DeckerdSmeckerd

There is a level of non-verbal communication that is well known, and many books have been written about human body-language. How important is interactive body language? How much deeper of a human connection exists for a person who often engages in deep enough conversations that the body takes part in it with its own language?

Quantum particles? Quantum thinking? Your mind is in the quantum?

Distracting yourself can work to a degree. There is a search for the final answer, that when realized, will cure the problem. That is ok and turns out the answers are multiple and smaller in scale. You decide you are going to go play Tennis with a friend. You blink away from that cloud you were watching while thinking about the past, and you decide to go for a walk.

Whatever the process is, and it might vary from person to person, it probably ends with acceptance and the decision to move forward.

Me either

For example, you could buy an AI that is an expert on the movie Dune. You could ask it any question and it would always do it's best to have a conversation about Dune and learn from what is told by the user base. It can gather statistics about what the audience thinks and catalog information on the Internet.

Sorry I didn't wrap that in a link. Here it is. I admit I didn't read the rules. Thank you for pointing that out. Easy fix. You are totally right. It wouldn't be called quantum. I can't understand quantum physics through a mathematical understanding. I can only understand a physical substance. This idea wouldn't even be in the scope of that theory, and I can't apply anything from quantum theory to this idea I mentioned even for fun. I don't understand the movement of quantum particles at all. I was speculating in a totally different way, but it only makes sense in quantum physics if quantum particles are what space is.

People love science. It is very interesting. Science might not alternate between mathematical reasoning and physics reasoning. People do the reasoning.

Neither of you need to be worried. Neither of you are fooled by my level of expertise. Is the community less likely to understand that I am just having some fun. I don't mean it as an attack on science. What can be predicted? Will you give an example or two?

I think you can count on Maxwell's equations, but I don't know what they are. I have heard of him. Quantum physics doesn't conflict with proven math does it? That's hard. I hope they will be ok.

That space is not quantum fabric is the normal theory. Space as a quantum fabric of energies and/or substances is only an idea. I can't go so far as to say I have a real theory. I would just prefer to avoid thinking of this thread as a proposal of a Scientific Theory.

In short, you don't believe that quantum physics should be thought of as the fabric of space.

It would not be as simple as a cloud of photons. It would be some quantum phenomenon.

I will look into it. From Google, if it is correct: So to vibrate, an object has to have a force acting on it. This force always acts to push the object back towards its equilibrium position. This is called a restoring force. (The highlighting of the second sentence of the quote was unintentional) Is the idea that a force must act on an object pertaining to discreet objects like particles? If quantum were to be understood as a continuum of energies rather than particles, then the force could act from the ends of the continuum. Forces that act upon a continuum of quantum energies, the fabric of space, cause the vibrations from source to the limit of the range. The vibrations are quantum chain reactions. Quantum physics exists simultaneously with Newtonian physics. It seems natural that things that happen on the larger scale also happen on the quantum level. If a star explodes, the quantum fabric is also changed.

Check out that video. I got the idea from them. A connection exists between quantum and larger scale events. The connection is a chain reaction of events.

Inspired by the YouTube video: Why Is 1/137 One of the Greatest Unsolved Problems In Physics? https://youtu.be/RCSSgxV9qNw?feature=shared Is an electron a container or is it just a cloud of photons? If you are saying an electron emits photons, then are you also saying that an electron is something more than a cloud of photons? If it is a cloud of photons, then depending on how you measure the energy level of the "electron" wouldn't you be measuring the sum energies of the photons or are you saying electrons have more parts than photons? I have not studied these things. Would it be wrong to think of atomic "particles" as containers? If photons move in waves, then what is the wave moving on? Some other energy must be between the waves. A wave is a phenomenon that takes place on something else. Is a photon a vibration? Are we talking about light being a vibration? If light photons are vibrations, then what is quantum physics? Are they the base energies? Not particles that begin and end, but a continuous thing. So are the clouds of photons actually an area of vibrating substances or energies, or the substance of energy? The quantum energy substances are in a little gravity well around the nucleus or proton. Is an electron a gravity well? Maybe not gravity but some resulting force that quantum energy substances pool up in or create and then result in photon waves? I guess this is a Newtonian sort of view to form these questions about quantum physics. Everything is vibrating. Is the number the reoccurrence of a longer-range vibration that encompasses a large region of space? A trained astrophysics expert has to prove or disprove that. That is beyond me. This longer-range vibration affects everything within its range? An "electron" is an idea that contains quantum energy substances that vibrate photons? All the energy is, is vibrations? Everything is vibrating at levels so small that the waves are too small to perceive. The waves are tiny movements. For this to be true, wouldn't there need to be an understanding that whatever the fabric of space is, the vibrations move on that fabric. The fabric is quantum. The shape of the fabric is determined by the energy formations. Things like the density of the energy. When the energy is dense enough it becomes matter or matter is everywhere and the energy shapes the matter.

Nice. What tool is that. I would have to anchor the suns and see the effect on the planets that the two other suns have.

I have learned that there is a difference in the way astronomers and physicists use the word "precession", though I don't quite have my mind wrapped around it in any context. However, since I was more concerned about forces that might not be observable but still be real, maybe it will just be too confusing to talk about this concept. In my hypothetical example, I was just interested in the forces 2-3 stationery gravity wells would have on a normal solar system. Not in any way a realistic scenario though, but Bufofrog said it was important to know where the observer is. It took me a while to understand that this might be the difference I read about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession edit: I didn't understand what Bufofrog meant, and I was about to say I observe the pyramid as if I was sitting on the floor and it was about 6 inches tall with a tiny little solar system at the top with planets swirling around getting closer and then farther from the different gravity wells at the other vertexes. I was trying to understand why that affects their axis, or if it does in that scenario. I need a simple example because a real solar system with all it's moving parts is hard to comprehend all at once, for me.

Let me respond to this part first. I just mean, I acknowledge I am probably not figuring out anything new, so not much to gain from it for those that already know these answers. I am gaining from it more than you, for example. Yes, this would only be a hypothetical configuration to understand how the forces work. If I am understanding barycenter, it would mean the gravity wells are orbiting each other. In these hypotheticals, I was not implying there were other forces at work on the gravity wells, but the star system is still operating normally. From what you say is needed, it makes me wonder, is the degree of precession correlated to the strength of the gravity wells? So, if the gravity wells were very distant and the gravity weaker, it might affect the degree of precession? Well, I have to read some more about precession. If I have the general idea, the wobble is caused because the body in question gets nearer or farther away from a second gravity well. So it gets pulled to a greater or lesser degree by the second well but this affects the axis as well. If we don't observe the axis shifting then we can presume there isn't a second gravity well. Did I say that correctly?

Thanks Janus. I really appreciate everyone's help with this even though there is likely nothing much to gain from this conversation. Maybe I could understand this better if I put forward an example and if you tell me if that causes precession. Suppose I have a star system like ours. Imagine a 2d isosceles right triangle. If the star system was at the right angled corner and there were two equal gravity wells at the angles adjacent to the hypotenuse, close enough to a have a real effect on the star system, would "down" in that case be toward the center point along the hypotenuse and would that cause precession in the star system? Imagine a triangular pyramid where each side is identical. At the top of the pyramid is the star system. The other 3 vertexes at the base each have an equal gravity well. Would "down" be the direction of the center point of the base triangle? Does that cause precession?

For example, if you drew a line along Uranus's rings and equator and did that through one entire revolution of Uranus around the Sun, where is that intersection? (Do I need to explain the orientation of the line in respect to the Sun. I can try to but I don't have the terms.) Maybe it points to something with mass? It is further from the Sun than Saturn is. Saturn's are oriented towards the Sun, I read. (Or perhaps there is something undetected that is closer to Uranus).

I know about the angular momentum theory but what I am saying isn't necessarily counter to that. The reason why is because the same gravity wells might affect the stars and their formation too. IOW, the equator of a star is established by the same reasons.

It doesn't do much good to post a personal pet theory in the YouTube comments section or something like that. I need a professional or to relay it to a professional that can check. The only resistance to this notion is "what gravity?" Yes, I am learning that. However, the establishment already believes there are missing sources of gravity so my notion about planets settling on an orbital plane in relation to secondary gravity wells might be of assistance in that search, or it might reveal something else. So yes, I think you are completely correct about what to compare it to.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is an established scientific theory in the formal sense. Lol. That would be premature at best. So you may call it what you will. Most people seem to prefer factual understanding and might talk theory but seem only to like talking about theory from the establishment. I have come to the conclusion that I need people that prefer unestablished theories but I don't know who they are or where to find them.

Yeah, people reject theories very quickly don't they? Dark matter is a theory. Perhaps, the dark matter will explain things better, once it has been located.