Subject: The Archer becomes the Arrow Mon May 16, 2011 3:18 pm
When an archer aims his arrow to just let it fly, there really is no right or wrong way for the bow to bend or the arrow to fly. If an electron or photon goes unobserved, it can be in multiple places at once, so why cannot the mind?
http://dailyzen.com/zen/zen_reading1105.asp
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:18 am
but does a photon have mass?
thats the bit that intrigues me without mass it could not be effected by gravity
as for bent space that would bend the laws of gravity with the space so it would not effect the photon
~sagitaire
Mayflow Starfleet Commander
Posts : 341 Join date : 2009-05-20
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:44 am
AS far as I think at present, a photon at rest would not have mass, but I am not sure a photon at rest would any longer even exist. A photon has spin and velocity and as I presently think this creates something like a virtual mass that gravity can act upon.
Now, that said. Gravity may not be an actual force at all. It may be a side effect of dark matter and energy.
Last edited by Mayflow on Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:00 am; edited 1 time in total
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:59 am
you two are my dream-team empiricists ....
\!! for massive support:
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:31 am
Mayflow wrote:
AS far as I think at present, a photon at rest would not have mass, but I am not sure a photon at rest would any longer even exist. A photon has spin and velocity and as I presently think this creates something like a virtual mass that gravity can act upon.
Now, that said. Gravity may not be an actual force at all. It may be a side effect of dark matter and energy.
Before a photon is emitted from an atom, it is moving at the velocity of the atom. If that atom is at rest then the photon is too; albeit contained by the atom in a form which is perhaps not entirely photon, but then what is it?
After the photon collides with a black object it probably disintegrates into heat or radiation, which is often at rest.
Does a photon have spin itself? Or does a photon consist of energy quanta, each of which has perhaps its own spin?
Electron spin: Are we dealing with two types of phenomena, both of which have been sloppily termed spin? Electron-spin, does not seem to be the same as the angular velocity of the electron...
And while I am throwing big questions at the cosmos, how about this one?
Why did Maxwell conclude that the velocity of light cannot be breached? And how is that affected by the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox? Which; shows that the velocity of light can be breached. Albeit that Penrose seems to think that this event is illusionary.
A bunch of questions still to be asked, Star-Commander...
But I have to take the Newtonian side on things: gravity is a force, dark energy is spin (explained in Newtonian terms, but not by Newton), and dark matter is simply matter that does not give off light.
Mayflow Starfleet Commander
Posts : 341 Join date : 2009-05-20
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:58 pm
A photon is possibly pure energy. Maybe it is not of matter -
I think it seems to come from an electron losing energy and emitting a photon.
An electron absorbing a photon seems to gain energy -
The plots thicken and the particles may be non particles.
Dark energy and matter do not reflect light, neither do they absorb it.
The puzzle gains interest.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:40 am
The problem is that if a photon has no material matter then it violates a number of Newton's laws.
It must have mass (matter) to reflect g=mMG/r^2 if either m or M is zero then there is no gravity
It must have mass to work with f=ma if it has no mass it can cause no force, but there are countless experiments showing that light exhibits a force!
but! if light has mass and we apply it to the Lorentz transformation (relativity) then it has infinite mass as it travels at the velocity of light!
but the lorentz transformation is deeply suspect anyway due to the 'relative mass paradox'
As for dark matter, I don't see how something that is dark can do anything BUT absorb light! It certainly does not emit light, and at that distance reflection is largely lost.
In my solution to Rubin's problem I show that rotation curves of galaxies are caused by binary centers of gravity which then emit stars which spiral away from the center. Its an entirely Newtonian solution. As the stars grow old, they simply die (stop emitting light) and become a halo of dark mass.
Seeing as though I believe i am the first to solve the many-body-problem, then this solution is a consequence of that. Before now, multiple gravitational fields had not been plotted. (Unless it was done elsewhere, without an effective web-presence.)
;-j
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:48 am
any of them just 'quasi' somethings?
\!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:35 am
Quote :
In physics, quasiparticles and collective excitations (which are closely related) are emergent phenomena that occur when a microscopically complicated system such as a solid behaves as
whew!
Wikipedia has descended into something quite tragic. Perhaps its association with wikileaks has leaked itself into it.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:37 am
A photon without mass also violates p=mv
if it has no mass it has no momentum, yet light has been demonstrated to have momentum.
Dark energy is a misnomer. Its really just 'unaccounted for energy'.
But think clearly: the only force that can oppose gravity is spin.
Mayflow Starfleet Commander
Posts : 341 Join date : 2009-05-20
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:00 am
Possibly p = mrelv . This is really not known yet, I don't think. There is much we do not know, which of course is part of the fun and the exploration.
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:42 am
Thank-you greatly, starcommander, that was most helpful.
I am trying to account for all the empirical measurements within relativity, whilst getting rid of the unintuitive philosophy within it, whilst at the same time trying to hold the math together.
One reason for this being that i cannot stomach the notion of space being bent unless it includes the force of gravity being bent with it.
Which leaves a massless photon impossible. As I refuse to budge on Newton, in order for gravitational lensing to bend light, a photon must have mass.
Also, relative mass makes little sense to me. The mass of something is its physicality, and while something may appear (for eg) to be less next something more, its essence remains unchanged.
I am emboldened by solving Rubin's problem and Solar system formation using purely Newtonian concepts (with a little help from Planck).
So as a positivist, I need to be able to program a computer algorithm to demonstrate theory in purely logical terms, so wishy-washy logic will not compute.
For example: if space is contracted and time is contracted by the lorentz transformation to the same degree, then the velocity would be unchanged. And yet relativity wants to reduce velocity with the 'contractions' in proportion to one another. The computer cannot do both contractions and a reduction in velocity, see?
Mayflow Starfleet Commander
Posts : 341 Join date : 2009-05-20
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:05 am
Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:
So as a positivist, I need to be able to program a computer algorithm to demonstrate theory in purely logical terms, so wishy-washy logic will not compute.
All you would be doing is to program a computer to reflect your own ideas of logic. Better to program the computer to think for itself and learn as it does so.
If the computer cannot think somewhat independently, it is just a calculator and nothing more, and that would be a reflection of the programmer's programming based on limited thinking processes.
Without the so called wishy-washy logic, all learnings would cease.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:54 am
Well, yes and no.
More than a calculator as the real-time program reflects real-time iterations. As this software demonstrates: http://download-pc-game.com/solar-system/Creator.htm
The software can crunch massive amounts of math into a visual representation which lets us then actually watch multiple gravitational fields interact with a complexity that a mind + calculator would require several lifetimes to accomplish.
As a conclusion to that study, A solar system can only form from the Sun's binary twin star going nova. Before the computer system it was just assumed that a solar system could form under gravity alone, which would result in a solar system with orbits that often run counter to one another. (or at right angles, and thus no ecliptic plane)
The computer program is not enough on its own, but it offers a much higher degree of clinical precision which rules out counter-logical or contradictory claims which may not be apparent by using the naked brain and a simple calculation device. The event-driver of real-time programming quite transcends linear logic.
But yes, on another level, we can program math that may not be a real representation of the way the world works. Flight-simulators use approximations and certainly do not take into account the individual movements of each molecule, nor do they calculate forces within the molecules such as angular momentum of that molecule.
But if we were to put in two variables, that moved an aircraft up and down, the net result would be no movement of the aircraft, so the real-time computer program can pinpoint these errors, which could easily be unnoticed in pencil-and-paper math, with which we can happily 'calculate' totally illogically and then have it approved by the prof who may be corrupt and thus we get a state of less than progress!
Perhaps we need to distinguish between the mystical process of imagination, (which is certainly superior to mere calculation) and the quagmire of human error, both intentional and accidental. My point being, that if a theory in physics defies programming, then it is false, this does not mean that it is true if it can be programmed!
So when we get two different readings for the mass of the same object at the same time, such that x=2, and x=3 we would have to conclude that 2=3, which shows that such a theory is illogical.
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:55 am
Good and interesting read. I signed up for edex thing. Looks like they have some interesting courses and some kind of cool interactive teaching tools.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:53 am
Quote :
Dan Hooper and his collaborators used more than five years' worth of the cleanest Fermi data to generate a high-resolution map of the gamma-ray excess extending from the center of the galaxy outward at least 10 angular degrees, or 5,000 light-years, in all directions.
reporters! why can they not show the image?
But I have to tut-tut at them, as I have categorically proven that dark matter is nothing mysterious, the peculiarity in the rotation curves of spiral galaxies is entirely due to them being binary systems.
http://flight-light-and-spin.com/dark-matter.htm
Looking at the microscopic while being unable to solve the macroscopic many-body-problem, means that most theorists cannot see the wood for the trees.
then in conjunction with the solution to rotation curves of galaxies being binary systems, one can only conclude :
Dark energy is spin which is the force that ripped apart the singularity at the start of the universe in a uniform manner. Celestial structures being uniform and near-circular in their orbits can not come as a result of a chaotic 'big bang'.
The 'Big Unwind' describes the early stages of the universe as being concentric and uniform.
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:37 am
ping-o!
http://giphy.com/search/hearts-boxcars
\!!
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:20 am
hmm well
I just wanted to point out that i have half solved one of the riddles from earlier.
The lorentz contraction for space and time appear to contract to the same proportion, but time actually contracts more than space which DOES yield a reduction in velocity.
Nonetheless the problem still persists as the formulae for the contractions in space and time are derived from that of velocity.
Can you see the problem here?
To say that there is a reduction in velocity (as a particle approaches the velocity of light) is the same calculation as a reduction in space and a (larger) reduction in velocity.
So because the contractions are derived from the reduction in velocity, they are indeed the same calculation and so cannot be repeated.
Its like calculating an acceleration twice because the formula for acceleration can be expressed in different terms!
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:27 am
The biggest difficulty in seeing the anomalies within relativity are psychological. Most people do not have the courage or self-belief to even try and understand it.
Relativity is a theory which is only 40% complete. Most of it remains contradictory from a huge number of perspectives.
In trying to build a real-time computer algorithm these contradictions become glaringly apparent.
But the real question concerns how it is that if the velocity is reduced (as a particle approaches the velocity of light) then conservation of momentum is seemingly violated.
p=mv
If there is missing velocity, then in order to conserve momentum, it is assumed that mass must increase.
Now I have a better answer! No doubt! I have been over this again and again and again these past couple of weeks.
Can you see it before I give the answer?
This answer fits into a dozen other calculations I have been talking about.
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:13 am
The Lorentz contraction is at odds with the expanding universe.
Relativity predicts that two particles moving away from one another at close to the velocity of light will contract space.
All empirical observations show that space is expanding.
If two distant galaxies are retreating from me, one situated near Scorpio, the other in the opposite direction near Taurus then the space i am in should contract severely.
So we are left with the blatant contradiction that the expanding universe causes the universe to contract.
The expansion causes the galaxies to move away at high velocity, but that high velocity causes the space to contract.
I would like to know if Russian orthodox science, has anything sympathetic to say about relativity?
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: The Archer becomes the Arrow Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:33 am
\!! most interesting thoughts .... is that how magnetism works? orthodoxy in aquarian news rooms?