass, at least thats the way i read it.

As i said before, Heisenberg. His uncertainty principle makes fools of us all.

mindphuk · May 10, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
In Newtonian physics velocity is a multiplier of mass. If photons have a mass of zero, then velocity has nothing to multiply

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here but velocity is merely speed with a direction vector. It is distance over time. Mass has nothing to do with it.
I will assume for a minute you made a mistake and meant to say momentum. However, we are not talking Newtonian physics and relativistic momentum for massless particles is based on wavelength, or more specifically, h/λ where h=Planck constant.

All the theoreticians i listen to talk about light, and it's constituent photons as either having mass or behaving as if they have mass. In the dynamic of Hawking's strong force/weak force model, to be effected by the weak force, photons should have mass, at least thats the way i read it.

As i said before, Heisenberg. His uncertainty principle makes fools of us all.

I have yet to find any physicist that claims that photons have mass. Now you may have heard something about relativistic mass but that is a term that is often misunderstood. In modern physics, we think of things with mass as those that interact with the Higgs field and those without do not. Photons are not affected by the Higgs field therefore are massless.

Doer · May 10, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
Not hating bro, but that sounds like sophistry, not science.

Nobody can honestly claim to have proven that gravity can compress or alter space in any way . Gravity can alter the trajectory of photons, as they have mass. Gravity can therefore distort our perception of space. Distorting observations of a phenomenon is not necessarily equivalent to a distortion of the phenomenon itself. The compressed space statements, giant cosmic funnel diagrams and discussions of ants, bowling balls and trampolines are all analogies and similes, attempting to make understandable things and events which are fundamentally removed from any human experience. Grappling with cosmological mindbenders like singularities (note i am using the classical meaning, wherein the singularity is the "object" Black Hole, and the Event Horizon is in fact the actual Horizon of the Event or in layman's terms, the point where normal physical laws stop functioning and the unknowable begins) Anyone who claims to have the facts of singularities all locked up, i got one word for you. Heisenberg.

Quantum theory is fun to talk about, exciting to ponder a pain in the ass to calculate, but fundamentally un-provable. It is also largely irrelevant to the vast majority of the physical universe, and completely meaningless on a human scale. Cern can make all the 75% C protons they want and smash them together like retards in bumper cars, until they all sick up on their shoes, but in the end, the earth still rotates on it's axis, ice is still cold, fire is still hot, and bacon is still nature's perfect food. Until somebody comes up with an experiment that proves the existence of dark matter, parallel dimensions, wormhole travel, artificial gravity, anti-gravity, zero point energy, cold fusion, the easter bunny and Pauly Shore's talent, i'll remain a skeptic. Still it would be nice if a few of these things existed.

A hating butt sandwich. I just don't know why you inject the attitude that we are missing something by not agreeing with you. Just stay with Newtonian, huh?
NO.

And you are swerving the facts and adding meaningless analogy. Dude, not hating but....

When did anyone claim they have proved even the existence of gravity waves? They are predicted because Newtonian math breaks down at these dimensions, forces, distances, etc. You involve Heisenberg, but you don't see the implication as I do, it seems. No one is claiming that they have anything locked up, but you by weaving in these admonishments imply you think you possess superior knowledge.

Heisenberg and his colleges, founded the basis of Quantum physics by besting Einstein and Bohr in what has become the Copenhagen Conjecture. That was in 1921. Newtonian is for macro gravity phenomenon. But, we don't know what causes gravity. Mass/Gravity/Weight/Inertia all are part of a self describing circle of questions. No answers. I've written extensively about it, here. Theses ideas of infinitely crushed matter in black holes don't survive any math.

So, read this carefully. Thorne and team are attempting to detect gravity waves from a known system of black holes orbiting each other. If they can detect them it will be meaningful, but, not prove anything. Black Holes Horizons can be seem using graitational lensing. And the orbits of close stars to our galactic core, prove there is a giant gravity well which these star move around at fantastic velocities in very close orbits. We discuss science here.

In my opinion, throw away, stream of consciousness, similes, are distracting and are not useful in discussing science. They also seem to provide quite the smokescreen of the facts of the discussion. Not Hating.

Doer · May 10, 2012

And of course, we know that the Higgs field is a hypothetical construct with no evidence, at all. The Higgs field is an idea. It attempts to explain gravity as a fundamental force. The Higgs boson, has not been found. The Higgs field boson was predicted at an energy range, but, can't be shown to exist there, as yet.

This has lead us to other discussion about the nature of matter, that do not define gravity as a force, but an effect of compressed/displaced Space. The frame drag of the Earth has been measured. Space is being distorted. If space compression from gravity waves can be proven, then I may say, that a good candidate to answer the, Mass/Gravity/Weight/Inertia question circle, is Space itself, condensed, twisted and bound by the 3 fundamental forces to appear Newtonian to us.

Dr Kynes · May 10, 2012

mindphuk said:
Not quite sure what you are trying to say here but velocity is merely speed with a direction vector. It is distance over time. Mass has nothing to do with it.
I will assume for a minute you made a mistake and meant to say momentum. However, we are not talking Newtonian physics and relativistic momentum for massless particles is based on wavelength, or more specifically, h/λ where h=Planck constant.
I have yet to find any physicist that claims that photons have mass. Now you may have heard something about relativistic mass but that is a term that is often misunderstood. In modern physics, we think of things with mass as those that interact with the Higgs field and those without do not. Photons are not affected by the Higgs field therefore are massless.

No mistake bro. force = mass x velocity. that's how objects in motion work. at least in the real world. a 1 ounce lead slug traveling at 2000 feet per second can drop a deer in it's tracks, a feather moving at 2000 feet per second stings, and could break the skin. either I'm missing something in your statement or your missing something in mine. An object with zero mass. regardless of the speed it is traveling should develop a delta force of 0, and 0 divided by anything, even planck's constant is still 0. Unless light now moves at a non constant speed, depending instead on it's wavelength (which is news to me i tell you...) then the delta V force any particular photon delivers should be constant. If the force can be shown to vary at different wavelengths then you have made a sale. If the force does not vary at different wavelengths then once the force is measured or estimated, an estimation of an individual photon's mass could be projected (or if you wish, mass like force that's not exactly mass, but does a decent impression of mass at parties if he gets drunk enough, but no so drunk he takes off his pants) but unfortunately, as i understand it, measuring equipment theoretically sensitive enough to record photon impacts is still decades away at least.

No matter how you slice it, i have the strangest boner right now

I read a couple articles that talked about photons having mass, due to their interaction with gravity, but i dont remember where i read it Mighta been Scientific American, or Omni Maybe i still got the articles someplace.

mindphuk · May 10, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
No mistake bro. force = mass x velocity. that's how objects in motion work. at least in the real world. a 1 ounce lead slug traveling at 2000 feet per second can drop a deer in it's tracks, a feather moving at 2000 feet per second stings, and could break the skin. either I'm missing something in your statement or your missing something in mine.

Yes, I still think you're missing something. You said, " velocity is a multiplier of mass." You did not mention force, you said velocity. As I pointed out, photons although massless have momentum. This is calculated using math and demonstrated using actual experiments. Higher frequency photons are more energetic and therefore have more momentum which is why x-rays are more powerful than visible light. What you seem to be missing the the disconnect between classic Newtonian physics and relativity. If a photon is completely reflected there is no energy transfer unlike a bullet which would give up some of it's momentum as a change in velocity.

I honestly would like you to find those sources where you think someone claimed photons have a nonzero rest mass. I would bet they were referring to relativistic mass which is a different thing entirely or possibly their mass inside of a superconductor.

Here's an excerpt from wikipedia on photons:

The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[SUP][21][/SUP] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.

A massive photon would have other effects as well. Coulomb's law would be modified and the electromagnetic field would have an extra physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive experimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed of light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would cause the presence of an electric field inside a hollow conductor when it is subjected to an external electric field. This thus allows one to test Coulomb's law to very high precision.[SUP][22][/SUP] A null result of such an experiment has set a limit of m ≲ 10[SUP]−14[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2[/SUP].[SUP][23][/SUP]

Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments designed to detect effects caused by the galactic vector potential. Although the galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic field exists on very long length scales, only the magnetic field is observable if the photon is massless. In case of a massive photon, the mass term

would affect the galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound on the photon mass of m < 3×10[SUP]−27[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2[/SUP].[SUP][24][/SUP] The galactic vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque exerted on a magnetized ring.[SUP][25][/SUP] Such methods were used to obtain the sharper upper limit of 10[SUP]−18[/SUP]eV/c[SUP]2[/SUP] (that's m ≤ 0.999889861 zeV/c[SUP]2[/SUP], or 9.99889861×10[SUP]−22[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2[/SUP], the equivalent of 1.07342588×10[SUP]−30[/SUP] atomic mass units) given by the Particle Data Group.[SUP][26][/SUP]
These sharp limits from the non-observation of the effects caused by the galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent.[SUP][27][/SUP] If the photon mass is generated via the Higgs mechanism then the upper limit of m≲10[SUP]−14[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2[/SUP] from the test of Coulomb's law is valid.

Dr Kynes · May 10, 2012

yep mindphuk, in the formula Force = Velocity x Mass, Velocity is the multiplyer of Mass, i guess i just assumed you would assume i meant F=MxV on account of i was talking about objects in motion.

Thats where quantum theory gets me. all the forces i see, recognize and was taught to "understand" back when i was in school seem to be re-defined, using the same language. Course the last time i was in a school, they had just opened up a new Roller Disco in town, and Jimmy Carter was president

"frequency dependence of the speed of light" Does that mean that C is now no longer a constant? WTF?

mindphuk · May 11, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
yep mindphuk, in the formula Force = Velocity x Mass, Velocity is the multiplyer of Mass, i guess i just assumed you would assume i meant F=MxV on account of i was talking about objects in motion.

Thats where quantum theory gets me. all the forces i see, recognize and was taught to "understand" back when i was in school seem to be re-defined, using the same language. Course the last time i was in a school, they had just opened up a new Roller Disco in town, and Jimmy Carter was president

Not redefined so much IMO as more refined. The variables that are added, such as the Lorentz factor do not play a role until certain requirements are met.
Don't forget, even things like static electric and magnetic fields have momentum.

"frequency dependence of the speed of light" Does that mean that C is now no longer a constant? WTF?

They are referring to the previous paragraph's proposed experiment. They are saying IF the photon had nonzero mass, the differences of the speed of light between various frequencies would be a less sensitive measurement than the changes we would see wrt Coulomb's law. Of course since we don't see c change with frequency and Coulomb's law operates as if photons were massless, this supports experimentally that photons do not have mass.

Dr Kynes · May 11, 2012

View attachment 2162513

That clears up that question, but the problem remains. Photons are subect to the effects of gravity, and deliver a force when they strike an object. This places them 2/3 of the way ot being matter, as i see it. Quantum theory, by design, allows for minute forces particles and events well below the threshold of measurement, so why would infinitesimal, sub-unit mass be impossible?

mindphuk · May 11, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
View attachment 2162513

That clears up that question, but the problem remains. Photons are subect to the effects of gravity, and deliver a force when they strike an object. This places them 2/3 of the way ot being matter, as i see it.

AFAIK, neither of those 2 conditions have ever been part of the definition of matter, even in Newtonian physics. You are not free to define matter as you see fit.

Matter is anything that occupies space and has rest mass (or invariant mass). It is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects consist.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Typically, matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass. Mass is said by some to be the amount of matter in an object and volume is the amount of space occupied by an object, but this definition confuses mass and matter, which are not the same.[SUP][3][/SUP] Different fields use the term in different and sometimes incompatible ways; there is no single agreed scientific meaning of the word "matter," even though the term "mass" is better-defined.
Contrary to the previous view that equates mass and matter, a major difficulty in defining matter consists in deciding what forms of energy (all of which have mass) are not matter. In general, massless particles such as photons and gluons are not considered forms of matter, even though when these particles are trapped in systems at rest, they contribute energy and mass to them. For example, almost 99% of the mass of ordinary atomic matter consists of mass associated with the energy contributed by the gluons and the kinetic energy of the quarks which make up nucleons. In this view, most of the mass of ordinary "matter" consists of mass which is not contributed by matter particles.

Yes, we know gravity affects objects with mass but we also know that it curves spacetime so we would EXPECT light to follow the curvature or more precisely the geodesic. We expect a transfer of energy, or as you say, deliver a force, when we examine the equations even for massless photons. Neither of these ideas are unique to matter, only the presence of rest mass is.

Doer · May 11, 2012

And even rest mass is part of the question. We have no way to experiment with gravity outside of the absolute velocity imparted by the Universe. To me rest mass is simply the summation of the local mass orbits of the system. Everything is in motion, there is no "rest." Only relative rest. Matter, Energy, Space and Time. MEST, all one thing?

The only difference, to me, between matter and energy, is that matter displaces or more likely compresses spacetime, But, energy at our flatlander perspective does not. And if energy, in the form of gravity waves, can compress space, then we may make hypothesis that black holes have enough energy to shred matter back into spacetime.

Then we may refine our Big Bang theory to include Spacetime, itself causing the fundamental forces, in the grand unification math.

Dr Kynes · May 11, 2012

"In the case of hydrogen-1, with a single electron and nucleon, the proton is

, or 99.95% of the total atomic mass. All other nuclides (isotopes of hydrogen and all other elements) have more nucleons than electrons, so the fraction of mass taken by the nucleus is closer to 100% for all of these types of atoms, than for hydrogen-1." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#cite_note-5

I dont usually cite wikipedia but i dont have my old textbooks for a proper reference. These statements have been so ubiquitous that they have become a scientific "article of faith" for most of us (non scientist) science nerds. I can tell you this, every physics textbook i ever read declared firmly that "most" or "almost all" of the mass of an atom is contained in the atomic nucleus' protons and nuetrons. This leaves the student (myself) with only one logical conclusion: if almost all of the mass is found in the nucleus, then some small portion of mass must therefore be located in the electron shell. Theres no other place for it to be

If this is incorrect, and has been considered incorrect since the quantum theory re-revolution in the 1930's then high school and college textbooks have been fuckin shit up for decades, or quantum theory is not as nailed down as it's adherents believe.

also thanks guys, i havent worked my brain this hard in years

Dr Kynes · May 11, 2012

Doer said:
And even rest mass is part of the question. We have no way to experiment with gravity outside of the absolute velocity imparted by the Universe. To me rest mass is simply the summation of the local mass orbits of the system. Everything is in motion, there is no "rest." Only relative rest. Matter, Energy, Space and Time. MEST, all one thing?

The only difference, to me, between matter and energy, is that matter displaces or more likely compresses spacetime, But, energy at our flatlander perspective does not. And if energy, in the form of gravity waves, can compress space, then we may make hypothesis that black holes have enough energy to shred matter back into spacetime.

Then we may refine our Big Bang theory to include Spacetime, itself causing the fundamental forces, in the grand unification math.

Whoa there homey!!! start throwin around "MEST" and we gonna have scientologists crawlin through our weed....

Also found in my old science text books was the understanding that there is no matter ever truely at "rest" since it's all being accelerated someplace by gravity, and all our shit has been moving outward since the big bang, thus there is a fundamental inertia to the universe (im still stickin with one, cause "multiverse" just makes my head hurt). This fundamental inertia from a moment and location of initiation, creates the space, and kickstarts time, and releases the basic forces which become matter and energy as we perceive it. If matter and energy are not independant operators within in the framework created by space and time, then they are placed into the realm of the unponderable, since we, most demonstrably must exist solely inside space and time.

I guess thats why most of the exotic theories of quantum physics seem more like religion than science to me. Thats not an accusation, it's just nobody has been able to offer me any explanation that didnt require a huge leap of faith, and great trust in the mathematical theories of the adherents

mindphuk · May 11, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
"In the case of hydrogen-1, with a single electron and nucleon, the proton is

, or 99.95% of the total atomic mass. All other nuclides (isotopes of hydrogen and all other elements) have more nucleons than electrons, so the fraction of mass taken by the nucleus is closer to 100% for all of these types of atoms, than for hydrogen-1." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#cite_note-5

I dont usually cite wikipedia but i dont have my old textbooks for a proper reference. These statements have been so ubiquitous that they have become a scientific "article of faith" for most of us (non scientist) science nerds. I can tell you this, every physics textbook i ever read declared firmly that "most" or "almost all" of the mass of an atom is contained in the atomic nucleus' protons and nuetrons. This leaves the student (myself) with only one logical conclusion: if almost all of the mass is found in the nucleus, then some small portion of mass must therefore be located in the electron shell. Theres no other place for it to be

If this is incorrect, and has been considered incorrect since the quantum theory re-revolution in the 1930's then high school and college textbooks have been fuckin shit up for decades, or quantum theory is not as nailed down as it's adherents believe.

also thanks guys, i havent worked my brain this hard in years

Who is saying this is incorrect? Certainly not quantum mechanics. Electrons are leptons and are part of an atom and thus are considered matter. They also have a nonzero rest mass

"The electron rest mass (symbol: m[SUB]e[/SUB]) is the mass of a stationary electron. It is one of the fundamental constants of physics, and is also very important in chemistry because of its relation to the Avogadro constant. It has a value of about 9.11×10[SUP]−31[/SUP] kilograms or about 5.486×10[SUP]−4[/SUP] atomic mass units, equivalent to an energy of about 8.19×10[SUP]−14[/SUP] joules or about 0.511 megaelectronvolts.[SUP][1][/SUP]"

Doer · May 11, 2012

It's a very interesting discussion and I'm glad you are part of it. There was a split as I mentioned, the Conjecture that there is no way for us to imagine what is in an atom, because we can't think in probability waves and tangled uncertainty. The split is that Bohr diagrams are perfectly suitable for understanding chemistry, from molecular to high energy plasma chemistry. Thus the practical approach, as you have indicated, for most is all there is. The split is between the macro world interactions where durations exist in spacetime and the sub-world where they do not, necessarily. Without durations there can be no causality.

That's the basis for Quantum Physics and we see it's proved in quantum tunneling electron microscopes, for example Quantum String theory is the latest suggested light reading along with the ideas if Leonard Suskind, and Hawking bet winner. But, that was another bet that Kip Thorne won.

I'm very hard pressed to say there is "mass" in the nucleus and perhaps in the magnetic force field called the electron shells by Bohr. We simply don't know what is the constituent called mass. Not a boson, it seems. Now, for the tech of mass, you are absolutely correct in a Newtonian sense.

You can actually count individual electrons and photons, but by their properties alone, after the probability wave collapses and a "particle" emerges from the waveform. It conforms to our Standard Model. But, even that does not prove absolute existence of individual photons as shown by Heisenberg diffraction slit experiments. The photons show up in both places equally. They all go both ways and appear as two slits instead of one with no difference in reflected lumen, for example.

So, after the Conjecture, most of us just go with the tech, continue to smash atoms, craft dandy beam weapons, etc. Live our lives in Relativity. But, reality as we understand it, stops at the electron outer shell. Sure, we can see atoms It just looks like a box of ping pong balls. Ho Hum. But, to even say there is this vast, compared to the center, 3D space, in an atom is just not predicted in quantum math. beyond the shell is quite possibly bound spacetime in other dimensions, compressing spacetime in our dimension and causing apparent mass due to the absolute velocity differences.

Doer · May 11, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
Whoa there homey!!! start throwin around "MEST" and we gonna have scientologists crawlin through our weed....

Also found in my old science text books was the understanding that there is no matter ever truely at "rest" since it's all being accelerated someplace by gravity, and all our shit has been moving outward since the big bang, thus there is a fundamental inertia to the universe (im still stickin with one, cause "multiverse" just makes my head hurt). This fundamental inertia from a moment and location of initiation, creates the space, and kickstarts time, and releases the basic forces which become matter and energy as we perceive it. If matter and energy are not independant operators within in the framework created by space and time, then they are placed into the realm of the unponderable, since we, most demonstrably must exist solely inside space and time.

I guess thats why most of the exotic theories of quantum physics seem more like religion than science to me. Thats not an accusation, it's just nobody has been able to offer me any explanation that didnt require a huge leap of faith, and great trust in the mathematical theories of the adherents

I've never heard much about scientology. MEST is shorthand. I wrote it out. MatterEnergySpaceTime. I don't know why you inject these stink bombs. Before you accused me of sophistry. So, you may be mired in this idea we are trying to convince you of something. There are no explanations being offered, just questions. Do you so like to argue that you have to play the victim? I could care, not one bit less than I do now, what you do or do not believe.

You are very behind in your reading as you have said, that's all there is to it. If you need explanations go join a religion. Math is no religion and is only a tool to help define what we observed. I can't explain the science to you. So, why cast accusations, smears and innuendo about what you clearly don't understand? Do some homework, maybe and then help us think about it?

I do not accept that we live only in time and space, but will not argue that. If that's all there is for you, that's all. Don't dream, at all then? Never had a peak experience where time "stood still"? Every wait for a Doctor and look at your watch. "Only 5 minutes?? It seems like more than that?"

You are not subject to Time. Time does not exist. Durations in spacetime is all there is and the arrow of entropy. It takes a duration to cross spacetime. To cross spacetime requires motion. See? Time is a construct, at tool for the business of civilization.

Do you know somthing called water?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads