lemur

IMO, national identity is false-consciousness with instrumental effects/functions. When a government allows people to buy "investor citizenship," that is pretty transparently a kind of pyramid-scheme where you give other people money in exchange for the hope of winning money as a result. Still, ethnic nationalism allows for a similar type of pyramid-scheming in the form of tourism or sojourning. People are given temporary "citizenship" in the form of a visa or other residence permit, usually on the condition that they have sufficient money to pay their own way, then either their ability to make money is restricted or a general culture exists that "foreigners" should not 'take' jobs from "true citizens." This way, permanent citizens monopolize or at least maximize income-producing positions while tourism and other "foreign investments" are used to bolster GDP and thus create more jobs and higher income for citizens. Personally I think governments should PREVENT exploitation of people on the basis of (non)citizenship but they often promote it.

So there's no way to test Newton's equation to see if it's correct? You just axiomatically assume that satellite orbital speed is determined by mass and distance and then attribute mass on that basis? Also, how is it even possible to measure the circumference of Venus or the altitude of something orbiting it?

Nationalism is a form of "ethnicism," the same as racism. Nevertheless, it continues to be an institutionally legitimated form of ethnicism, unlike racism. Multiple citizenship has the benefit of expanding one's sense of national belonging but the detriment is that multiple governments may saddle individuals with multiple sets of expectations, such as taxes. IMO, national governments should be less possessive and behave as regional governments for the individuals living within the region at the time of representation. This doesn't mean they shouldn't take into account interests of other individuals globally who maintain a sense of connection with previous regions. It just means that national citizenship currently places too much emphasis on rights of birth and restricted naturalization.

Ah yes, the path of least resistance. It's not just humans that do this. It transcends species boundaries and even non-living things follow the same logic. Why would anyone choose a path that requires greater effort than the minimum?

The basic issue with LSD or any other mind-altering substance is why you would introduce it into a good-functioning nervous system? Your nervous system is basically capable of experiencing all possible configurations of impressions in any combinations if you allow it. LSD may somehow facilitate letting go of cognitive order but why shouldn't you be able to achieve the same effect with cognitive discipline?

What I mean is that if the only data you have is the acceleration of gravity, then Newton's equation determines the mass of the Earth. If there's no other method for assessing the Earth's mass, then Newton's equation is determinant, right or wrong. Same thing with any other planet and Kepler's equations. You just assume you know the mass of Venus because of its orbit and you assume you know its distance from the sun due to its orbital period as well.

So what you're saying is that light on the way to an object is already adding to the gravitation of the field it is passing through (or into)? Still there seems to me to be a difference between gravity added to a system by light passing through it and gravity added because the light got absorbed and not re-emitted. If, for example, a black hole consumes a great deal of light and then emits a gravity wave, this process seems different to me than if light would hit a star or planet and re-emit.

Doesn't the photon getting absorbed ADD energy to the system? Yes, I know that E=MC^2 equates energy and mass. What I'm trying to discuss with this thread is HOW, in terms of mechanisms, energy could become converted into matter, or rather force. Then the question would be how various forms of force emerge and transform into other forms, no?

I can think of at least two choices: 1) reason that history and progress that have occurred under "pseudoscience" are basically functional and good and conclude that the truth should be suppressed as much as possible to ensure the continuation of a 'benevolent' regime of false-consciousness. 2) reason that truth is ultimately a form of power that promotes good and therefore work toward critically exposing mistakes in science, no matter how core/radical, with the faith that the progress that results will make things better than before. Personally, I choose #2 because I can't stand the idea of submitting to authority on the basis of false or arbitrary knowledge that has no other purpose than stabilizing social relation. If Newton invented his theories and equations as a means of passifying those who rebelled against the church by giving them convergent alternative ideas that would provide them with an alternative set of dogma with the same social-control function, for example, I would want to know that. So what exactly grounds measurements of the Earth's mass except Newton's equations and empirical measurements of falling objects? Are there multiple methods of measuring the Earth's mass (some of which not using Newton's equation) so that they can be checked against one another for convergence?

Basically the title explains my question. Apparently the nuclear force holding the protons together in the nucleus is very strong but there must also be some repulsion as a result of the protons having the same (positive) charge. Does the nuclear force render the electrostatic repulsion practically meaningless or does it play some role? Maybe it only emerges during the fission process or when atoms get polarized magnetically? Maybe it regulates fusion in some way?

I know the basics of electron energy states and how photons get absorbed or emitted but thanks for the link because I am still learning the details. What I'm thinking about here, though, is what the possible internal dynamics of how electrons can absorb energy and emit it as EM waves. I know it is practically taboo to in any way think about electrons like planets orbiting a star, but I still think there may be some basis for analogy. E.g. if you would consider the Earth in its current orbit suddenly absorbing a great deal of surrounding matter without that matter adding any directional momentum, for example if a cloud of very dense particulate dust would fall to Earth from all directions adding to its mass significantly, its momentum would increase accordingly due to the increase in gravitational attraction with the sun. This, in turn, would cause it to accelerate and, even if it accelerated at some angle (say, toward Venus), its speed would increase in such a way that it would go into a wider eliptical orbit, which would be unstable because its speed would have increased to maybe that of Venus while the distance of the orbit would be longer and therefore it would be performing more (potential) work (FD) than Venus if Venus had the same mass. Such an orbit could be called, "excited," no? Now, suppose the planets orbited together with a relatively homogenous cloud of dense particles like the one that Earth absorbed to gain the mass in the first place. In that case, the excited, more eccentric shape of Earth's orbit would cause it to "plow through" the dust in such a way that it would push and drag a growing cloud of it around with it. If this dust didn't fall to Earth further adding to its mass and therefore momentum, it could pile up in such a way as to "spill over" into a "wave-cloud" under its own gravitation, which could send it rolling away from Earth at a much higher speed due to the mass of the "wave-cloud" being much less than Earth (like a slow moving bowling ball bumping a helium balloon). The helium balloon, of course, represents the photon, which forms from the "dust," which represents the EM field-force surrounding the electron. The reason I think the electron could be like a black hole, swallowing up incoming photon-energy is because I see the charge-intensity of the electron as analogous to the mass/gravitation of a black hole, where the black hole converts the energy and matter it consumes into gravitation and inertia. So the electron's excitation would be at least partly due to its increasing mass/inertia, which would cause its momentum to increase at its current speed; as well as due to its increased charge-intensity, which would cause its electrostatic attraction to the positively-charged nucleus to increase. Just as a black hole is surrounded by gravitational field-force, the electron is surrounded by EM field-force. So I would think that an accelerating black hole would build up a gravity-wave as its gravitation or that of something else near it was getting blue-shifted to the point of "spilling over" into a wave. Likewise, the electron would build up "blue-shifted" EM field-force. I can't decide if it would be logical that the black hole or electron would lose field-force/mass by emitting the wave, though. On the one hand I think that a black hole can't lose mass/gravitation/energy because it is trapped inside the black hole by its gravity, but on the other hand it seems like the matter-energy it consumes get converted into field-force completely and therefore some could "break away" as a wave-emission, especially since the fixed-quanta of such waves seems to imply that a partial wave would drag additional field-force from the black-hole simply because partial waves aren't possible (some kind of internal cohesion to a force-wave?). I know I sound like a crackpot running with such a relatively ungrounded idea, but I see this as somewhat the privilege of someone with less academic anchoring than a credentialled physicist. I am interested in learning from my logical mistakes and whatever existing knowledge contradicts aspects of my thinking, so I'm happy to get any feedback that clearly shows me specific weaknesses in the way I'm thinking about these fields/forces.

That is an interesting point. It makes me wonder if spacetime regions "expanding" back into each other would in fact appear as >C motion. Obviously that's not possible, but I can imagine that if space/time itself is just the internal dynamics of other force-interactions (nuclear and electromagnetic) within gravity-fields that the merging of the gravity-field-regions themselves would, if anything, result in spacetime contraction that would govern the wavelengths of the light within. Thus if EM waves were contracting faster than what we would call C in a static frame of reference, they would still be moving at C within the frame. Maybe the contraction would only be noticable in the amount of blueshifting of light between objects. Energy might intensify, thus, but there would/could be no overtaking of photons by photons behind them, in the sense that soundwaves can overtake each other when the speed of sound is broken. It's an interesting issue, though, imo. Well, you're right that I'm incapable of knowing; but I CAN hypothesize on the basis of what I know, however little that may be or however flawed my application of my knowledge. Black holes seem, imo, to be gravity-wells in which EM force becomes eclipsed by gravitational force to the point that photons cannot radiate away from the matter that emits them. Since I don't think that volume can exist without electrostatic repulsion between particles, I reason that force and energy must collapse within a black hole to a dimensionless point. Then, I think it all either gets converted into gravitational field-force extending beyond the event horizon OR it must have some way to express itself within that horizon. If it expresses itself within the horizon, I think it may generate spacetime-expansion in a way that does not extend outward. The possibility of this in my thinking is aided by my belief that space/time is a function of force-field intensity differentials rather than it being a container for those fields. Thus, imo, it could be that what we perceive and measure as space/time is in fact just a ratio of nuclear and electromagnetic forces to gravitational-intensity. We could exist as part of a single dimensionless point of convergence between these three (or 4 if you count the weak force) where our perception of gravitational fields as being larger than atoms is due only to the fact that the nuclear and EM fields are relatively stronger and therefore "tighter" relative to the gravity-field "particles" which appear as containers for the "tighter" fields. I know this is sounding crackpottish just because I'm having to write so elaborately to explain it but just try to imagine an extremely dense force-field that begins to differentiate internally into variable intensities of force and how this could either be interpreted as shrinking/contraction of the "tightening" fields OR as expansion of the "loosening" outer field. What if the total amounts of force/energy were not as important as the (changing) ratios of force-field densities? E.g. what if protons, electrons, and photons do not so much consist of fixed amounts of absolute energy as they consist of differentiated ratios of field-force and the ability to interact with each other within "looser" fields? I suppose if I go with this idea of diffentiating ratios of field-force determining the internal mechanics of any given "universe" then energy would be infinite only because it is infinitely divisible into relative multiplicities of particles. I'm not familiar. Maybe you could elaborate it more here to bring the discussion more in that direction. You'd never reach infinity if you assumed that energy quanta were absolute but if they were a function of the ratio between gravity-strength and the strength of other forces, energy would multiply according to how much the differential between the forces grew. Think of it like the energy potential of a thermodynamic system increases as the temperature differential between the hot area and cold area increases.

I know that people talk about universal expansion as the product of spacetime expansion being radically different from the distance between two galaxies increasing simply due to motion. My issue is with the fact that this implies that space/time exists as some actual "fabric" outside of its contents, but I am getting over that by taking gravitational field-force as the "fabric." Still, I think from the perspective of a moving object, there is no observable difference between distance growing due to expansion or motion. How can something cease to be a cause of something else if it caused it at some point in the past? This sounds like a statute of limitations for physical causation. Yes, they are out of reach once they exceed each other's hubble horizon but who can say if there isn't some broader field whose curvature will allow the parted gravitational fields to re-connect at some point? Well, if the universe in fact is expanding from a beginning point "big bang," then it couldn't extend beyond the size-age it has expanded until present, right? But if there is more to the universe than what began expanding at the big bang, it could be infinite, I guess. Is there any way for it to be infinite if it all began with the big bang? I suppose you could look at it as an "aspect of the model." What other method would you have for extrapolating this aspect of the model except by applying logic to it? One problem though, imo, is that saying time actually began at the big bang, that implies that absolutely nothing existed prior to it. So if nothing was somehow suddenly replaced with everything, why shouldn't that everything be infinite? This is all very abstract, imo. To me the issues are what the relationship between forces, different forms of energy, matter, etc. were and how they would have evolved. Circumscribing the totality of "the universe" seems about as relevant to me as counting the number of words in a book and how many times each has been read.

Instead of weighing in on this discussion of canonical social thinkers, I would just like to point out that the application of rationality to economic and other social matters has paradoxically always been used to the pursuit of maximizing the irrational potential of those with social power. So while economic rationality increases power, that power gets appropriated in the pursuit of irrational goals of powerful subjectivity. It would be quite interesting if power was used toward rational ends instead. But who can convince the powerful that it is not rational for them to maximize their freedom to pursue their interests regardless of how rational those interests may be?

But if he had, he would have been correct, wouldn't he have?

what is the difference between recession and motion from the perspective of the objects involved? The part of the black hole where matter-energy goes and doesn't leave. So the whole just magically transcends the sum of the parts? How is gravity negative energy? Gravity is force that accelerates objects centripetally; or you could say it curves spacetime so that objects in motion as a result of their own momentum follow curved trajectories. If gravity cancelled out "positive" energy, then there would be some type of star between an active energy-producing star and a black hole that would just completely disappear due to its energy and gravity annihilating one another. I no longer see the point of this. What does it matter whether matter-energy is infinite or finite? If it was finite instead of infinite, what parameters of a model of the universe would that affect?

Your sarcastic tone is abusive. By implying that he is going again "all science," it's as if he's doing more than just questioning something fundamental. You might as well say that people shouldn't question fundamental bases of science because they're sacred. That's not a very scientific attitude. If you had been working for the church when Galileo was arguing for heliocentric motion, you would have been the one saying, "so, Galileo, go ahead and prove to us how God and the entire bible is wrong."

If Newton's formulas turn out to have been false axioms woven into self-referential empirical validations, I don't think it should be denied. Is the method of measuring the Earth's mass based on circular logic and if not, how?

I was thinking about how energy could become transformed into force and this is what I came up with: Consider a black hole as a pure gravity-emitter. Nevermind for the moment what happens with matter-energy once it falls into the black hole. The point is that when photons enter and get trapped, they must add to the gravitation emitted by the black hole, correct? Therefore, would it make sense to say that photons get converted into gravitation when they enter a black hole? Now could it be that black holes represent one version of a more general phenomenon: i.e. attractive fields that grow by consuming photons (and/or other matter-energy)? So, for example, could it be that an electron or proton consumes photons in the same way a black hole does and converts the energy into field-force? Before throwing this idea out as nonsense, please consider that an electron could lose energy as photon-emissions in a similar way to how a black hole loses mass(gravitational potential) as Hawking radiation and/or gravity waves. The speed at which the body emits a given amount of wave-energy would vary proportionately with its mass, right? So a slightly heavier electron or black-hole would emit more energy in its EM or gravity waves, respectively, due to greater mass and therefore lose the added mass/energy faster as a result. I'm not saying that all the energy that leaves electrons or BHs is taken from the mass/intensity of its field-force. Some of it comes from its kinetic energy (i.e. momentum). I'm just wondering if its mass/energy, momentum-energy, and wave-emissions could all be parts of the energy-balancing process.

How do you know that matter-energy receding away from each other faster than the SOL won't curve around and reappear on new horizons of each other? Not "simply in another universe." I said that the interior of a black hole could generate spacetime-expansion within its contents and that this could appear as a "big bang" of an independent universe from the perspective of an observer within that universe (assuming such an observer could/would be able to observe it). Why does that matter? Which energy? In what context? If the universe is prone to irreversible fragmentation into regions unreachable from one another (as you said earlier), in what sense could energy be infinite? How can gravity and mass cancel each other? Are you just talking about variable in an equation or are you actually proposing that there is some physical mechanism where gravity and mass can cancel each other somehow? How can energy be infinite in any context if it is conserved in every context? Each expression of energy in a physical manifestation is a finite amount of energy. The only way it could be infinite is if it somehow multiplies itself under certain conditions, like if somehow unbeknowst to anyone the sun was multiplying energy and radiating it endlessly. How else could energy be infinite? You can't rely on the whole transcending the parts. If energy is conserved in every observable part of any imaginable universe, how could it be infinite on a grander level?

I use "inertia" because it is the big difference between photons and other particles. Photons can't move at speeds less than C because they don't carry energy as momentum the way particles with mass do. Inertia means a particle can resist force with an equal and opposite reaction. If it gets pushed, it pushes back with equal force. If it gets pulled, it pulls back with equal force. Photons just radiate until they hit something. I don't care what you call it when you discuss these issues other than physics. I think I actually use mathematics but I don't abstract it into equations and variables except as reference for convenience. F=MA, P=MV, etc. conveniently sum up the descriptions of what force and momentum mean, but I think about the relationship between force and momentum intuitively by thinking of a moving object having the potential to exert a certain amount of force over a certain distance as it encounters friction, for example, and this makes me think of work being force exerted over a distance. Sometimes I mix up definitions of things like work and power, but that doesn't really matter because it's not about getting 100% on an exam to me, it's about seeing relationships between physical phenomena that I previously didn't see. Momentum is conserved in a collision, but the energy of one object can be transferred to another in the form of momentum being lost by one and gained by the other. What is wrong with using "express" to describe an object accelerating due to force? Forces are only observable in the behaviors of objects affected by them, which is easiest to describe by saying that the object "expresses" force as acceleration, etc. Why do you have to challenge the use of words because they're maybe unfamiliar to you instead of just understanding what they mean in the context they're used? You can't accept or reject anything scientifically on the basis of appearance. You can reject it because it looks, sounds, or feels like "crackpottery" to you but this is not rigorous. If you want to insist that you are a bona fide scientist and that you don't have time to apply rigor to anything that appears to you as crackpottery, then why not just ignore the post in the first place? Do people really need to hear someone drown out any discussions they're uncomfortable with because they think they're a physics wizard and anything they don't immediately recognize as valid must be crackpottery? I don't have any general defense for crackpottery because it's not all the same thing. My concern is with being able to "pick the trash" of crackpottery for interesting ideas and discussion material without having to listen to rants about the difference between bona fide physics and crackpottery. Who is talking about following or breaking rules? Why can't ideas just be discussed and if part of that discussion is to consider in what ways they are mathematically expressible or not, so be it? The question is why nay-sayers have to try to kill theoretical seeds instead of leaving them for someone who might feel like bothering. Also, why would you think that you can speak for "others" instead of voicing your own opinion and accepting that others may think differently?

That sounds like it could have been written as a joke.

My lay reasoning process is that heat exists as kinetic energy (vibration) of atoms/molecules and/or as EM radiation. So either the conductor has to act like a photon conduit, in a fashion similar to fiber-optic cable OR it has to be able to transfer kinetic energy (vibration) of atoms/molecules very quickly between particles. Since good conductors seem to have the general trait of having a lot of (loose) electrons surrounding them, which seems to allow the electrons to conduct waves of electrical energy easily; I would guess it's the same "looseness" that allows the nuclei to vibrate more easily. What I don't get is why vibration of the inner core transfers through the particle-chain without transforming into an electrical current. Someone told me that this is because of the nature/size of the wave. I believe they said that waves of electricity are much smaller than waves of heat through the conductor. I would guess, then, that the reason the electric current can result in heat is because the waves get so strong that their energy extends their amplitude more than their frequency/length, and this causes the cores of the atoms to vibrate. Again, though, this is lay extrapolation from multiple sources.

I think a good way to look at it would be to see the electrons like gaseous particles in the wire which are variously pressurized or depressurized by the negative or positive pole of a magnet, respectively. Then, the de-pressurized area moves like a wave through the conductor, for some reason. I don't get why it would become mobile except that the rest of the wire isn't insulated as much as it is insulated from its surroundings, so the energy has nowhere else to go, really, except down the wire, I think. Coincidentally, I was just trying to read A Survey of Physical Theory by Max Plank and the following quote is from page 5, which seems relevant: Thus, Plank seems to be saying that electrons in a conductor behave like gas particles. Normally, I wouldn't bother typing out a quote like this but I got excited that I just read this and it came up.

This may be controversial to some, but I believe space can best be described as the ability for entities to move relative to each other. In physical matter, I believe this ability is facilitated by different levels of "tightness" of different types of force-fields. E.g. if gravitational force was not weaker/looser than the electrostatic force that keeps the electrons in orbit around the protons, then the atom would not be able to move relative to other atoms. The atoms would be held together as tightly as the electrons are held to the protons. The same could be said of the nuclear force holding the protons together versus the electrostatic force. If the electrons were attracted to the protons as strongly as the protons are attracted to each other, the atom's volume would be no greater than that of its nucleus, right? Based on this reasoning, I believe it makes sense to say that if the universe emerged from an initial singular point, all its forces must have extended concentrically from the same center (this may be a naive assumption, I'm not sure). So space would have begun to exist as the singular point began fragmenting/dividing into multiple points/fields. In that way, the two or more "daughter-singularities" would have been governed by the interactions of force between/among them and would have moved relative to each other according to the amount of freedom afforded them by their weakest attractive force. I suspect no attractive force, including gravity, would have been weak enough at that level of density to permit much if any separation, so I think that energy preceded space. Once the particles moved with enough energy/force/power to work their way beyond their tightest attractive force (strong nuclear?), then I think they would have begun to fission, resulting in more powerful repulsion, which would have eventually allowed them to divide their electrostatic field, with gravity remaining between them. The fission, btw, would have resulted in two distinct nuclei repelling away from each other within a common electrostatic field at first, I think. This is a fairly naive picture based on the logic of decreasing force-strength. Maybe there are reasons why the forces would behave differently at extreme pressure/density or why some wouldn't even be present or different ones altogether would have dominated. I am interested to hear what is blatantly wrong with this idea, since I have been told it differs from standard ideas about the big bang. Thanks in advance for constructive criticism instead of sweeping insults of crackpottery just because I dare to apply amateur understanding of physics to such a popular hotly contested topic as the initial moments of the big bang.