Alias Moniker

Inversely Proportional Nesting Doll Systems 1. All physical systems are composed of Energy and Matter. Energy and Matter form stable, proportional systems that have Mass. Mass is the combination of Energy and Matter. Without Energy, Matter does not have Mass, and without Matter, Energy does not have Mass. Matter = tm (system's total mass) - em (system's energy mass [force, acceleration, potential and kinetic]). Energy and Matter are always attracted to each other (strong force) but repel themselves (weak force). The 'isolation' state of energy is C and the 'isolation' state of Matter is 'zero point energy' or 'rest mass'. 2. Physical systems are formed as individual particles of Energy and Matter begin to approximate to each other's "velocities" from their 'isolation' states. First Energy attracts Matter and forms a Matter system, then the more massive Matter System attracts Energy and creates an Energy System, then that Energy System attracts Matter and creates a Matter System, then that Matter System attracts Energy... Subsequently, new Physical Systems will be produced two ways 2A. Subsystems may combine within a system to create new Subsystems. 2B. The further approximation of velocities of Energy to Matter creates new Physical Systems (magnitudes). 3. Physical systems can exist within Physical systems. When they do, the relationship of Matter to Energy in the Mass of a system is inversely proportional to the systems that it contains and the system that it is contained within. For example, an Atom and a Solar System are both stable physical systems. In the Atomic System, the Energy content of the system orbits the Matter content of the system (Energetic Electrons orbiting Material Nucleus), creating a Physical System, an Atom. Inversely, in the Solar System, the Matter of the system orbits the Energy of the system (Material Planets orbiting Plasma (low matter Star), creating a Physical System, a Solar System. There are many Atoms in the Atomic System, these are sub-systems and their relationships to each other are not inverse. Without the Atomic System, the Solar System would not be possible, so we say that the Atomic System contains the Solar System; this relationship is inverse (the Atomic System does not directly contain the Solar System but they are an uneven distance from each other in the alternating magnitudes of Systems.) 3A. The order of Physical Systems from least massive to most massive might be: Quantum Magnitude / Energy contains Matter - (unknown) Nuclear Magnitude / Matter contains Energy (Nucleus) Atomic Magnitude / Energy contains Matter - Electron orbits Nucleus (Atom) Compounds Magnitude / Matter Contains Energy - (Molecules and Compounds) Inorganic Compounds Organic Compounds Massive Bodies - Solids, Liquids and Gasses Large Massive Bodies - Asteroids, Planets Star Magnitude / Energy contains Matter - Electromagnetic Field contains Plasma (Star) Solar Magnitude / Matter contains Energy - Matter Planets orbit Energy (mass but not Matter) Star (Solar System) Galaxy Magnitude / Energy contains Matter - .... contains Solar System (Galaxy) Universe Magnitude - unknown Nebula Magnitude - unknown The ratio for the growth of these systems might be 1.6180339887 or linked to ∏, since most systems have Matter or Energy circling the other in an orbit. So then, Plasma is a mass of overwhelmingly Energy without Matter (hence how quickly a star dies if its core turns to Iron). While "Black Holes" are 'mass' that is overwhelmingly Matter without Energy (hence their dramatic effects on Light, "C"). The life span for a black hole is the time that it takes for the smallest piece of matter to attract the energy mass by volume at the rate of absolute gravity that it requires to gain enough energy to break the barrier of not having mass and have mass (electron/quark/etc). 3B. More than one system can exist within a system. Co-systems within a system will not be inversely related to each other, only to the system they are contained within and the systems they contain. An example of this is the many similar Nucleus Co-systems (Hydrogen, Helium, etc) within the Nuclear System, and the many Molecules and Compounds within the Compound System. The interactions of co-systems will be determined by energy and matter contents of each system and especially whether Matter or Energy is in "orbit", or "containing", the other. 4. Energy Charge (+/-) is an effect of a physical system containing slightly more or less energy than is orbiting the system. For example, the Nucleus of an Atom is a system, where Matter contains Energy. This nucleus contains more energy than it is being orbited by (no electron), so it has a + energy charge. The amount of Matter in the system is proportional to the amount of Energy in the system, but the amount of Energy IN the system is more than the amount of energy orbiting the system, so any Nucleus alone has a + charge. This + charge attracts electrons, and they get as close to the Nucleus as they can get while still repelling against each other. If the packet sizes of electrons allows for equivalent energy between the Core and the Shell of the system, the system will be neutral. When the packet sizes of the electron do not allow for the energy in orbit to equal the energy in the core (the total energy of the previous system), the system becomes + or - charged. What type of "charge" or "current" (electromagnetic, electricity, potential and kinetic energy, horsepower, joules, newtons, etc) depends on the physical properties of the system that contains the energy. So while energy will travel at "C" when it is isolated, if energy is in a physical system it must behave according to the properties of that physical system. The properties of energy remain the same, but the system it is in define its ultimate behavior. The properties of a System, or Mass, are a factor of the Matter to Energy relationship in the Mass, dependent on properties of all of the Systems of Matter and Energy within the Mass. Why do Protons and Neutrons have different masses? 1.67262E-27 kg Mass of Proton 1.67493E-27 kg Mass of Neutron 2.30557E-30 kg Difference in Mass between Proton and Neutron. What could amount for this? 9.10938E-31 kg Mass of an Electron. The Electron is from the Quantum Magnitude. For our measurements to be accurate in the Nuclear Magnitude, which we're working, we need to "convert" the Mass of the Electron in the Quantum Magnitude to the Mass of the Electron in the Nuclear Magnitude, so that we are considering the Proton, Neutron and Electron all in the same magnitude. We do this by applying the inverse proportion of the golden ratio to the Mass of the Electron in the Nuclear Magnitude. 5.62991E-31 kg - The Mass of the Electron in the Nuclear Magnitude. How many Electrons would fit into the difference between a Neutron and Proton? 4.095224815 Electrons fit into the difference between a Neutron and Proton. 2970.957432 Electrons fit into a Proton 2975.052656 Electrons fit into a Neutron

There are a lot of well known thought experiments to explain the effects of time dilation in special relativity. One person remains on Earth, the other person travels in a rocket shit at near C. After 5 of the light years, the rocket ship returns to Earth and the other person has aged 105 +/- years. If both of those people were physicists, which one would have the accurate data? More applicably, let's say a physicist on Earth and a physicists on the ISS both observe the same astronomical event and we're going to use one result as the new "standard" for a system of measurement. The physicist on the ISS is experiencing time more slowly and because of the accuracy of time keeping and the distances of an astronomical event and the two observers from one another, we could assume a noticeable difference in their results. Which results would be considered "accurate" by the scientific body?

For example, a Hydrogen atom has the smallest nucleus and so the orbit of its electron should have a smaller circumference, but this does not conclude anything absolute about the speed of that electron compared to the speed of an electron orbiting in the 3rd or 4th shell of a much larger nucleus.

Cool. Does the photon have a "wavelength" in "empty space" or does it exist there as "energy particle"?

From suns the "photons" spread in all directions from different points of origin in space. The sun is a sphere and it's entire surface emits the photons so they are not all emitting from the same point. How does this effect things? Do we agree that at all times, between the Sun and the Earth, there are photons?

We can't see light in space because there is nothing for light to illuminate. But is there still an electromagnetic wave between the Earth and Sun or does this disturbance happen because of atmosphere? If we looked at a cross cut of the space between the Sun and the Earth with an infrared or other light spectrum camera, would we see the electromagnetic waves of any light spectrum? Is space empty, or is space a "sea of photons"? Seemingly infinite stars are emitting seemingly infinite photons into space, seemingly infinitely. Space is dark because there is not a lot in space for photons to interact with, but whenever something is in space for photons to interact with, we find that photons are there. Does this mean that space is an "ocean of photons"? Does this hold with the theory of mass energy equivalence that all matter is just "slowed" or "condensed" or "less energetic" energy??

The idea is that at absolute zero a particle would be without motion. But we try these experiments on a planet that's in motion in space time. Since we are in motion, a particle that is "not in motion" relative to us is not the same thing as a particle that is "not in motion" relative to space time. So is absolute zero more than a temperature barrier? It is also about overcoming the motion of the particle through space time? Even if we could find out what zero motion is relative to the moving universe, would we still need to find out how to stop that particle's motion through time?

And is that the same result that you get when you use 299,792,458 m/s instead of C?

I mean, can you substitute C for V1 or V2? Can you do this math for "C", or do you have to use 299,792,458 m/s?

What frame is C in again?

Turns out, you think the ability to do something mathematically means that it is ALWAYS POSSIBLE in reality.

I'm traveling 1 m/s. You're traveling 2 m/s. Relative to me, your speed is +1 m/s. The speed of light is always constant in a vacuum, regardless of the velocity of the observer. I'm traveling at 1 m/s C is traveling at C Relative to me, C is traveling at C. I'm traveling 299,792,457 m/s. C is traveling at C Relative to me C is traveling at C. That is what a "constant speed, regardless of the velocity of the observer" would look like. If you assign a number to speed, then what you see is, I'm traveling at 0 m/s C is traveling at 299,792,458 Relative to me, C is traveling at 299,792,458 But I'm traveling at 299,792,457 C is traveling at 299,792,458 Relative to me, C = 1 That is not a "constant speed, regardless of the velocity of the observer". C is not a "speed".

If I'm traveling 299,792,457 m/s, then relative to me, $c$ would only be +1 m/s. But according to special relativity, $c$ should be a constant velocity relative to me, no matter what velocity I'm traveling, as long as my velocity is not $c$. From Wiki: The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light source. Indicating that C is not a constant value TO me, but that it is a constant value RELATIVE to me. That no matter what speed I'm traveling, C is always a constant value (+298,792,458) RELATIVE to my velocity. As long as my velocity is not $c$. So that would mean, that even if I'm traveling at 299,792,457 m/s, relative to me, $c$ should still be a value that is constantly greater to me if I'm traveling 299,792,457 m/s as it is to me when I'm traveling at 0 m/s. C = V + 299,792,458 m/s.

I have a theory that explains all how all particles and forces can be unified as manifestations of a single, fundamental entity. Posing some logical conclusions from the statements of mass-energy equivalence and special relativity: Please read and attempt to understand the entire concept before arguing against any individual point of the concept. Thank you. E=m$c$2. The logical conclusion to this statement, what it "should" mean in real life, is: Energy is mass moving at $c$2. The "speed" of energy is $c$2. Understanding that this is a completely illogical statement, it does seem to be logically explained by special relativity. The logical conclusions to special relativity suggest some very interesting "new" concepts. Special relativity states: * The speed of light in a vacuum is always $c$, regardless of the velocity of the observer. * The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. These two statements that we know as "special relativity" indicate that $c$ (speed of light) does not follow the same laws of physics as the observer (anything which is not traveling at $c$). * The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. * The observer is (anything that never travels at the velocity $c$). * The laws of physics are the same for (anything that never travels at the velocity $c$). * The laws of physics are not the same for anything that does travel at the velocity $c$. Special Relativity also indicates that any experiments regarding the "speed of light" that are not conducted in a vacuum will not allow for a "proper" velocity of $c$. The laws of physics are the same for anything not traveling $c$, and because they are the same for anything not traveling $c$, we are able to transform the perspective of anything not traveling $c$, into the perspective of any other thing not traveling $c$, regardless of the velocities that each thing not traveling $c$ is traveling. The laws of physics are not the same for any observer as they are for $c$. That is why we are not able to transform the perspective of $c$ to the perspective of anything not traveling $c$, or the other way around. If the laws of physics were the same for us as they are for $c$, we would be able to travel $c$. It is light's different laws of physics, in its different universe, that allow it to travel at $c$, while here in our universe, without the laws that make it possible, we can never travel at $c$. $c$ and "observers", which can never travel in uniform motion, are prevented from traveling in uniform motion by the different laws of physics that apply to each of them. Namely, $c$ exists without time, so the entire concept of "motion" is different if you can't move from moment to moment, as well as from space to space. This is also why it's not possible for $c$ to have an "inertial frame of reference", or for $c$ to have "inertia". Where $c$ exists, there is no time, so there is no change, so there is no resistance to change. The physics concept of inertia is inapplicable to $c$ because $c$ is not governed by time. Philosophically speaking, the two statements of Special Relativity could be said as: $c$ is constantly different from everything else. Everything else is relatively the same. If our reality were an experiment, light would be the "constant" in the experiment. Why is this meaningful? Physicists would say that this only prevents us from applying physics to $c$'s perspective, which is meaningless anyway; and then to understand $c$, physicists applies physics to $c$ that don't govern $c$, the physics of anything not traveling at $c$. Other observer's have a different perspective of the same physics, which allows us to transform our perspective into any other observer's perspective; because we're using the same physics. If $c$ had a different perspective of our physics, then we would be able to transform our perspective into $c$'s perspective using our physics, the way we can with anything else that has a different perspective of our physics. Since $c$ has a different set of physics, our definition of "perspective" can't be applied to $c$, so there can be no transforming between perspectives because only one "perspective" exists. Transforming perspectives between two observers is like two people who speak different languages agreeing on a single word for a color. Applying the perspective (or frame) of an observer to $c$ (or vice versa) is like asking two people who speak different languages to agree on a single word for a color when one of them is blind and mute and the other one is deaf and illiterate. It explains the dual nature of light, being both particle and wave. Distinguishable from one another and yet the same thing. The photon exists outside of time in a parallel universe, while the wave "co-exists" in time, in our universe. More accurately, $c$ is a cause, and $c$ causes a disturbance, and the disturbance is an electromagnetic wave. Assume for a moment that time truly does not exist to the photon ($c$). We can't even say that it's "instantaneous" because an instant is a unit of time, and time doesn't exist. A photon ($c$) isn't created on the surface of the sun, it's created in a parallel universe. In that universe there is no time. If time does not exist in $c$'s universe, when $c$ is created, it must come into existence already existing at every infinite point in space between, and including, its point of origin and its destination. There is no time, so $c$ can't travel from one location to the other, so it will just have to "be there". Strictly speaking, $c$ isn't a "speed", it only appears that way in our universe where there is time. The "passing" of this "particle" ($c$) through space, but not through time, causes a sort of friction between space and time, a disturbance that manifests in our universe as the electromagnetic wave "light" (not "strictly" = $c$), which we measure and predict according to our laws of physics because it exists in our universe, unlike it's photon/particle/$c$ counterpart. This disturbance, the electromagnetic wave "light", (not $c$) which unfolds in our reality, does not unfold according to the physics of $c$, the photon has already existed and is now gone, but according to the physics of our universe. What we observe in our reality is more like time catching up to the passing of the photon (or, catching up to the passing of 'whatever causes the disturbance that we observe as the electromagnetic wave, or, catching up to $c$). After the photon (the cause) is gone, the electromagnetic wave begins to ripple through space but now, this understanding of "light" (which does not strictly travel at $c$) is under the influence of time (because it does not strictly travel at $c$), which means it can't exist at two points simultaneously and instead it has to travel, much unlike it's photon ($c$) counterpart. So it's important to distinguish that when our physics predict "light" (not strictly $c$) it is only predicting "half of the total light phenomena", the half that exists in our universe and which is consistent with our laws of physics, known as the electromagnetic wave "light". Which is not strictly $c$. Trying to understand $c$ by observing electromagnetic wave "light" is similar to trying to understand the cause "lightning" by observing its "disturbance", thunder; where in both cases, $c$ and lightning, energy creates a wave form disturbance in a medium. Lightning creates the disturbance thunder in the medium of atmosphere, photon ($c$) creates electromagnetic wave (not strictly $c$) disturbance in the medium of "space time", or "time", or "our physical universe where time exists". It would then be more accurate to say that $c$ is the "speed" of "time" (or the speed at which one escapes time), and $c$2 is the "speed of light" (or the speed of the pure energy "photon"). Theoretically, there could be one single photon in the photon's universe creating all of the electromagnetic wave disturbance light in all of our existence throughout all of our time. If you want to abandon the "photon theory of light", then this disturbance could also be explained by "quantum tunneling". The electron that is lost from its atom in the sun travels immediately through a wormhole to the atom that would absorb the loose energy. In theory, it wouldn't be necessary to "accelerate" a particle to $c$. In theory, removing a particle's "matter based mass" would achieve the same effect of $c$. "Matter based mass" is not the mass that can be added in the form of stored energy. In theory, time is a property of "matter based mass" that does not apply to pure energy. Time is a necessary force for matter to decay. Time is not necessary if you're not matter. This is a lecture by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Special Relativity and Light are talked about, starting at around 10 minutes. Really the whole video and series is great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUCBxS0_194&list=PLdgNN42xmuhmr7rrFRb8hWNrcd2gGW6Qc "The best understanding we have is that it [light] is a disturbance in the electromagnetic fields of charged bodies." http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q212.html This is a link to the most recent report I could find for experiments attempting to observe or measure a photon without destroying it. http://www.livescience.com/41465-photons-seen-without-being-destroyed.html "The photon didn't interact with the atom directly, but it did alter the atom's phase — the timing of its resonance with the cavity. The scientists could use the difference between the superposition state — when the atom is in two states at once — and the atom's measured phase to calculate whether or not the photon entered the cavity. In that way they "saw" the photon without destroying it, without touching it." The title is misleading because this 2013 report concludes that the most advanced experiments to observe and measure a photon only observe how the photon interacts with other things, not the photon itself. Measuring and observing and predicting the impact that something has is not the same as measuring and observing and predicting the thing itself, even if your results are consistent and sensible.

None of you read or attempted to understand the entire post.