J.C.MacSwell

I read somewhere that thought stopped Einstein in his tracks while crossing a street. Why is it considered negative? Also when Galaxies are moved apart due to the expansion of the universe where does that energy come from? It cannot "simply" be momentum.

That seems at odds with quantum uncertainty. I would have guessed that the chance of absorbtion would peak at certain wavelengths but not go immediately to zero either side.

I apologise. I put "collisions" in quotes to differentiate it from a "true" collision. After reading it I realized it was still ambiguous so I further qualified it. Having already presented my definition of a collision (wrt the opening post) as after coming "in range" I qualified the pond wave molecules as being already "in range". Could I have been more clear? (Absolutely) So I apologise. Note the "true" above in quotes. I'm not sure it isn't true so I put it in quotes.

Is this absolute or decreasing probability?

Didn't mention phases of EM fields, although I know where you misread it. Sorry if I was less than clear. The molecular collisions in water waves? That came from you. My "analogy" referred to the passing right through of the "wave" (in spite of some similarities with collisions the "effect" is otherwise. See the "why doesn't it" part of the opening post. As for feedback on my musings. Suit yourself. Others might like to think outside the box and I do my best to make it clear when I'm doing it so I don't confuse anyone. Apparently in your case I wasn't very sucessful.

Quote: Originally Posted by J.C.MacSwell I would say that the electromagnetic fields of their particles that are sufficiently "in or out of phase" interact after coming "in range". EM fields are only said to have a phase when they are EM waves. But we aren't talking waves here. I'm picturing particles "sufficiently in phase" to make them atoms or electrons or protons etc. or sufficiently out of phase to make them, say, an electron and a photon etc. (not "sufficiently in or out of phase" could be an atom and a neutrino etc.). Quote: 1. Wave interference in a pond where the waves essentially "go through each other and keep moving". I think this is virtually elastic "collisions" of the water molecules (though they are already "in range" prior to the wave). The wave continues but the molecules return to their original positions except for minor (mostly surface) effects. There are no collisions between water molecules in a water wave (excluding breaking waves, of course). Each element of fluid moves up and down only. Thus the disclaimer. Each element of fluid moves up and down only and return to their original positions "ideally" or isentropically. Quote: 2. Gravity: Any possibility (probably not but why not?) that outside of my "in range" there is a small residual (not quite cancelled out) electromagnetic effect that could be the gravitational field? Any thoughts? Don't understand this part. Both 1. and 2. (and to a lesser extent the prior part) were just "thrown out there". The gravity part refers to a possibilty (probably unlikely) that uncharged molecules could attract each other. I think electrostatically may come closer to what I'm picturing but I didn't want to limit it. Any feedback is helpful. __________________ Tom

Thanks, I bookmarked the link.

That's correct. One of the infinite monkeys just wrote a paper on that!

Not sure how this is related but if you "shake" a proton it should send EM similarly to "shaking" an electron. In what way will that "signal" be different? How will an electron know to be attracted and not repelled. I picture it as a spin "combination" but I have no real idea of the "current" (no pun intended) view. I think I'm somewhat mixing up EM with "pure" E or M signals, but my "picture" is fuzzy.

Ahh! As in inverse distance squared. Quantum field theory has some answers, and like you said... more questions.

Gravitational field?

Science books don't say that! I know my post raises that as a question but it's not even a half baked idea. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I try to make it clear when I'm off the beaten path. In fact I suspect it has been ruled out (given certain assumptions), but I've never seen it before. As to the rest of your post no one really knows in non-mathematical terms. I find it interesting how people "picture" subatomic levels.

Thank-you. You caught me thinking a little too "2-D".

What about the protons. Obviously they add momentum. Are they sufficiently shielded by their electrons to not play a part in the interaction (more directly than cancelling out part of their electrons fields while transmitting their momentum also through interactions with their electrons)? I'm thinking in the case of elastic collisions.

I would say that the electromagnetic fields of their particles that are sufficiently "in or out of phase" interact after coming "in range". Good question and would find it interesting how others picture this. Two thoughts come to mind: 1. Wave interference in a pond where the waves essentially "go through each other and keep moving". I think this is virtually elastic "collisions" of the water molecules (though they are already "in range" prior to the wave). The wave continues but the molecules return to their original positions except for minor (mostly surface) effects. 2. Gravity: Any possibility (probably not but why not?) that outside of my "in range" there is a small residual (not quite cancelled out) electromagnetic effect that could be the gravitational field? Any thoughts?

Closer as in : Venus does not look to be much further off the "main" plane of the planets (which I am assuming would be close to Jupiter's plane of orbit) than Earth does, just that it's on the "other side". But it looks like they used Earth's plane of orbit as the baseline. so Venus looks further "off" (which I'm guessing brought about the post/remark about Venus. This made me wonder what plane of rotation the sun itself had. Another thought is: "how about the asteroid belt"?

It looks like Earth is used as the baseline. If Jupiter was used Venus would be closer than what is shown. Question: How does the Sun's rotation line up?

That's not what you said next week!

Don't you do this (immeasurably) every time you move (accelerate, decelerate, change direction)?

Does a "pendulum oscillation" have mass? (no?). Could a pendulum swing at lightspeed in a strong enough gravitational field? (no again?)

Not "just" but in part, the way I perceive it (which is probably wrong). To be more precise (read wrong again) I see it as the rest mass of the object but not of the molecule.