Iwonderaboutthings

On another mass and spring example there is a regression performed: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-0/Motion-of-a-Mass-on-a-Spring They use Hook's Law: BUT! in this example on a spring hanging " with no mass connected to it" It states: The spring hangs in a relaxed, un-stretched position. Does the force of gravity 9.8 m/s get deduced???? Does 9.8 m/s have no effect on the spring in this un-stretched position? The experiment is how much force would certain distances become if you " pulled" on this spring at random. Here are the values of this regression analysis: This is only one of them: Amount of Stretch (m)=0.0199 Force on Spring (N) = 4.900 Mass (kg) = 0.500 Now this is the regression analysis: slope = 0.00406 m/N y-intercept = 3.43 x10^-5 (pert near close to 0.000) regression constant = 0.999 Stretch = 0.00406•Force + 3.43x10^-5 In this part here is " Force" the gravity on earth's surface??? 9.8 m/s? On another note here: It seems that the exponent 3.43x10^-5 should be treated as a distance as mass, is this the case? If the force is 9.8 m/s then should the regression constant = 0.999 simply = 10 seconds? Like I said its been some time since I have looked at the basics but it seems as if though this would be the case..But if so, it looks to complicate things in other areas of science much much smaller. I think what I am seeing is that " mass or force" = distance, and time = electricity = frequency, it looks backward the way they are doing it or inversely proportional but proportional to what? 1?? This does not make any sense..

The mass on the spring has nothing to do with electromagnetic oscillations?? Is this because of special relativity and the phenomena of space time, light photons and other quantum mechanical effects? You see this is what I feel confuses many scientist both undergrads and professionals... Our concept of what is what seems to be very very miss-understood or just not explained correctly, what is it then, is this physics? science? What is the point of the mass and spring example then? I was under the presumption that it describes periodic motion as is the popular case... I think really their is a whole new branch of science out there that maybe we are not told about perhaps?? At my level, the basics seem not to make sense anymore with the new current information on science, this is weird.. I think I am going to go back and examine every inch of the basics for now on..

Are motion detectors set at 60 seconds or 1 minute?? This information comes from From: "Properties of Periodic Motion." From the Phsics Classroom: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-0/Properties-of-Periodic-Motion It talks about a mass on a spring bouncing up and down a fixed position, and says that a detector is used to measure the periodic motion of this mass on a spring. What confuses me however are the figures. It states that a detector measures this at 0.60 seconds in the vertical Y direction, it also states this: The small deviation from 2.3 s in the third cycle can be accounted for by the lack of precision in the reading of the graph. Is this small error due to 0.60 seconds as 60 seconds = 1 minute?? Or is it the detector's unpredictable method of calculation? Lets not forget that 0.60 seconds also has many conversions and exponents. 0.60 meter = 6e-16 petameter 0.60 meter = 3.712756412e+34 Planck length THERE IS A VERY IMPORTANT REASON I ASK. From what I gather this experiment seems much like a sinusoidal wave, and from what I also understand these sinusoidal waves have both electro and magnetic properties in the Y and X directions, but also the Z direction from what I gather still not sure though because of the issue with time in general. With this: Does science ever take into accountability that the mass on this spring must also be colliding with 2 invisible barriers, not counting the mass nor the spring itself? The 2 invisible barriers in this case are the masse's minimum and maximum locations, everything else from their becomes inversely proportional. Again: The small deviation from 2.3 s in the third cycle?? It seems this calculation error is trying to resolve 1. I am willing to accept my thinking may be incorrect and would rather be guided by professionals, but it looks like this may be the case of these invisible barriers in this simple mass on a spring example, and of the greater issues with singularities in general. The way I see this is that nothing at-least as a physical object never really moves then due to displacements?? We also rely on a standard unit of measure as the second but how can this be correct as infrequent and frequent motions of any seem to not make any sense when it comes to all the above questions? Again: Does science ever take into accountability that the mass must also be colliding with 2 invisible barriers? The more I learn about simple science the more and more it does not make sense due to the issues of time and space...I read that link many times, and still time seems to be undefined, why use it then>>> ? Why do we need time?????? It seems to be impossible.

Could it be that the system is time itself? " waves" multiples of time looped in a system as one big standing wave that represents 1 for an entire system shared by many observers? Light Cones Describe this with some of these copy and pasted words under "Mathematical construction" ----->And I would really urge to read this area.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone In special relativity, a light cone (or null cone) is the surface describing the temporal evolution of a flash of light in Minkowski spacetime. This can be visualized in 3-space if the two horizontal axes are chosen to be spatial dimensions, while the vertical axis is time. The light cone is constructed as follows. Given an event , the light cone classifies all events in space+time into 5 distinct categories: Events on the future light cone Events on the past light cone Events inside the future light cone All other events are in the (absolute) elsewhere and are those that cannot affect. The above classifications hold true in any frame of reference; that is, an event judged to be in the light cone by one observer, will also be judged to be in the same light cone by all other observers, no matter their frame of reference. This is why the concept is so powerful. Now coming back to my words and reply: Photon Energy Magnetic Waves Particle Waves Double Slit Space Time Curvature These all use some type of partial deferential calculations, they use trigonometry, they use pi ratio, Cartesian space. Does " ordinary science" use these too? From what I know "yes" I just want to make sure here. I really am utterly confused and somehow even discouraged as to what is really what in deciding the correct way to calculate something.. I feel twisted! For examples, aren't waves more " analog than digital." Meaning that waves from what I understand are analog, but QM is more digital " granular" multiples "discrete." But waves do appear to describe some type of hidden energy that travels invisibly through matter.. To add, atomic orbitals and chemistry rely on the h constant's understanding... Coupled with both Physics and QM, I don't see how it is even possible to be able to calculate anything in space in any region of time... I Don't see how it is possible how distance and time are related, they simply are inversion to each like a frequency and a period in time and in that location, but what is the location at in empty space, whom knows at this point... One thing that mesmerizes me is this: If you look at how the inverse square law works, imagine a cube that is being in-larged in all directions, imagine that the cube is thus divided into equal sections and that these section connect to vertices.. While the cube is being stretched out proportionally, the vertices remain still... If you take the " invisible" in -larged cubed and connect all the vertices they resemble a tesseract cube: The interesting part is this: Notice how the 8 corners of this cube's vertices point in angles? I have always pondered on this: Is that a secant line???

I have studied QM for about 2 years now " on the extreme technical side", and am now realizing that many consider QM, as some type of virtual hyper reality in where consciousness " can change " things" for example: Does consciousness really collapse the wave function? Or can simple positive thoughts promote good health, a stress free life and make you just simply feel good? Or maybe QM is just that mind boggling to understand?????? QM seems to describe a digital realm of subjects that almost seems to never end! Terminologies after terminologies just lead to more and more questions not answers. But, doesn't QM deal with: atomic orbitals that answer physical questions? black body radiation? discrete amounts of quantized energy? the energy of a photon?? Somewhere in all this I got lost "really" It seems that we live in 2 separate worlds that at the physical level and QM level seems to clash, but somehow " both" still depend on each other for answers.... In one sense physics has the upper hand, but in the other sense QM has the the upper hand... I know there are scientist out there that may understand this push and pull of both disciplines... I highly doubt that QM is 100% authentic science in not dealing with some type of mystical realm because QM is known to be just that--->mysterious... Perhaps this is a reason for it to be counter intuitive?? Not liked??? To Question Reality then?? Thinking about this though, If QM did not exist, how would it affect physics??

can you show a "simple" numerical example?

Well Lizzie L, you seem to be quite knowledgeable on color, I have read your comments and wanted to ask if you have ever heard of anyone " seeing" mostly light pastel colors on a white peace of paper, in an atmosphere with mid range dim lighting. The room I saw this in had dim lighting, and I am assuming that bounced light beams from all over the room "somehow" made color appear on this white peace of paper. I even confirmed this with some people I knew personally " HOWEVER" The only way you could see the colors is if you focus your attention on a section of this white paper, and after a few seconds, the colors start to form on the paper itself....Surly their has been someone out there whom has stumbled on this too? The colors are light reds, light oranges, and blues... Hymm not at all with UV light, the other day, I tried the technique with plain sun light without a light bulb and I saw colors on the white peace of paper...I need to mention that I used a blanket to cover the window to make the room dim and not so bright trying to balance light at 1/2 its normal brightness in my room, would that be a reason for seeing colors on the white peace of paper?? If this was a legitimate find and the science community was interested in this further, would there be anyway to get this peace of paper inspected on how light reflects off the surface " with my guidance"?

So then, this may be wrong as I may be able to prove that a plain white piece of paper " does" infact reflect color.. "However" light is not entirely placed on the white peace of paper , it seems that the light beams bounce off other objects inside of my room " from the lamp" then "again" bounce off the white peace of paper.. I am baffled on this and have never seen anything like this before.. It also appears to be that a "transmission" is being sent IE from the paper due to it revealing color.. Is this wrong to describe like this? Perhaps maybe the paper itself, IE recycled paper has something to do with this??? The more information I get, the more I will be humbled in sharing how I created this simple experiment, that proves discrepancies with light in general... I also want to ensure that if this is a " true " discovery of mine", that I will have credit and ownership of the find itself and will be added to the list of contributors to science, I may even have a radio interview with a DJ friend of mine to further ground this " maybe" new science discovery by me.. It would be nice to work with scientist here as a group and see what else we can find, and simply have fun in doing so.. As with all things I discover, I always doubt that perhaps maybe some time long ago someone'else maybe made this discovery and maybe did not really think about sharing this with the world of science or simple did not understand about light and frequencies?? whom knows... I would feel very dumb to know that this " paper is showing color" deal was noticed by other artist in their art work too, its confusing! Has anyone here ever heard this before??? I have not and searched for some time now online with no luck. So then, if the paper is not white at all, then what is this??? what is happening then??? Like i said I am quite familiar with light, color and frequencies, but this is really " knocking my head off"

If " a white piece of typing paper" "did" reveal colors of reds, pinks, blues and orange" "WITH WHITE LIGHT ONLY" and people saw this physically on the white typing paper.. WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN??? I know it has something to do with transmission, but remember we are talking about white light from light bulbs and even from the sun with a plain peace of white typing paper... The checkers example of A and B is incredible!

Well, a white sheet of paper really has 2 surfaces,IE front and back, the color I see them is white unless of coarse I paint on it. I am not sure what link this is from here , but it stated something interesting: papers impregnated with a chemical capable of absorbing one or more of the colors of white light. Such chemicals that are capable of selectively absorbing one or more frequency of white light are known as pigments Now, I keep thinking glow in the dark affects with paper but am not sure... thanks for the link I saw some information on specular reflections.. So, say a person paints on a white peace of paper as an expression of art. Are you saying that they are painting in black paint " only ?" You said that white paper " bodies" reflects all the colors in the color spectrum so I assume the colors are predefined " before paint is applied and the art work perceived as color and beauty.." I reasoned this from your reply: mirror reflects in an organised fashion Where is the scientific proof that the peace of paper is " white" ? But how can white be a color then???? That would imply that neither is the black paint either... I believe there is something wrong here...

I don't even know if that termed correctly.. Can a plain piece of " typing" paper " " white paper" held up to a light source reflect visible light frequencies and can these "colors be visually seen by an observer? Ive read: White surfaces are composed of molecules or atoms that don’t absorb any of the visible colors of light. --->"But" those are surfaces not paper, is this correct to compare???

I kinda agree with a reply that states "summarize your ideas" How will your contribution and work add to science discoveries?? It seems you have great insight, but you can't expect anyone to figure out your models without some direction and or explanations in detail and in words... Are you saying that the h constant's value is wrong? Does your model prove this? What do you know about: frequencies and period cycles? can you show a "simple" numerical example?

Wow! this information really helps me understand 3d and ray-tracing much better, I wonder if you can create a realistic scientific experiment as with re-fractional indexes of materials and computerized light beams, but not sure if at all it will be " physically" accurate IE matching the physical world..

Ok thanks

Sensei are you familiar with 3d texture maps in 3d?? You basically get a particle system set up, the one I've used uses flat circles emitting in many directions in the 3d program, then you add this 3d texture map over these particles, " you hook them up in the nodes" and arrange the effects in a 3d space. Would you say that reflections of any kind work similar to this digital set up. Or is that completely not the case.. It would appear that this may be the case since real reflections in the real world are flat at the surface and appear to go through the mirror.. What I see is this particle system emitting a flat 2d surface in the real world and the 3d texture would be the photons bouncing off matter, then we would visually see ourselves and other things in these reflections.. It is hard to place this as an example sorry if that made no sense to you On another note, total internal reflections I assume have light beams coming from the bottom of the water up? And then I assume the top of the water would have different reflections say from the clouds in the sky, IE, water reflects the sky's color on top of the water right? It would then be logical to say both the bottom of the water and the top of the water, then exist in two dimension but converged as 1 and -1??? It kind of reminds me of a secant line...

But it looks like the observer, from the model in the photo, appears to be 1/2 in the middle of " Something" what I don't know, it just says "Hyper Surface of the Present" If that is so, then how can a derived unit " from the past" that calculates backwards be " even thought of?" It would then have to be again: 1/2 of something derived. Is there an animation and or link to see a visual of this please? Thanks ajb

From Wikipedia: In physics, length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length measured by an observer of objects which are traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the observer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction Or perhaps its the grammer ?? IE: traveling ------------>at any non-zero velocity HOW CAN YOU TRAVEL IF YOU HAVE NON ZERO MOTION TO SELECT FROM????? Does velocity also work like a CREDIT CARD??? looks like it to me. Is that the observer at the very end point of this Cone?? Are They: a: laying down b: looking up c: sideways??? Does this also relate to the observer's dreams meaning when they are sleeping with their eyes shut while having dreams.. NOW: If the observer is truly at the center end tip of this cone, then that makes it seem that we all are in a movie theater " sitting down, IE at rest, and watching the same show, dig me??? This looks like Pop Science to me?? Is it?? I am quite familiar with space time and general relativity, however as I have been sharping up on some rough edges I have had, now I am seeing things in a more deductive sense... Zero means undefined any means " more than one" again: look ---> traveling ------------>at any non-zero velocity Quantum Atom Theory States we make reality for every second of time we experience through purely walking around on the world, thus creating new moments in time. Or something to that nature... Anyway, how in the heck can this contraction be a valid case in any direction whats so ever?? Either there needs to be a better " model " of this explanation or I am just out right stupid for not getting the point and will admit it for wasting professional time here...

So the photons in sub-surfaces scattering pass through people in "real life too?" I just want to make sure I cant hear the volume in this video, I checked several times, but I know about this scattering in digital graphics and 3d.. many ways photons can be reflected from material. YES! I kind of thought this was true thanks! I should have remembered about subsurface-scattering! I used to do this all the time and waited loooooooong hours for render time in my 3d scenes! In the case of ---->3d texture maps though, there had to be "some" material nodes that had "TRANSPARENCY" otherwise subsurface scattering and 'GLOBAL ILLUMINATION" IE set lighting to -> digital photons would not really work correctly in the rendered final images " at least with mine" , this is why I question if photons pass through people in real life too as in the 3d set up for 3d mesh models? Having in mind that people's skin has many attributes, shiny and etc,I assume human skin to be a texture that is able to reflect light in its own right..

No, I believe now its the normal that lays in the center of the plane of incidence. It appears flat and has no volume.... Why so?? If that plane of incidence were to spin in place 360 = 1 second rather one cycle, and the surface remain still would this resemble a Praxinoscope? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxinoscope What I am trying to comprehend is the " logic" behind the plane of incidence and its normal in relation to how " humans perceive " light as something that has " form" something that moves in the " real world" IE Buildings, cars, other people, sounds, traffic, people shopping, they are all moving, and light bounces of these things??? BUT Where is the BIG Mirror it all happens in??? Are we all looking at the same surface??? Is this a big mirror out there we have not discovered? Sorry if my questions sound dumb at this point, but I am being honest and sincere about them. Light from what I understand does not refract through humans unless humans are some type of " projection rather holograms?? I am so confused at this point now having frequency = 1 all the time, something does not make sense here. Where then would this incidence plane and normal be located at?? In the center of the city? The world? Our heads??? OR! is this model only applicable for experimental purposes only?? I am wanting to know the " greater picture." You say: pass through it ???? Ok, I see the grey " thick line" as what separates the two media, the dashed line is the light beam and this is an isotropic type of emission, they pass through it because the material is transparent I got that, Or----> is it because light beams are invisible>>>??I have read that light beams are invisible. If I am honestly understanding this then this would only mean that we " Do live in some type of hyper plane." My reason for this is because it appears that 'EVERYTHING IS ISOTROPIC" in relation to time as I see frequency does not change, so the emission of light beams should not either at-least concerning magnetic waves... In any case, these models seem to be too perfect as how light beams just pass through things, it seems that there is always one and only one light source either in the room, the office, or the universe of which serves as a guide of measurement... Surly light is more radical, unpredictable isn't' it???

integer spin , NOW THAT MAKE MORE SENSE! At times I tend " I shouldn't" to assume that a scientist would already know what I am talking about, I shouldn't do this, I am working on it , thanks... WOW! now this is some new information! Thanks! In this animation, Is the plane of incidence, a 2d plane or is it a cubed volume??? This model appears to look as if though we are surrounded by spheres and that we see reflections as millions and millions of random sized spheres floating in the air creating an image for us to see of the world around us . Think in terms of 2d sprites in a video game if that helps clarify my question. I think what I am asking is if we live in a flat hyper space? It seems so.. I want to make sure I am not confusing these models and photos, because they seem flat, and stationary not dimensional. Snells law wavefronts Here is another in the semi transparent plane, does this describe a wave as a 2d " flat surface>>? I thought waves had thickness to them, like a log rolling down a hill if that helps clarify this question. But they appear flat...

Kicks magnetic forces around??? You must be talking about " magnetic waves"? I am not sure if they alter magnetic forces, this force appears to be " again" constant." It is said that waves pass through an object at rest and after the wave passes through the medium, the medium thus returns back to its rest position rather " equilibrium." This equilibrium is held together by yet another force, I assume that to be gravity, but not sure because its not really clear to me what is what as per science. One article or book says one thing about gravity, the other book or article denotes gravity. It not only gets frustrating, but it also creates speculation. On the notion they say that matter tells light how to bend and vise versa, I don't know how that is possible, but it is.. The whole issues is trying to see something that is invisible, and what we only have to describe them are constants and numbers linked to this invisibility...This reply may not be focused on your OP, however given the issues in science could any other explanation be?? Constants are something that is way out of scope here, are you familiar with hidden variable theory? Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory It describes how light appears to follow a pre-defined path. This "animation" of Snell's law should really be of use in your models. In this you see that frequency is never altered it remains the same... This is why I would love to know why everything is always divided by 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell's_law Then their is the issue with 1 as multiple copies of 1 to infinity, I am finding exponential decay very interesting because of this.That would mean that infinity has an end for every second of time. There is not only one way nor method to ever prove anything, from what I am seeing, there just appears to be a better explanation dealing with the same nature of nature Also, get familiar with the esoteric and intuitive mind frame of your approach. Regardless of what others may say about this, for me it would be " teasing and childish." The great scientist from the past were all involved with some type of " mystical subject" In this field we are in it is unavoidable! and! you should get incredible with the generalization of Quantum Mechanics.

So why do they call them Bosons?? Why was it so hard for the later person to say this??? Thanks! About division I was meaning the reciprocal "in formulas", as used for refraction index purposes for lenses.. Do I really need to be this specific? Sorry if that sounds dumb.. Here is a statement of one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrical_optics The magnification of a lens where the negative sign is given, by convention, to indicate an upright object for positive values and an inverted object for negative values. Similar to mirrors, upright images produced by single lenses are virtual while inverted images are real M = - s2 / s1 = f / [f-s1] Lets not forget that " Some Bosons" EVEN bounce off things making the matter even more incomprehensible than it may seem Lord help Us I love science!

I think your ideas are amazing! Science is all about exploring different ideas concepts and most importantly exploring one's own mind and thinking out of it. We would never in a million years come to know what we know now about light frequencies had it not been for a simple number and that being the quantum of action which is very virtually used in our modern time. Unfortunately now in a rigid structure our concepts and models for now are only a generalizations of the unknown forces of nature, do you what I mean by that??? A mathematical concept is only an idea approximation of how something " invisible" such as light frequencies may appear to behave in a given experiment. Math models don't prove much until it holds up to its theory and its rigorous experimental testing... However, math and geometry still prove to have the upper hand in modeling anything invisible! There is a math called quanternion mathematics of which is used in robotics. "Field axioms" meaning the laws of algebra don't apply with your concept due to how x^2 = -1 Your ideas rely on complex numbers, such as like a wave function.. The most important thing is the idea's Theory and Predictability on what it is that you are trying to discover achieve or prove. This can be a very hard task because in our world their have been many many attempts to prove one theory wrong over the other causing much " not so much" debate but I would say fame and gain! Its best to be someone whom just desires to know greater than you already know, that is when ideas start flowing in like the speed of light. I only skimmed through your work in the photos, and already I can say this: You appear to be on the right track for resolving an issue of a static universe and a non static universe. And already I know that many here "Will Disagree With Me On This!" But I assure you, there are not too many scientist out there that have passions strong to keep then indoors studying something for 20 years non stop! The speed of light is known to be everywhere at once leaving us with only the " unseen" elements of nature IE, electro magnetism to name a few..This is why we live in a static universe and one that appears to move through it IE magnetic waves... Your cube and sphere describes " Space and Time." One is static and the other moves through it. I am not sure which one as they seem to be both = 1 in a balance of equilibrium of which again remains something that in our current time is not understood. Unless someone here has new information I am not aware of then this remains something that is not fully understood. There are gaps in science and it is up the real thinkers to find them. Their are many issues in science one being the gravity problem: By Particle physicist -->Dr Brian Cox What on Earth is Wrong With Gravity? http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/what-on-earth-is-wrong-with-gravity-video_eda079a64.html That is to name a few, there are dozens, and until science can start relating and stop debating we may never ever know anything past our preferred 1/x method when 1 is undefined! Rather this be Mystical Science, Quantum Mechanics, Astrology, Religion and or Human Emotions. They at-least all have something in common and that is: THEY ARE OPINIONS, ALL INVISIBLE AND INTANGIBLE...That being said how can we event think to name them? Good job and please keep me informed of your progress.. Sincerely the person here that has a bad reputation of - 1 HA!

Thats an incredible animation! I love 3d graphics thanks! I will try to study more on this I don't want to keep you back and fourth I am already great full for your time... But one last thing.... Is this true " Frequency is the cycles/second. Period is the seconds/cycle." Here is the link:http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/u10l2b.cfm Is this really how scientist do it??? I dont mean to sound dumb, but I like to make sure of things.. Arent division and multiplication the same thing?? You are wrong, about bosons not passing through matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon Were you joking though? Serious? I can handle that much, about genetics, I think you get the point on that one. This is where I start getting concerned about what I read, hear and converse with over the internet. I AM NOW STARTING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY SAY QUANTUM MECHANICS IS COUNTER INTUITIVE BETTER LATE THAN NEVER THOUGH