ivylove

The earth's moon is visible pretty much nearly every month of the earth year.

Using a space station orbital radius of 6.771 x 10^6 m and 2 km/month orbital decay, the free fall rate of the international space station would be approximately 0.00027 mph. Also, it should be: "If it was the centripetal force that was causing the weightlessness of the 50 kg astronaut then the angular velocity would be constant"

Jupiter is in opposition on May 9, 2018 and on October 9 2018 after the earth propagates the distance of the earth's orbital diameter in a six month time period Jupiter does not appear in the night sky (http://www.seasky.org/ goto "site map" --> calendar of events).

Using a space station orbital radius of 4.04 x 10^5 m and 2 km/month orbital decay, the free fall rate of the international space station would be approximately 0.00027 mph. Also, it should be: "If it was the centripetal force that was causing the weightlessness of the 50 kg astronaut then the angular velocity would be constant"

In replay to Post 3:30 Firday---------If it was the centripetal force that was causing the weightlessness of the 50 kg astronaut then the motion would be constant yet if one were to accelerate the said astronaut toward Jupiter or Uranus, to five mph, you would find that the astronaut would in fact propagate towards either stellar bodies. Moreover, if it was the centripetal force that was causing the weightlessness it would be extremely difficult to move in the opposite direction as the direction of the centripetal motion since the centripetal force would form a particular equilibrium that would be altered by the described astronaut propagating in the direction that opposes the centripetal velocity yet Kathleen Rubins Astronaut is shown moving in random directions in the international space station and not sticking to the sides of the space stationary when propagating in the opposite direction of the centripetal motion. Also, I read another post where the Newton's constant was being described but I must inform you that it was a typographic mistake and should read 6.67 x 10^11 which I believe if the reader would have worked backward would have certainly deduce using inductive reasoning that the describe value was a typographic error not an error of judgement. Also, there is a post regarding the measurement of Cavendish's experiment where a 2 microgram mass can be measured using a long pole which I certainly cannot understand. Would you explain this extremely important scientific discovery. I will be waiting in utter anticipation waiting for your paper or any link to this magnificent achievement that has up until now been concealed. "The ISS is in a state of continuous free-fall." What is This? I this statement a joke? (since someone brought up the centripetal force)

At the position of L the dark side of the earth is not facing Jupiter (Huygens' figure is found by searching Huygens--Gutenberg); consequently, only during the day when the earth is at the position L, after a six month time interval, is the earth facing Jupiter since the earth's orbital diameter KL is used by Huygens to measure the velocity of light. Normally astronomers view the stellar universe during the night since the intensity of the sun prevents the formation of the image of a star or of a planet such as Jupiter and Io a moon of Jupiter. One should try it an take a telescope an attempt to view Jupiter or Io during the day an it would not be possible to view these entities because of the intensity of the Sun. At position K, Jupiter is at its initial position that Huygens is describing with K and after a six month time interval we can assume that Jupiter only moves a small distance of its orbit since a year of Jupiter is equivalent to 11 earth years (transformation of time based on the different orbital times); therefore, after the earth propagates to the position L described by Huygens the person observing Jupiter would have to be viewing Jupiter during the day but as I have described earlier one cannot use a astronomic telescope during the day which proves Huygens' measurement of the velocity of light is physically invalid. I hope that this has been informative to you for your future endeavors into astronomer which I highly recommend.

Also, Newton's gravity equation is applied to an astronaut that has a mass of 50 kg in the space station that is 249 miles (400,727 m) from the surface of the earth (r = 6.371 x 10^6 m + .4 x 10^6 m = 6.771 x 10^6 m) forming a gravitational force using Newton's equation of: F = G m1 m2/r^2 = (.6 x 10^-11) (50) (6 x 10^24) / (6.771 x 10^6) = 438.4 N or 44.7 kg According to Newton's gravity equation, a 50 ky astronaut forms a 44.7 kg force that is pointing in the direction of the earth yet an astronaut in the international space station is weightless which proves Newton gravity equation is physically invalid. Can anyone see this?

check wiki under "Cavendish" and look for 2 micrograms or the force.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14725/14725-h/14725-h.htm press OK then--------> read on line

Newton's gravity equation is represented as: F = G m1 m2 / r^2 Cavendish experiment is used to justify Newton's gravity equation by calculating the value of Newton's constant G but Cavendish's experimental apparatus uses two lead spheres m1 = .73 kg and m2 = 158 kg separated by the distance of .23 meters that produces a force of 1.74 x 10^-7 N or 2 micrograms yet the measurement uncertainty in 1787 was one milligram. Can anyone explain what is going on?

Schrodinger wave function is representing a massless electric wave "The wave-function physical means and determines a continuous distribution of electricity in space, the fluctuation of which determine the radiation by laws of ordinary electrodynamics." (Schrodinger, Abstract). which is a fact and Planck's energy element (hv) represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon which is another fact. Therefore, using Planck's energy element (hv) to represent the energy of an atomic electron is physically invalid since the energy of an electron is dependent on the kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2) if I am not mistaken. Quantum mechanics produces a structural and energy catastrophe.

but we were in the middle of a discussion

Does anyone know how to unlock a topic? There must be some form of appeal process? In all fairness that is. In the section quantum physics under the topic "atomic orbitals" I believe that I was arbitrarily lock out.

A quick response to post #49: to the quote "Seem to me that you are arguing that if something has a mass, it should not be with a wave equation". This quote is a complete and utter deception since water has a mass and can be represented with a wave equation. The essence of my statement is that an entity that has a mass such as an electron or a proton cannot be represented with an electric field by leaving out that Schrodinger is representing an electron with electric field with the above statement is unethical and patently unfair. The next is regarding the quote by the author of post #49 "So I challenge you to explain how a signal propagation delay works without Maxwell". First, I sincerely urge you to enunciate your statement with a bit more clarity since it is difficult for me to interpret the exact meaning of your statement if care is not exhibited in the construction of the wording. Henceforth, I will attempt to interpret the meaning of your statement with: So I challenge you to explain how an electromagnetic radio wave propagates without Maxwell's theory via Maxwell's electromagnetic field. First, I do have an explanation (I will present it in the long version of the response to this post) but even if I did not it is worthy and moral not to knowingly present false theories that are based on contradictions to explain something that physicists cannot explain which is being done regarding Maxwell's theory and the formation and propagation of radio waves. Why cannot physicists say that they do not know? Because if they were on the right path they would figure it out and since they are not they pretend to be by adamantly supporting Maxwell's theory in almost total conditioned blindness to the facts. Physics is extremely important to society as a whole since the advances of physics bring prosperity to civilization. We have been living off the laurels of the past physical achievements. Normally, failure of the society creates the changes that advances the society (dark ages) since the financial and social humiliation of people who are in control of the structure of physics and filter to the government which also extends to the moral and ethical parts of society brings inspiration (sun is the center of the solar system) but in this case an monumental effect my have been constructed before the said failure has occurred which is unprecedented. We should feel hopeful and celebratory for this extremely important fact that is achieved out of the normal order presented and controled by God. He must be a person that looks at the whole of society even the Arabs would probably agree maybe not.

Please wait your turn.

#34 You state that "Massless particles are not part of the system under discussion." but representing an electron that has a mass with an electric field is the foundation of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics began with Lenard's photoelectric effect that proves light is composed of particles; Newton's prism that produced a optical spectrum also proved light is composed of particles which conflicts with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field since as a light beam propagates the optic particles that compose a light beam form spaces between optic particle that distances between optic particles increases which would eliminate the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field but more importantly to the discussion of quantum mechanics as an electromagnetic field propagates an electromagnetic field expands! This expansion catastrophe can also be applied to an electron when the electron is represented with an electric wave because ultimately the expanding electric field would eliminate the particle structure of an electron. Because of this you strenuously insist on focusing on Schrodinger's wave equation regardless of the facts presented but Schrodinger did not derive the ostensible equation known as Schrodinger's wave equation in his celebrated 1926 paper. Schrodinger derives a wave function that is used to represent an electric wave which represents the extremely important and malicious structural unification of an electron that has a mass with a massless electric field and may be the reason for your collective and continuous reluctance to accept Schrodinger's wave function and to concentrate on Schrodinger's wave equation that is representing the structure and mass of an electron but doing so represents a myoptic view of reality. In addition, an electric field that is represented with Schrodinger's electric wave does not physically exist since between the boundaries of an electric wave there are an infinite number of positions. When each position is represented with an electric field vector (energy) and infinite energy is formed which proves Schrodinger's electric wave does not physically exist. Furthermore, the energy of an electron is represented with the kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2) which conflicts with the energy of Schrodinger's electric wave that is represented with Planck's energy element (hv). Moreover, Planck's energy element is representing the energy of an electromagnetic photon emitted by the blackbody yet quantum mechanics is based on Planck's blackbody derivation. Plus, quantum mechanics also uses the gauge which is based on Maxwell's equations. To be continued of Post #34.

#32 Schrodinger did not derive the equation depicted as "Schrodinger's equation". Schrodinger derives a wave function in section 8. An unknown physicist derived the modern physics version of Schrodinger's equation. - (h^2/2m) delta" Y(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z) +V(x,y,z)Y(x,y,z) = EY(x,y,z)..................1 Schrodinger's wave function is a solution to Schrodinger equation (equ 1) Y = sum c u exp[(2piEt/h + a)i].........................................................................2 In post #37 I have posted Schrodinger's description of the structural unification of an electron with an electron electric wave that is depicted by Schrodinger's wave function; also, Schrodinger's wave equation contains the variable of the electron mass (m). Schrodinger is representing the structure of an electron that has a mass with a massless electric wave in the derivation of the wave function using Schrodinger wave equation; consequently, Schrodinger is attempting to avoid this malfeasance of physical reality by not directly deriving Schrodinger's equation that is the origination of the wave function which represents the structural unification of an electron with an electric field. Schrodinger skillfully presents all the components for the derivation of Schrodinger's wave equation but Schrodinger does not acturally derive Schrodinger's equation. Next, you suggest that there are more then one kind of mass but the mass being represented in Schrodinger's paper is the mass of an electron that forms a kinetic energy which conflicts with the quantum mechanic energies represented with Planck's energy element (hv). Next your post describes a probability yet Schrodinger (1926) does not mention a probability in his paper. Schrodinger represents an electron electric wave with the wave function which is not an electron position probability that is used in modern physics and being used to replaces Schrodinger's electric wave because of the mass catastrophe. Represent the structure of an electron that has a mass with a massless electric wave is a physical catastrophe. In addition, Schrodinger uses a Hamilton operator in his paper but a Hamiltonian is used in classical mechanics; consequently, using a Hamiltonian suggests that an electron's energy is being represented with the kinetic energy but the result of quantum mechanics is a wave function that is represented with an electric wave or electron probability wave that energies are represented with Planck's energy element (hv) but the energy of a electron is dependent on the kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2). Also, the equations of the atomic orbitals are some of the most important equations of modern physics yet the original derivation of the equations of the atomic orbital is not available. Can you explain what is going on?

#30 Your statement is suggesting that Dirac's equations solve the mass problem of Schrodinger's massless electric wave that is used to represent the structure of an electron that has a mass. Dirac's equations are based on Maxwell's theory that is founded on Faraday's induction effect yet induction is represented with a massless electromagnetic field that cannot be used to represent the structure of an electron that has a mass. Basically, the same problem that exists in quantum mechanics regarding the mass exists with Dirac's equations which appear to be a scientific regurgitation of Schrodinger's wave equation. In addition, an electromagnetic field does not physically exist since a finite volume that contains an electromagnetic field represents an infinite number of positions; when an infinite number of positions is represented with an electromagnetic field vector (energy) an energy divergence is produced. The ether, composed of matter, limits the number of positions producing a finite energy but the ether unfortunately does not physically exist (vacuum). Furthermore, an electromagnetic field expands as time increases; consequently, a electric field that is used to represent the structure of an electron cannot maintain a particle structure as time increase yet Thompson experiment proves an electron has a discrete particle structure which conflicts with the continuous and dispersing structure of an electromagnetic field. Also, you indicate relativity as part of Dirac's equations to justify the electron em mass problem which I am assuming that you are referring to Lorentz and Einstein transformations that are based on the constant magnitude of the earth's tangential velocity vector px first introduced by Lorentz (1899) but as time increases the earth's tangential velocity vectory px (Lorentz, Sec. 3) is not constant and varies from 462 m/s to 30,462 (6:00 pm - 12:00 am) which proves Lorentz-Einstein relativity is also physically invalid and cannot be used to justify quantum mechanics. Also, Lorentz (Lorentz, Sec 9) and Einstein (1917) (Einstein, Sec. 15) are justifying the existence of Fresnel's ostensible optical ether, composed of matter (solid, liquid or gas), to address the energy divergence problem of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that I have patently elaborated on in this post yet the optical ether composed of matter clearly does not physically exist (vacuum) which prove Maxwell's electric field that is used to represent the structure of a quantum mechanic electron via Schrodinger's wave function that represents an electric wave is physically invalid. Do you agree?

#29 You have stated that Schrodinger is not representing an electron's structure that has a mass with a massless electric wave of the wave function but quantum mechanics is based on de Broglie's electron wave. Furthermore, Schrodinger is stating that he is in fact equating the structure of an electron with an electric wave: "The theory is reported in the following pages is based on the very interesting and fundamental research of L. Broglie' on what we call "phase waves" and thought to be associated with the motion of material points, especially the motion of electron or proton. The point of view taken here, which was first publish is a series of German papers, is rather that material points consist of, or are nothing but, wave systems. This extreme conception may be wrong, indeed it does not offer as yet the slightest explanation of why only such wave systems seem to be realized in nature as correspond to mass-points of definite mass and charge. On the other hand the opposite point of view, which neglects altogether the waves discovered by L. de Broglie and only treats the motion of the material points, has led to such grave difficulties in the theory of atomic mechanics and after century-long development and refinement that it seems not only not dangerous but even desirable, for a time at least, to lay an exaggerated stress on its counterpart. In doing this we must of course realise that a through correlation of all features of physical phenomena can probably be afforded only by harmonic union of these two extremes." (Schrodinger, p. 1049-50). Schrodinger's statement "a through correlation of all features of physical phenomena can probably be afforded only by harmonic union of these two extremes" suggests that Schrodinger's is representing the structure of an electron that has a mass with the wave function.

#28 The prediction that a massless electric field cannot be used to represent the structure of an electron that has a mass is patently false. Also, electric and magnetic fields do not physically exist since a field is associated with matter. Example, a finite volume that contains the ostensible electromagnetic field represents an infinite number of positions. When each position is represented with an electromagnetic field (energy) vector an energy divergence is formed. The ether particles limit the number of positions forming a finite energy but the ether, composed of matter, does not physically exist which proves Maxwell's electromagnetic theory that quantum mechanics is essentially defending is physically invalid.

First Schrodinger does not derive or represent "Schrodinger's wave equation" in his 1926 paper; Schrodinger depicted a wave function that represents an electric wave that has a constant maximum amplitude. Furthermore, Schrodinger, Bohn nor Heisenberg derived the equations of the atomic orbitals. At some later time, an extremely inconsequential unknown person derived the equations of the atomic orbitals since none of the said participants would knowingly transgress the original de Broglie matter wave structure (which the atomic orbital structures violate) that is one of the founding principles of quantum mechanics.

Representing an electron that has a mass with a massless electric field does not physically work.

In his paper, there is no mention of a probability of location of an electron or atomic orbitals. The wave function that represents an electric wave is being used to represent the structure of an electron that energy is being depicted with Planck's energy element (hv) but an electric field expands as time increase; therefore, a massless electric field cannot be used to represent the particle structure of an electron that has a mass. Einstein (1917) energy equation E = mc^2 is used to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic field with the inertial mass (m) but E represents the energy of a massless electromagnetic wave. Furthermore, the formation of Planck's electromagnetic photon is based on a diathermic medium (ether) yet the blackbody radiation effect forms in vacuum that is void of matter which proves Planck's derivation of the energy element (hv) that is used in the depiction of Schrodinger's atomic electric wave's energies is physically invalid. Modern physicists including Einstein (1910) use Maxwell's electromagnetic field to represent an electromagnetic ether but an electromagnetic field that is propagating at the velocity of light conflicts with Fresnel's ether that remains stationary after the light wave propagates through the ether which is additional proof that Planck's energy element that is used by Schrodinger is physically invalid.

Is there not a problem when a massless electromagnetic field of the wave function or conjugate complex is used to represent the structure of a H atom that has a mass.

Roemer (1678) is stating that he did not obtain the time required in measuring the velocity of light nor are there any calculation regarding the velocity of light in his paper; therefore, do you agree that Roemer did not measure the velocity of light? __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Huygens uses the earth orbital diameter KL to measure the velocity of light but after the earth propagates to the position L after six months the dark side of the earth (night) is not facing Jupiter; consequently, do you not agree that it is physically not possible to measure the velocity of light using Huygens' method?