Mike Smith Cosmos

If my memory serves me right , which is highly unlikely at the moment , Hertz discovered them by doing some experiment with Leyden jars or something in one part of the lab. And a spark jumped across a spark gap the other side of the room .( not expected) . He supposed said " what's going on here . Or was that Marconi? I think it was Hertz , that's why radio waves are categorised as say 7.000 MHz namely seven Mega(million ) Hertz or cycles . I don't know , but I think they were contemporaries and lived roughly the same period ? Not sure ? I think Marconi picked up on Hertz 's work . ( guess around 1850 to 1900 time ) I know Maxwell ( not sure on dates though ) did the Maths ( you would have got on well with him ) . I would have been in the labs with Hertz and Marconi. But as you no doubt are fully aware .Maxwell did all the formation of Div, Grad, and Curl. Some nasty maths on electricity and magnetism producing the famous Electro magnetic theory of radio and light waves . Both travelling at 186,000 miles per second ( approx ) . So 3/4 way to moon in a second ! Mike

Well we can do , . Trouble is I do not really know much about that subject. I was just using it as a quick example , of something I had caught my eye , and the flow of conversation seemed to take off with a mind of its own . I am happy to drop the subject right now . Say let's talk About .... The discovery of radio waves by Hertz and Marconi .. How is that ? That surely fits into " What actually is Science " Mike

Yes , but intuitively , I would have thought turbulent air flow , to be very untidy ( don't know because you cannot see it) . The evidence , namely the pictures of the , rucking of the water , are quite the opposite . The edges of the turbulent water , are tidy , prolonged, curvy , almost artistic in their , effect on the water. Eg long fairly straight flowing lines of demarcation .

But that is the Point . It's as if each incremental increase or decrease ' ALL ,' go up or go down' together . 1. Smooth. 2 miniature. 3medium , 4 rough. Very Occasionally 5 very rough. But , I might be deluded. But it would explain this ON. OFF nature which is a distinct characteristic . I cannot say with any certainty , because I have not measured them . BUT They appear , at first glance, to appear , incrementally . " Going from nothing ..to something in a """" quantum """ jump. . Then from something to next largest , by a """"quantum """"" jump to the next size However , I have noticed something else , there is the look of a vibrating string ,in cross section . As if the patch of disturbance is all part of one whole ' patch ' . Not fragmented in any way . Each wave supporting the next . Almost like a traveling wave . Where the end nodes are going around the perimeter , the ' calm ' at the extremity of the patch . This All tallies with my previous observations , " at sea " . Seen from the high cliffs behind Torquay , Going west , a distant view from on high . Quite often . You can see distinct areas of calm , the rest , rough . On or off . It seems as if , it is the air flow that you cannot see , is the source of this . Which is understood . But why the ( On - Off nature ,) that is the interesting bit . The """" quantum """" bit . I am almost frightened to say it but something , sort of happens when blowing bubbles. They either make it into a bubble , or shrink back into a film . Once they go into bubbles , they are complete , but different sizes. Again , incremental . Mike Ps . I will get back to some other examples of scientific development ( like the Brownian - Einstein motion) , however I did not want to leave this wave example hanging. Interesting , many scientific developments, are not sitting at a bench making a descovery ! Not always but often . They are fragmented , trouble driven accidental, contivercial , debated . Dogs getting in the way , Untidy development of new theories.

How can I change my Avatar , ? Because this is what I really look like ? I don't want to look any different . Anyway , you guys are ' prating around ' while I am stretching my brain cells for words ! I think I better find an Avatar of some old ' sage ' with white hair and a long beard . Traipsing about the Countryside ! Hang about , that's what I look like anyway ! Can't win ! Mike

No . I have just wanted to use the word " Quantum " . ( not the couplet ' quantum mechanics' ) , To describe an incremental quantity of a ' value ' which represented a minimum , energy that was required for a change to occur . ( say an increment value of energy transfer ' breeze to water wave ' ) . So in this discussion , I have been featuring wind or breeze blowing against the surface of water , so as to set up small surface waves. As shown in my photographs . I thought it could be used across all values , not just sub atomic values. Thus to go to the next size up of wave , there would be a second incremental change , so a double amount of energy required . In other words I was suggesting there was not a continuous range of wave sizes possible . But I could of course be wrong. I appreciate for this I would need to experiment to prove the values of energy , for each wave size . * I was imagining this had its parralel with the threshold for Laser strike or surface emision of electrons from a metal . However if the use of the word Quantum is not allowable for such activity , then I can speak in terms of descrete minimum values . Or incremental values . Mike * it would seem this has all been previously investigated by others . Unfortunately , the last time I was doing research in my university project. I had to order up physical copies of papers in Plymouth University and look up some research held on CD's .this was long winded and tedious. Like weeks ( during 1980-1990's) . Now apparently KLAYNOS looked it up on the net in 2 minutes. How times have changed . I feel like a Dinosaur.

Bravo ! Yippee ! I might even be vindicated in here somewhere? Mike

You have misinterpreted my reason for bringing this water/ wind mini research into this tread . I intended to introduce a simple science real life observation and development of the genuine , science investigation . This as a live example of doing science . I intended to do this along side past famous examples , like the ' Brownian motion ' by brown and Einstein . Which I have also done . I was going to provide some other examples of a different sort . However if everybody is fed up with it , I can stop. I have just this second captured a picture which seems to endorse what Klaynos is saying . I am near a bridge , and the bridge seems to be funnelling the breeze , this shot shows a funnelling action with appropriate ripples. And across from where the dogs are standing off the opposite bank . This then appears to be the pre bridge funnelling of the wind , with bank effect . So I must say this has been a fair example , though rushed of . DOING SCIENCE . observation , research Literature/ Google by Klaynos . Discussions with colleagues, debate , more research . A first off hypothesis or two . Further cycles of research and experiment observation . ( the wind and canal provide the experiment. I see it as doing science ( all be it ) very quick and unprepared, I accept . But surely science even on a bigger scale is like that . Mike

Humm! I will need to think on that one ? Needless to say , I am by the canal again . The rucks in the water are still there but in different places. Here is an extreme cut off , or cut in ! Mike

Where is the Answer ? There must be some provision somewhere . Where an individual , happens to be at the right place at the right time to see a phenomenon , that nobody else has noticed , as everybody thinks it so trivial as to be totally unimportant . What happens if that individual just by accident happens to be right though ? What can they do ? Because they can't do it alone ? It's no good going back to University , I have done that Three times . Technology seems to overtake the University curriculum. In my sort of subject. By the time I have learned the new developments , more recent research has overtaken , what I studied. Mike

. Well to some people , ( most polls show that over 50% of the current population believe in God ) Also this can be as real , if not more real than anything else . It depends on your own beliefs. If these polls are right , it means that every other person you see walking down the street , believes there is a God. Most of them are not keen of making it public , as they feel they will be badly thought of . particularly in science . However it is a matter of which of the three options I specified previously ' IS '. ....TRUE ...REAL? # NO other intelligent life in the universe .. #OTHER LIFE in Visible Universe .. # LIFE in Invisible Universe.( Spiritual ) I have tried to find out Which of these three is the Truth. They tend to be mutually exclusive . It is a question we can not ignore. It is as important as Global warming, the world economy , Earths resources. Disease. And a host of threats facing human life. The future of Earth as a home to humanity is a Mammoth issue . I think I would be confident in betting my life on Stating one or other of the 3 organisations will take over control of the Earth in the next 50 years . All three have Organisations ( of one sort or another ) . The ODD one out , failing to bring an organisation forward is the one labeled :- quote " 1. 'No organisation' , started the whole ( earth project off ) , so no organisation will return ( to Help sort out) " Unquote That as an option is the worst , that we do not need , As I see no signs whatsoever that we are capable of doing it on our own Mike

But I thought that was what I was doing . By discussing ,and questioning , here on the forum .. And with my Radio amateur friends .. Who walked out on me yesterday when I was attempting to demonstrate quantum behaviour in a dropping yellow water droplet onto black paper from a meter above the cafe table . ( maybe they thought the cafe owners would throw us out ? ) coincidently , one of them was a water behaviour expert . But we never managed to get that far , because they all walked out . ( including the ex NASA chemist ) But of course , I do agree with you . I should research literature , to see if it has already been researched. The trouble is reading all those citations on aX1V is tantamount to a reading nightmare . I need another ' lifetime ' I do love seeing all these activities in nature, though , from a structural and functioning stance . And thinking. About how scientifically it does work ? Hence those people thinking I was going to ' jump' . Mike

.Well maybe that is educational , in its own right ? ( perhaps I should take up ' stamp collecting ! ) perhaps I will not get so cold , wet , and yesterday dangerously near to falling into the canal. A passing couple said " don't do it ! Don't jump! It's never worth it ! " Yes , but what if I just happened to have noticed ' a phenomenon ' that nobody else has noticed . Everybody thinking , " what a pretty view " Mike

Ouch ! How come , you get all the ' browny points ' and I get all the ' telling off ' , when I do all the hard work , trudging around canals looking for real live examples , and looking Into mr Brown , mr Einstein , and all the Wikipedia citations , and just end up getting ' thrashed, ' and not get awarded brownie points for all my hard , wind blown, ( stick my neck out ) , cold labour ? Mike

. Old fashion Science ( " De Rerum Natura " ( On the Nature. Of Things ) LUCRETIUS ) My ' Cuantum ' or discrete , integral , change observation of the demarcation lines on canal and sea water , when apparently roughed up by breeze is none the less still here . Even though it is at the Classical Physics level . So in this case I am referring to it as ' Cwantum ' so as not to be confused with near plank length size atomic Quantum Mechanics . Again I returned to the Canal today and low and behold it was there again ? New picture :- Notice the foreground water is calm , then ( I believe a Cuantum discrete , integral change of breeze to wave energy transfer occurs to the roughened distant water surface. So I have made the observation many many times now. I have made a theoretical , hypothesis , but it is early days yet , I need more experimental observation to take it further . Mike

. Well one supposes , the organisation to return , must by definition to be the one that originated the whole ' earth project ' . That , as far as I can figure out , can be one of three possibilities . 1. No organisation started the whole ( earth project off ) , so no organisation will return . ' God help us ' . Which brings me to 2. A God with a massive group of assistants ( Angels and other beings ) . Started the project off and is set to return during a time of great tribulation Armageddon . Sounds familiar . 3. There is no God and Angels but there is an Other intelligent beings Organisation, in the Universe who started this project Earth off , and could be possibly be encouraged to return ( or will do that anyway ) to help us sort things out . How to deal with this and find out what is going on of the three possible organisations , like the details you ask , then you have options on all three. Again I have thought this through since the 1960's ( that's 55 years or more) , and I have reasoned out the options and what sort of communication is possible . For(1) no communication possible , as nobody started it , so nobody to return or communicate with . So , we are on our own . for (2) well prayer is the recognised way to communicate with God , so I suppose that is a bit of a private thing ? However there is a plus side to this option . That is , the idea of a return , is built into the fabric of the subject. ( .in this case I suppose the organisation is Composed of Angles , spirit beings . For ( 3) now that could be an interesting reasoned speculation . Personally , I think it is either (2) or (3) . Have a go at both is what I say . If what you say about 'things are improving all the time ' . Then great ! Maybe the organisation is working behind the scenes ? Oh by the way , the picture was me and my 30 year old daughter trying ( last year) to find a natives cottage I bought 20-30 years ago , on Grand Canaria ( Canary Islands ) . Planed to retire there , but since changed my mind . We found it , and it is Paradise ( bit hot though ) . Mike

In all seriousness some world influencing organisation needs to do something . In order that this Earth becomes the Paradise it is capable of being . Not this Mike

Quite so : So we see the scientific method becoming a procedure that is followed to this day . ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Observe . Think . Theorise . Or Hypothesise . Construct a model . Experiment .test . Analyse results , conclude . And recycle the whole thing over and over to improve and refine the scientific Theory . Then publicise . ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Is that how you see it Strange ? Mike It is interesting Brown first observed the phenomenon ( 1827?) . Einstein took it on from there ! ( 1905 )

An example of " Doing Science " was a combination of observation and theorising . Both by Robert Brownian who saw particles of Pollen being wobbled by something . Einstein came forward some years later to Theorise this movement to be by very small particles called Atoms , colliding with the pollen grains causing them to jostle about by being continually hit by different moving atoms . This was conducted in a fluid ( gas or liquid ) . This observation and theory of atoms moving about is taught in Schools to this day . Link to Wikipedia :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion Further roots to this sort of approach can go back to LUCRETIUS ( Roman Poet and Philosopher ) In his thoughts back in Roman times . ( 99 BC TO 55 BC. ) He referred to it as " De Rerum Natura " ( On the Nature. Of Things ) Link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius Mike

.. O.k. Well I sort of understand that. And have understood it. But that is really within the confines of Science . Which is of course it emanates from . But I have heard the word 'Quantum , ' used in general society to mean .' Take a quantum step ' or 'quantum leap forward ' as if one took a single step to where you wanted to be. . I appreciate this is a possible ' crib from science ' but is this not accepted by the community at large , as to what ' quantum ' can mean ? Mike . As comments to Swansont This is where definitions come in and meaningful ? Mike

Yes , ok on quantum mechanics , being understood to be the size of atoms and below . But I would like it clear so that I do not make any more mistakes in terminology . I genuinely thought Quantum xxxxxx whatever could be applied to anything ( including an asteroid ) if it was the smallest item that could be used to interact with something else . If this is NOT SO. I need to remove it from my vocabulary . I am happy with quantum mechanics being to do with granular atomic issues . But I am unclear how big it is possible to use the term . Say " in quantum steps " say ? Mike

No. I am not trying / have tried to fight against coming from pure theory . That would be crazy on my part. Of course scientists have come from that direction , and are doing it all the time . What I am fighting for is ' old fashioned ' observation . And the ability to have conversations , about observations , without being ' shot out of the water ' at this early stage. Yes discuss and disagree violently . But not shot out the water. Stone dead ! I have just had such a discussion about the water ripples and smooth and ruffled quoted in this thread , a post or two back. Three engineers , scientists , retired , professionals One of the reactions was similar to AJB' a comments , and in many respects yours . But in arguing the thing out , that quantum can be larger .even to the example of a 4 meter diameter asteroid is the minimum size celestial object to interact mechanically while physically touching the earth. Therefor a Quantum Particle . Could be described in these terms . The ex NASA member reasoned that because of the historical development of science , we have been used to looking at an ever reducing scale such that we go smaller and smaller , which seems to have no end , apart from the Plank length. However as far as I can see from definitions Quantum in language terms can be applied to the Asteroid as it is the sub atomic particles. Two members suggested oil content on the water. I am NOT convinced on that , yet . I will continue to look at this as I have been observing this effect for some 10 years. My use of the word ' guess ' was unfortunate ( mannerism ) . Should have used the phrase ". long observed and reasoned out suggestion for research " . Which I will do , because I am not convinced on this oil small residue idea. I am of the belief that there is a minimum energy produced by breeze so maintain a water wave . As there are minimum energies for lasers, photo electric effect , ionisation etc . Surely the escape velocity of spaceships from earth is a quantum figure . As is that incoming asteroid compared with lesser meteorites . Mike . Now we have .. Underwater branches, Oil content, my quantum of wind . I tried to do an experiment with a falling yellow water single drop onto Black Paper , so as to demonstrate the quantum effect ( crown ) . A few moments ago. In the Cafe we all met in . But they walked out on me ! So ! Mike

. Not sure which bit you are suggesting I research ( investigate ) ? The cloud bit? The gravity bit ? The water roughed into waves bit ? Mind you thinking about it , all three might have a common cause ? Mike Ps interesting that although Maths can be viewed as ' An ' investigation . The definition from Google or some of the others did not mention Maths directly . More " systematically " . Maybe ' Maths ' is only one of many systematical methods of investigation ? Quote " The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world " Here , it is speaking of more general " The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study" . Maths being one of many " intellectual and practical activity " Unquote So an example of science in this context . Could be say ' traipsing, around some rain forest in Borneo looking at what some slithery lizard is doing , and cataloguing it '

Well. It would be really nice if it manages to do that . But that could possibly be its highest goal. In the mean time perhaps little bits , one after another or on parallel as well will take us one step at a time toward " intellectual Activity : and Practical Activity : Systematic Study of the -: Structure :- of the Physical World and Natural World Systematic Study of the -: Behaviour :- of the Physical World and Natural World All this :- By Observation and Experiment. " Mike

Well yes , from that aspect with those predictions I agree. And I suppose as we have researched into areas where we just can not observe . Then you are right. But I would imagine these are more the exception rather than the rule . Certainly , I think most of the discoveries up through the centuries , by the classical scientists , have been observation First. Models and calculation following . I do not know the proportion for quantum and astronomy , then I imagine what You are saying , often occurs. I still think the human mind ( apart from avid mathematicians ) think in pictures and language. So I think even imaginary observations will figure. In my example of the observation of wave formation . The definition of science quoted. " Behaviour :- of the Physical World and Natural World " So the behaviour in the example . This occurred during a period of Breeze to gentle wind . The surface of the water appeared to have 4 states of surface . 1. Smooth 2. Gentle wave at periphery of patch , 3 looked like wave was double the amplitude , 4 large rough amplitude So waves go from smooth (1) by one quantum level of water wave (2) to second quantum level of larger wave . (3) and to highest level wave (4) . Now more observations can be made and calculations made to develop this research . Thus :- quote " Behaviour :- of the Physical World and Natural World " part of science . Mike