studiot

You seem to have several versions of the molecule in different pics! So far as I can tell it is a six carbon main chain with two methyl side groups emanating from C3 and C4. In that case the molecule is symmetrical about the C3-C4 bond. Here is a pic of a model of what I mean. The main chain is shown in grey and the side methyls are blue and red.

Hello, Neil and welcome. Don't know anything about your background, but steel also has it's share of problems. I remember a 380 metre viaduct set on twin continuous welded steel girders that the erectors failed to make a proper dimensional weld allowance for. They were 115mm short when the girders reached the far abutment. That would have been a more spectacular failure if I hadn't come up with a solution.

The moderator has already told you that you should not discuss your hypothesis in this thread. Are you asking to be banned? If you really want to discuss your hypothesis why don't you simply start your own thread with the info/postulations that appear in your link? I note you attribute inertia to photons as one of your postulates, I suggest you rethink this as it is one of the known/observed characteristics of photons that they are without inertia.

Yup you should start to teach them 'value' +1

You are much more likely to obtain a (sensible) discussion if you reply to participants in your threads.

Well perhaps the leprachauns have been infilling holes in my yard, but I was thinking more of that famous observation by A. Puddle. "You know this hole exactly fits my shape requirements!" That would certainly be more in line with my yard. The point I was making (indirectly) is that the oft quoted holes move in the opposite direcftion to electrons is bullshit. Holes are vacant levels in a (quantum) energy level spectrum and there whether they are filled or not ( eg by suitable dopants). But they do not actually move, although it is convenient to assign them an effective mass and a mobility coefficient. Pseudo objects? I still don't know. What is an object to be pseudo? We already have pseudo vectors in Physics, which are vectors that swing the other way.

Don't know how many photons the lasers and subsequent collimators / shutters etc were actually delivering so perhaps an increase in brightness. But then again perhaps not because of YaDinghuss' pseudo object shadow effect? +1 for noting the grainyness of pictures.

These are good questions, but I don't wish to go back to that long thread about the definition vision/sight. I can see atoms. I see them all the time. Huge numbers of them. Every time light reflects of something. What I can't do individually is optically resolve an individual atom. I think the picture is similar in that we see some light reflecting off allegedly one atom, but would we not get the same picture if there were exactly two atoms or five or somesuch?

I'm not at all convinced by any comparison between 'shadows' and 'holes'. I think holes in the electronic sense are more akin to holes in the ground. Both types of hole can be there whether they are filled or not. A shadow requires the light and a blocking object. I really don't know what you mean by a 'pseudo object' but I would have thought definition must depend upon what you want it to do?

Both posts, Good discussion in answer. +1

They are? What atoms comprise an ion?

Like your other thread, this one is a curious mixture of fact and fiction. You are clearly able to appreciate facts, both simple and complex and as the above extract shows able to develop good chains of reasoning. But it also shows that you tailor facts to suit your thesis, without consideration for any alternative explanation or reasoning. So in the above paragraph in a discussion of life you observe that other earth like planets are being identified, but omit to note that it is not only the type of planet but its position that permits life to develop. A further unconsidered alternative may be that solar systems develop in the way they do with some terrestrial (=rocky) planets close to the star and other types further out for a good cosmological reason. But back to the atom and space. There is no hard boundary to an atom. Its influence extends indefinitely, albeit more and more diluted by the space and other atoms around it a greater and greater distances. In a crystal the tail off of these influences are called Madelung constants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelung_constant Two kinds of space? An interesting proposition but contrary to current underlying theory that requires homogenity and isotropy, and seems to produce excellent agreement with observation. So it would take some extreme observations to support it. Can I offer one further comment. All our theories and principles are just models, designed to match particular aspects of and observations on reality. As such generally they work well and are subject to review and modification when better obervations arise. No model, however sophisticated, is identical in every way to the real thing - the subject of that model.

I see you Whilst at the same time they usually seem to want to make things needlessly complicated, rather than check their ideas on simple completely known examples first. +1 icarus2 Why do you not want to show how you can compare gravity (positive or negative) with electrostatic effects? If you work it out you can see the differences as well as the similarities. But let us go back to your claim about negative mass. There are two distinct and separate effects of mass in Physics that can be modelled by force. Inertia and gravity. Now the forces are different. Inertia produces a directed line vector - the classic push or pull with a specific point of application and line of action. Gravity produces a distributed force a so called 'body force' So it is easy to see what happens when a body force is applied to a mass with a negative sign. Repulsion. But what happens to a classic line vector force for instance a poke with a stick, which is a contact force? A mass with a positive sign moves in the direction of the poke in response, as it is pushed by the stick But Which way do you think the mass with a negative sign moves in response to such a poke?

Thank you for that link to an interesting photograph. I am not sure exactly what it represents since my onscreen micrometer makes the gap 8mm and the dot 0.75mm The article states a gap of 2mm so that makes the dot about 0.2mm or 2x10-4 m in diameter. A strontium atom is 2.55 x 10-10 m Comments are welcome.

Get a proper medical assessment and particularly get the substance confirmed. Were the fumes from dilute or glacial acid? Note acetic acid is an irritant but not directly poisonous. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-glacial-acetic-acid-4049300

If you haven't come across stomatolites look here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite

1 and 2) Yes we would be more interested if you were prepared to use conventional terminology and not offer in your 'model' assertions of Physics which are demonstrated, at high school level, to be wrong. 3) My heart bleeds! Anyone would think you are the only businessman on the Planet. FYI StudioT is also a business. So What? 4) Typical management-mind speak IOW - It's some on else's fault if it doesn't work, by my glory if someone else makes it work" 5, 6 and 7) I doubt you would be prepared to listen to even a (recent) Nobel Physicist, but here is the index from a book by one such which contains all the equations and references you need. As a matter of interest Frank Wilczek was 'brought up Roman Catholic' and describes in his book his journey to rejection of that Church.

The concept of electrostatic self-energy is the total of electrostatic potential energy possessed by a certain charge Q itself. Since Some charge Q is a set of infinitesimal charges dQ, it involves the existence of electrostatic or electric potential energy among these dQs and is the value of adding up these. The concept of electrostatic self - energy is the same as the concept of gravitational self - energy. Instead of charge, a mass enters, and electrostatic potential energy enters instead of gravitational potential energy. This is complete and utter nonsense. But since you chose to sneer at the rest of my input, even though I was the only one who has not flatly rejected your propositions, I will leave you to work out for yourself the plainly obvious reasons why you can't compare an assemblage of charges to and assemblage of masses.

No problem. The with mass ensures that the second frame is an inertial frame and not, for instance the frame of another photon.

Good question, +1 Personally I don't care whether there is a TOE, any more than I care what clothes you are wearing or if there is a God. I can see the past justification for compact notation and formulae, when paper was scarce and it took significant effort to put writing and images onto it. But, as any Engineer knows, if you have a compact notation for 9 equations and you want to calculate the size and other properties of something, Sure you can write down a compact equation containing it all, but as soon as you want actual numbers to work with you have to write down and work out all 9 equations. There is no short cut.

The point is that clockwise v widdershins is part of a larger fact of life in the Physical universe. You are right about the mirror. Here is an interesting experiment with one. Take a reasonable diameter bolt with a wing nut on it. (I just tried this with an aerial clamp) Hold it out level in front of you. Now take the wing that is on the right and move it over to the left. You should notice that this instruction is incompelte. There are two ways to move it over. After several rotations you should notice that one way makes the wingnut proceed forwards along the bolt. The other way makes it move backwards. That is why we we need our mathematics to distinguish the two directions of rotation, anddirection of travel of the screw forms the definition and distinction of clockwise and widdershins. The choice is purely arbitrary. However I mentioned this is part of a larger class of such phenomena, which are hugely important in Mathematical Physics. Another simple example is that of the area of something. An large number of physical phenomena a related to the line at right angles to the surface. We choose the 'outward pointing normal' by convention as ther is another, equally valid one pointing inwards. Or if you like, pointing outwards on the other side of the surface.

Moving in whose frame of reference? Time 'stands still' for an object moving at lightspeed. That is from the point of view of its own frame of reference This means it takes zero time to get from A to B or that the object is at every point along its track at once. It is only moving relative to another object with mass That is in the frame of reference of the particle with mass.

This is the killer step in the theoretical Physics answer to the original question, to come in the next post in my development. The obvious Physics version of the question is "Why do we want it to be Minkowskian ?" That was Einstein's breakthrough, which preceded Minkowski. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Minkowski was a mathematician. I realise that the OP is wandering between SR, GR, cosmology and even quantum developments, but the basics should come first and the chain of physical reasoning that leads to modern relativity should lead the mathematics, not the other way round.

You have allowed your speculation to run away with you by this stage of your presentation. Are you referring to this? Richard C Tolman : Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology.

Here is some useful information on these formulae. https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/fachabteilungen/abt2/fb-26/ag-262/the-quantum-hall-resistance.html