bogie Posted April 10, 2017 Author Posted April 10, 2017 At rest in whatever coordinate system I've chosen. In this case, the earth. That's the example we were using. OK, a stationary clock is a clock at rest, as I suggested, and your stationary clock is at rest relative to the earth. But of course, for analysis of the effect that the local wave energy density has on the rate that each of the three clocks in question will measure the passing of time, using some particular coordinate system is appropriate. However, no matter what coordinate system you use, in my model, infinite space is filled with wave energy density from a potentially infinite history of particles and objects in relative motion across the universe. That means that at any given location in your coordinate system, say at the location of your stationary clock on earth, the energy density of that location is continually changing. Are you Ok with that concept, or must I also change my model to disregard that concept? If one clock passes by another, they cannot be at rest with respect to each other. Are you saying that if they pass each other, neither can be at rest with respect to the other. I am saying that either clock can be considered at rest relative to the other. Yes. east- and westward-bound clocks, relative to one on the ground, as we were discussing. I understand, and if you say we are discussing an east west moving clock, and a west east moving clock, relative to a "stationary" clock on the ground, then that is understood. That can't work. The whole point of having a coordinate system and frame of reference is that all of the points in it are at rest with respect to each other. A location one meter away from me is always going to be one meter away. It's not going to move. I'm good with a coordinate system like that. Is it spacetime, or Euclidean, or does it even have a given name? Regardless of what you call the coordinate system, in ISU Model the terms wave energy and wave energy density have specified meanings. See my mention below of lexicons used with various models. In standard physics, anything in inertial motion can be considered at rest in its own frame. Typically placed at the origin, but that doesn't matter. In the context of east west, west east, and a stationary ground clock, in the coordinate system where you assign an inertial frame to each clock, then each clock will be in relative motion with the other two. It is the same in the ISU I would think, but the operative Wave Energy mechanics are quite different, and that is the point I'm trying to get across. No, that's not going to fly. Physics has a definition of energy, and equations that describe it. If you are using a different concept, it's incumbent upon you to come up with a new term for it, and not mis-appropriate a word with an extant meaning. Since you just said that you are using some new definition of energy, which you have not shared, I cannot say I understand. Once you come up with a new word, then your statement becomes something like "wave flooble density", and no, I don't know what that is, since "flooble" is undefined. Ha ha. I have seen newbies fall for that over the many years I have been talking about cosmological models. I laugh every time I see someone try to add words like "flooble", as you suggest I do, to the lexicon. Instead of making up words, my practice is to add a "precising" definition in the content: Precising definition - WikipediaWikipedia wiki Precising_definition "A precising definition is a definition that extends the lexical definition of a term for a specific purpose by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition. For example, a dictionary may define the term "student" as "1. anyone attending an educational institution of any type, or 2. anyone who studies something." However, a movie theater may propose a precising definition for the word "student" of "any person under the age of 18 enrolled in a local school" in order to determine who is eligible to receive discounted tickets." But if you read the thread you will see, I have defined wave energy and wave energy density as it applies to my model in this thread. Like you say, Physics has a definition of energy, and equations that describe it. However, the term "energy" has numerous definitions in physics, and I am certain that I will be able to compare the precising definitions I have presented already, with the specific definition you are using for energy in the equation you gave. The course of action here is for you to present an actual mathematical model. Then you can show how "flooble" density transforms from one coordinate system to another. Ha ha, there must be a place I can insert that word in my model. Actually, it is now in the content of a Google search of the ISU if ScienceForums.net is linked to the Google search engine; of course "flooble" will not be attributed to me unless I define it as part of the lexicon. We talked earlier about quantifying my ideas, and I responded to you why I focus on the overall model first to try to make sure everything is internally consistent, conceptually. There will be a time to focus on quantification of my model so that it can be mathematically compared to the standard cosmology, or any other model, but I'm certain that there is much content that I have yet to incorporate into the ISU model, and any given addition could change numerous internal relationships.
bogie Posted April 11, 2017 Author Posted April 11, 2017 Continued comment in regard to the discussion with Swansont: I said earlier, the rotation of the earth would have an effect on the wave energy density environment of the clocks traveling east vs. traveling west, so the clock that is traveling with the rotation, which I define as keeping up with the position of the sun in the sky (east to west across the surface of the earth), would measure time at a slightly faster rate than the clock that was traveling against the rotation, which I define as heading into the rising sun, (west to east across the surface of the earth). The explanation for this, according to the ISU model, is that the sun emits a massive amount of gravitational wave energy, and so a clock heading in the direction of the rising sun (west to east) would experience an increase the local wave energy density and the rate that it measures the passing of time would slow down, relative to a clock traveling with the sun across the sky (east to west), and heading into the setting sun. Swanson has posted that the evidential data confirms that the east-west traveling clock will run faster than the west-east traveling clock, and that data matches my prediction. Now, let's address the various questions, which, if I understand correctly are, what is wave energy, what is wave energy density, how does relative motion affect the local wave energy density of a clock. The answer to the first question, what is wave energy, is that in the ISU model, all particles are wave-particles, and all objects are composed of wave-particles. Wave-particles are composed of nothing but wave energy made up of two components, a directionally inflowing wave energy component that arrives from distant particles and objects, and a spherically out flowing wave energy component that becomes the inflowing wave energy of distant particles and objects. That means that all space is filled with wave energy, defined as light waves and gravitational waves, coming and going in all directions, because the source of wave energy is all particles and objects, and space is filled with particles and object engaged in providing a continual source of wave energy. The answer to the second question, what is wave energy density, is that all points in space contain wave energy because there is a continual flow of light and gravitational wave energy at all points, and each wave has an expanding wave front that carries the wave energy. The level of wave energy density at any point in space is the sum of the energy carried by all of the energy wave fronts that are passing that point at any given instant. The answer to the third question, how does relative motion affect the local wave energy density of a clock, is that a clock at a stationary point, a rest position relative to the rest of the universe, is experiencing directionally equal inflowing wave energy from the surrounding space; that is the definition of "at rest" in the ISU. If that clock moves in any direction, it will experience an increase in directional wave energy density in that direction, relative to its previous rest position, because it is moving into a distant source of directional wave energy. The premise is that the rate that a clock measures the passing of time is governed by the local wave energy density, and when our rest clock moved, the energy density increased in the direction of motion, and the clock slowed down. So a moving clock will measure time at a slower rate than the same clock would have measured the passing of time in its previous rest position.
swansont Posted April 11, 2017 Posted April 11, 2017 Continued comment in regard to the discussion with Swansont: I said earlier, the rotation of the earth would have an effect on the wave energy density environment of the clocks traveling east vs. traveling west, so the clock that is traveling with the rotation, which I define as keeping up with the position of the sun in the sky (east to west across the surface of the earth), would measure time at a slightly faster rate than the clock that was traveling against the rotation, which I define as heading into the rising sun, (west to east across the surface of the earth). So now it's the rotation of the earth that causes the effect. But that should be the same at all points on the earth. It can't be getting bigger as you move eastward. And now we're back to asking how the density can depend on movement, and what your definition of energy is. Each clock measures the density at some position on the earth. How can they get different answers? The explanation for this, according to the ISU model, is that the sun emits a massive amount of gravitational wave energy, and so a clock heading in the direction of the rising sun (west to east) would experience an increase the local wave energy density and the rate that it measures the passing of time would slow down, relative to a clock traveling with the sun across the sky (east to west), and heading into the setting sun. That doesn't explain why the density is higher when you are moving. Swanson has posted that the evidential data confirms that the east-west traveling clock will run faster than the west-east traveling clock, and that data matches my prediction. Hardly a prediction, since you modified your answer after being told the answer. Now, let's address the various questions, which, if I understand correctly are, what is wave energy, what is wave energy density, how does relative motion affect the local wave energy density of a clock. The answer to the first question, what is wave energy, is that in the ISU model, all particles are wave-particles, and all objects are composed of wave-particles. Wave-particles are composed of nothing but wave energy made up of two components, a directionally inflowing wave energy component that arrives from distant particles and objects, and a spherically out flowing wave energy component that becomes the inflowing wave energy of distant particles and objects. Sounds circular to me. You're saying that energy is energy. That means that all space is filled with wave energy, defined as light waves and gravitational waves, coming and going in all directions, because the source of wave energy is all particles and objects, and space is filled with particles and object engaged in providing a continual source of wave energy. Wouldn't this make the energy density smaller on the dark side of the planet? The answer to the second question, what is wave energy density, is that all points in space contain wave energy because there is a continual flow of light and gravitational wave energy at all points, and each wave has an expanding wave front that carries the wave energy. The level of wave energy density at any point in space is the sum of the energy carried by all of the energy wave fronts that are passing that point at any given instant. The answer to the third question, how does relative motion affect the local wave energy density of a clock, is that a clock at a stationary point, a rest position relative to the rest of the universe, is experiencing directionally equal inflowing wave energy from the surrounding space; that is the definition of "at rest" in the ISU. If that clock moves in any direction, it will experience an increase in directional wave energy density in that direction, relative to its previous rest position, because it is moving into a distant source of directional wave energy. Can you measure what this absolute rest frame is? The premise is that the rate that a clock measures the passing of time is governed by the local wave energy density, and when our rest clock moved, the energy density increased in the direction of motion, and the clock slowed down. So a moving clock will measure time at a slower rate than the same clock would have measured the passing of time in its previous rest position. If the earlier clock analysis is right, we must be at absolute rest on the earth. Otherwise you could get any clock result, depending on the motion of the earth. But there's a problem with that. Clock measurements don't vary at these scales over the course of a day, when the motion changes owing to rotation. Clocks on opposite sides of the earth are moving with different velocities, but they run at the same rate. Same with clocks at different latitudes on the earth.
bogie Posted April 11, 2017 Author Posted April 11, 2017 (edited) So now it's the rotation of the earth that causes the effect. Well, if you are serious, then you do understood it partially. The rotation of the earth can cause the effect, but the bigger picture is that any relative motion between two clocks causes the effect, as stated in my last post and in other places in this thread. If one clock is stationary on the surface of the earth, and the other clock is in motion relative to the location of the first clock, then there is resulting relative motion between the clocks, and they will measure the passing of time at different rates because relative motion means that the environment of each clock will have a different level of wave energy density, and the local wave energy density of a clock governs the rate that it measure the passing of time. But that should be the same at all points on the earth. No; you are not realizing that the sun and the moon are also sources of wave energy, and their relative motion will also contribute to the local wave energy at the location of a "stationary" clock, and of a clock that is in motion relative to the stationary clock. It can't be getting bigger as you move eastward. That statement isn't demonstrating a good comprehension of the details in the last post. I didn't use the term bigger anywhere, and yet you have invoked it. What do you mean by bigger in the context what you quoted from my last post? Or better yet, change the statement by using higher of lower, if are referring to the local wave energy density. And now we're back to asking how the density can depend on movement, and what your definition of energy is. You are the one that hasn't given your definition of "energy", lol. I gave my definitions of wave energy and wave energy density again in the last post. Your statement doesn't seem to acknowledge any understanding of what my definition of wave energy is, and yet that definition was clearly stated in the last post, and earlier, and the definition is in line with my methodology of reasonable and responsible step by step speculations that I use to build the model. Each clock measures the density at some position on the earth. No. Clocks do not measure the local wave energy density, they measure the rate that time passes at the local level of wave energy density. The difference is subtle. How can they get different answers? I assume you mean, how can they measure a different rate of time passing. In my model, if they are traveling in different directions, they will measure the passing of time at different rates relative to each other because they will each experience a different level of wave energy density. You already know that the fact is that they will measure time differently, because you posted data that says they do. What is your explanation for why east bound clocks measure time to be passing at a slower rate? Take a minute and mention the science you are relying on to explain how they measure the rate of time passing differently. That doesn't explain why the density is higher when you are moving. Your motion is not the same as the motion of the clock, so I assume you are in the same location as the clock, as in if you are wearing a watch. But if you mean that a clock that is moving will measure the rate that time passes at a slower rate than a clock that is at rest relative to the moving clock, then that is true. Therefore, when that occurs, in my model you can infer that the local wave energy density is higher in the location of the moving clock, than it is in the location of the rest clock, as explained in the last post. Hardly a prediction, since you modified your answer after being told the answer. This is an issue of integrity, and I stand by my reputation for integrity across hundreds of conversations on many forums. I readily admit when I am wrong, but at the same time, I will point out when others put words in my mouth. Your accusation that I have low integrity in regard to my position about the mechanics of how clocks measure the rate of the passing of time is not consistent with the reputation that I have built over my many years of discussing clocks, time, relative motion, wave energy, wave energy density, and the ISU model. All through that time, and it is all recorded on the internet and at various science forms, I have been consistent in my predictions. You are a newbie in regard to gaining an understanding of my model, and a skeptic to my ideas if I may suggest that, based on your repeating the same questions from different angles, and I wouldn't find anything wrong with that position, as long as you read and try to see my points. Sounds circular to me. You're saying that energy is energy. That "circular" claim is not consistent with my statement. Wave energy should not be a mystery to you, and has many usages as a common form of energy. We could get this resolved if you give me your definition of energy as it pertains to the equation you gave. This might be the third time asking and the third time I have said I could differentiate between the word "energy" as your are using it, vs. the way I use it in the terms "wave energy", and "wave energy density". I am certain that the "energy" you are talking about is not wave energy in the terms that I have defined wave energy, on several occasions in this thread. I can differentiate your definition of energy from my wave energy, and wave energy density, but am waiting for you to disclose your definition; by now I'm suspecting you won't, but I could be wrong. Wouldn't this make the energy density smaller on the dark side of the planet? If by smaller, you mean won't the local level of wave energy density generally be lower on the dark side, yes, since the dark side of the planet is further away from the sun which is a major contributor to the differing local wave energy density across the surface of the earth. Can you measure what this absolute rest frame is? No. Do you want me to write a few paragraphs on that concept, or would do you want to move along without the benefit of additional details? If the earlier clock analysis is right, we must be at absolute rest on the earth. What ever you are referring to as the "earlier clock analysis", that is not true in the ISU model, and it is contrary to what I have said when I have explained it. Absolute rest is a very rare condition for any clock to be in, in terms of the definition of "at rest" that I gave you in the last post. There is no absolute location in space in my model, and I doubt if you know of a model where absolute space, or absolute "at rest" is common. Otherwise you could get any clock result, depending on the motion of the earth. You couldn't get "any" clock result; clocks would not be speeding up and slowing down randomly as you watch them. The changes in the rate that they measure the passing of time would correspond to changes in the local wave energy density. I mentioned earlier that you cannot detect the change in the rate that your local clock measures the passing of time, because you are in the same reference frame (in you model), which is the same as saying you are in the same local wave energy density environment in my model. But there's a problem with that. Clock measurements don't vary at these scales over the course of a day, when the motion changes owing to rotation. Yes they do. Granted the changes are tiny, and you have to be looking with very precise instruments at the two clock locations on the earth to have any chance of detecting the change in the rate that they individually measure the passing of time. It is effectively too small to make much difference in any measurement, but when talking about the mechanics of how clocks measure the rate that time passes in the local wave energy density environment, there is a theoretical variance. Clocks on opposite sides of the earth are moving with different velocities, but they run at the same rate. I would say you are wrong on both counts according the basics of the ISU model. Do you want me to write a few paragraphs to explain why that is not precisely true in the ISU? For example, is the altitude the same, is the latitude the same, is the position of the two clocks changing in different ways relative to the position of the moon and sun, etc. Same with clocks at different latitudes on the earth. Also not true according to my model. Clocks at different latitudes measure the passing of time a slightly different rates, buy it is a tiny variance, extremely hard to detect and measure; you would need very precise instruments to detect the variance. Edited April 12, 2017 by bogie
swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 That statement isn't demonstrating a good comprehension of the details in the last post. I didn't use the term bigger anywhere, and yet you have invoked it. What do you mean by bigger in the context what you quoted from my last post? Or better yet, change the statement by using higher of lower, if are referring to the local wave energy density. bigger = higher = larger in the context of numbers You are the one that hasn't given your definition of "energy", lol. I gave my definitions of wave energy and wave energy density again in the last post. Your statement doesn't seem to acknowledge any understanding of what my definition of wave energy is, and yet that definition was clearly stated in the last post, and earlier, and the definition is in line with my methodology of reasonable and responsible step by step speculations that I use to build the model. My definition of energy is the same as the one of mainstream physics, but since (as you have said) yours may differ, the physics definition doesn't matter. We're discussing your conjecture. No. Clocks do not measure the local wave energy density, they measure the rate that time passes at the local level of wave energy density. The difference is subtle. The clocks experience a local wave density. Same question. How can you get a different answer ? I assume you mean, how can they measure a different rate of time passing. In my model, if they are traveling in different directions, they will measure the passing of time at different rates relative to each other because they will each experience a different level of wave energy density. You already know that the fact is that they will measure time differently, because you posted data that says they do. What is your explanation for why east bound clocks measure time to be passing at a slower rate? Take a minute and mention the science you are relying on to explain how they measure the rate of time passing differently. I know they will but in mainstream physics it's not because of some physical effect like a force on the clock. The issue here is how you can explain this by differing wave energy densities. Your description suggests it's possible to tell if you're in motion and in what direction simply by measuring the local energy density. But two people could get different answers for a physical quantity at the same point in space. Your motion is not the same as the motion of the clock, so I assume you are in the same location as the clock, as in if you are wearing a watch. But if you mean that a clock that is moving will measure the rate that time passes at a slower rate than a clock that is at rest relative to the moving clock, then that is true. Therefore, when that occurs, in my model you can infer that the local wave energy density is higher in the location of the moving clock, than it is in the location of the rest clock, as explained in the last post. But the locations are briefly the same. How can the energy densities be different in that instant? This is an issue of integrity, and I stand by my reputation for integrity across hundreds of conversations on many forums. I readily admit when I am wrong, but at the same time, I will point out when others put words in my mouth. Your accusation that I have low integrity in regard to my position about the mechanics of how clocks measure the rate of the passing of time is not consistent with the reputation that I have built over my many years of discussing clocks, time, relative motion, wave energy, wave energy density, and the ISU model. All through that time, and it is all recorded on the internet and at various science forms, I have been consistent in my predictions. You are a newbie in regard to gaining an understanding of my model, and a skeptic to my ideas if I may suggest that, based on your repeating the same questions from different angles, and I wouldn't find anything wrong with that position, as long as you read and try to see my points. I was referring to the definition of prediction. It has to be something made before the answer is presented. You explained the answer, you did not predict it. That "circular" claim is not consistent with my statement. Wave energy should not be a mystery to you, and has many usages as a common form of energy. We could get this resolved if you give me your definition of energy as it pertains to the equation you gave. This might be the third time asking and the third time I have said I could differentiate between the word "energy" as your are using it, vs. the way I use it in the terms "wave energy", and "wave energy density". I am certain that the "energy" you are talking about is not wave energy in the terms that I have defined wave energy, on several occasions in this thread. I can differentiate your definition of energy from my wave energy, and wave energy density, but am waiting for you to disclose your definition; by now I'm suspecting you won't, but I could be wrong. But your definition of energy is defined in terms of energy, and adds nothing to my understanding. If by smaller, you mean won't the local level of wave energy density generally be lower on the dark side, yes, since the dark side of the planet is further away from the sun which is a major contributor to the differing local wave energy density across the surface of the earth. So clocks on the dark side of the planet should have clocks running faster. No. Do you want me to write a few paragraphs on that concept, or would do you want to move along without the benefit of additional details? Details are not necessary right now. You couldn't get "any" clock result; clocks would not be speeding up and slowing down randomly as you watch them. The changes in the rate that they measure the passing of time would correspond to changes in the local wave energy density. I mentioned earlier that you cannot detect the change in the rate that your local clock measures the passing of time, because you are in the same reference frame (in you model), which is the same as saying you are in the same local wave energy density environment in my model. You gave a very definite result earlier: east-bound clocks would run slow, west-bound clocks would run fast. But you've said the effect depends on speed relative to some rest frame, which can't be determined. So how can you be sure there isn't some motion of the earth (and solar system) that would make east-bound clocks actually be moving slower? Further, if a clock is moving eastbound late in the day, it's moving away from the sun. Shouldn't it experience a lower energy density? Yes they do. Granted the changes are tiny, and you have to be looking with very precise instruments at the two clock locations on the earth to have any chance of detecting the change in the rate that they individually measure the passing of time. It is effectively too small to make much difference in any measurement, but when talking about the mechanics of how clocks measure the rate that time passes in the local wave energy density environment, there is a theoretical variance. How tiny, and how precise? A part in a million? A part in a billion? I would say you are wrong on both counts according the basics of the ISU model. Do you want me to write a few paragraphs to explain why that is not precisely true in the ISU? For example, is the altitude the same, is the latitude the same, is the position of the two clocks changing in different ways relative to the position of the moon and sun, etc. Also not true according to my model. Clocks at different latitudes measure the passing of time a slightly different rates, buy it is a tiny variance, extremely hard to detect and measure; you would need very precise instruments to detect the variance. No I don't want a few paragraphs, I want equations, so that the earlier question about how tiny the effects are can be calculated. Previously you said the energy density depends on speed relative to some rest frame. How can the opposite sides of the earth be moving at the same velocity relative to this rest frame? How can two different latitudes? The equator moves almost half a km/s as the earth rotates. The poles are essentially at rest.
bogie Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 bigger = higher = larger in the context of numbers Ok, understood. My definition of energy is the same as the one of mainstream physics, but since (as you have said) yours may differ, the physics definition doesn't matter. We're discussing your conjecture. I didn't say mine might differ, I said my precising definitions would be descriptions of how I use the term in my model. One very basic definition of energy in physics is the ability to do work. My definitions of wave energy (light waves and gravitational waves), and wave energy density (the sum of the energy carried by all light wave fronts and gravitational wave fronts passing a given point in space) are precising definitions, relative to that common physics definition. You should agree that light wave energy is acknowledged by (almost) every college physics book. The concept of multiple waves passing the same point is also a common phenomenon addressed by (almost) every college physics book. The clocks experience a local wave density. Same question. How can you get a different answer? The clocks experience a local wave energy density that governs the rate that they measure the passing of time. You are asking "how" two different clocks can measure the passing of time at different rates, not can they, because we both agree there is sufficient evidence to support the fact that they can and do. The operative word is "how", and I have answered that question, but I will repeat my answer from before, by saying that two clocks in relative motion will experience different levels of local wave energy density, just like the paths of two clocks in relative motion in GR will follow different geodesics which result in time dilation between them if I am wording that comparison correctly. In the ISU, the level of local wave energy density governs the rate that clocks measure the passing of time. Clocks in relative motion will measure the passing of time at different rates, but in order to detect that, you have to be able to compare them as they are in the act of measuring time, meaning you need data about both clocks to make the comparison. A good example of this is the solution to the twins paradox. The human bodies are the clocks. One twin travels and accelerates to relativistic velocities, and the other twin stays home. The traveling twin will come home looking like a much younger man than the twin who didn't travel. The explanation for the different rate of aging is that their rate of aging is governed by their individual local wave energy density environments. When you accelerate, especially to relativistic velocities, you are occupying a local environment that has an elevated level of wave energy density, relative to the level of the wave energy density in the environment occupied by that twin who stayed home, because the traveling twin is accelerating into the directionally inflowing component of the wave-particles that he/she is composed of, and that slows down the quantum action process that orchestrates the rate that wave-particles function in different wave energy density environments, just like relative motion of a moving clock relative to a rest clock. I know they will but in mainstream physics it's not because of some physical effect like a force on the clock. The issue here is how you can explain this by differing wave energy densities. Agreed. Have you gotten any sense of my answer from the times I have addressed that so far? Do you think about my description of wave-particles when read my answers? Do you have a beginning concept of a wave-particle as a complex standing wave pattern that has two components; a directionally inflowing wave energy component, and a spherically out flowing wave energy component. Can you imagine such a particle structure, and can you imagine two separate particles in relative motion, because that is the nature of all particles in the ISU model. The directionally inflowing wave energy component from one particle is from the spherically out flowing wave energy component from various distant wave-particles or objects. Your description suggests it's possible to tell if you're in motion and in what direction simply by measuring the local energy density. No it doesn't. However, if you have two clocks in relative motion, my description suggests that each clock will be functioning in local environments that have different levels of wave energy density. If you are in either of the environments occupied by those clocks, you cannot tell if you are in motion, but if you see that the two clocks are measuring a different rate of time passing, I would determine that there is relative motion between the two clocks. The third clock, which might be referred to at rest relative to the other two clocks, would allow us to determine which of the other two clocks is moving fastest relative to the rest clock. But two people could get different answers for a physical quantity at the same point in space. Yes, they could, if they are in relative motion to each other, but the term "physical quantity" is not precisely correct. It is different measurements by two different instruments (clocks) that are in relative motion, and therefore are functioning in two different levels of wave energy density. In the ISU, that is a condition that causes the clocks to measure the passing of time at two different rates, because the local wave energy density governs the rate that a clocks measure the passing of time. But the locations are briefly the same. How can the energy densities be different in that instant? If you define briefly as that instant, you might have your answer. The locations are the same for an instant with no duration, so no time passes. I was referring to the definition of prediction. It has to be something made before the answer is presented. You explained the answer, you did not predict it. You said my "prediction" was wrong, so forgive me for thinking you considered it a prediction. But your definition of energy is defined in terms of energy, and adds nothing to my understanding. This has been addressed above in this post I think, where I said: ~"One very basic definition of energy in physics is the ability to do work. My definitions of wave energy (light waves and gravitational waves), and wave energy density (the sum of the energy carried by all light wave fronts and gravitational wave fronts passing a given point in space) are precising definitions, relative to that common physics definition. Also, light wave energy is probably acknowledged by (almost) every college physics book. The concept of multiple waves passing the same point is also a common phenomenon addressed by college physics books." I'll add that gravitational wave energy is a relatively new discovery in physics, of a long predicted phenomenon. Would you say that the EFEs consider gravitational wave energy to be common to all massive objects? Or would you say that the curvature of spacetime accounts for most motion via geodesics, but in the case of massive in-swirling black holes, the equations require an additional prediction about gravitational waves in order to conserve momentum? I'm not certain which case applies in GR. However, in my model, the curvature of spacetime is replaced by the wave energy density of space, and all massive objects emit gravitational waves because they are composed of wave-particles. The in-swirling black holes gain mass relative to the objects not caught up in the in-swirling conditions because of their relative acceleration. The increase in their relative mass means that there is an increase in the out flowing wave energy emitted by them. We may eventually get into a discussion of quanta, and of how a change in the number of quanta of moving objects relates to relative motion, but that would take some time to present properly, and now probably is not the time. However, I can't resist mentioning the premise which is that wave-particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and when they accelerate relative to other particles and objects, they gain quanta. In accord with the ISU process of quantum action, a quantum is a "meaningful" wave convergence (as opposed to the oscillations of the foundational background), and as particles and objects move, they are continually encountering more quanta as a consequence of their directionally inflowing wave energy component, while they are emitting quanta spherically as a consequence of their spherical out flowing wave energy component. The greater the relative directional motion, the more quanta are taken into the standing wave pattern from that direction relative to the quanta contained in object this the other participant in the relative motion. That is also the basic premise in the ISU's speculated solution to quantum gravity. So clocks on the dark side of the planet should have clocks running faster. The operative fact is that the clock on the dark side is an "earth's diameter" further from the sun, and that is all it takes for the wave energy density of the clock to be lower, which is the condition in my model that would govern that the clock would run faster than an identical clock on the sunny side. You gave a very definite result earlier: east-bound clocks would run slow, west-bound clocks would run fast. But you've said the effect depends on speed relative to some rest frame, which can't be determined. I usually use the word velocity, not speed, so I doubt if I said it that way. Relative velocity and relative motion would sound more like something I said. In the east traveling clock vs. the west traveling clock scenario, we have relative motion. I did not say the rate that the two clocks measure time depends on their speed relative to some rest frame, I said it is governed by the different level of wave energy density in which the clocks are functioning, because the level of wave energy density governs the rate that they will measure the passing of time. That scenario included the phrases "traveling in the direction of the rising sun" vs. "traveling in the direction of the setting sun". The premise is that the rate that wave particles function is also relative to the local level of wave energy density. Clocks of all kinds are usually composed of wave-particles, and when the wave energy density at the location of the clock changes, the rate that the wave-particles function changes. If the wave energy density increases, the rate that the particles function decreases. When I refer to the rate that wave-particles function, it references the rate that the process of quantum action is playing out in that local wave energy density environment. So how can you be sure there isn't some motion of the earth (and solar system) that would make east-bound clocks actually be moving slower? There is motion of the the earth, as part of the solar system, that affects the local wave energy density of clocks on earth, and motion of the entire solar system that affects the wave energy density of the entire solar system relative to the galaxy. There is even relative motion between galaxies that could come into play also. Some scientists attribute the hemispherical anisotropy detected by WMAP and Planck sky surveys to the fact that our local group of galaxies is "speeding" toward some great attractor or great accumulation of galactic structure. My model attributes the hemispherical anisotropy to the speculation that our Big Bang arena had preconditions that involved the intersection and overlap of two "parent" Big Bang arenas, each with a somewhat different level of wave energy density, as could be evidenced by their potentially different cosmic microwave background temperatures before they converged. Mix those two different backgrounds and I speculate that you would get hemispherical anisotropy in our background. Further, if a clock is moving eastbound late in the day, it's moving away from the sun. Shouldn't it experience a lower energy density? Yes, lower relative to some clock heading toward the setting sun, but the velocity of the clock relative to the velocity of the rotation of the earth would help determine the degree of the effect. However, in the dialogue used to discuss the difference in the rate that west bound clocks measure the passing of time, compared to the rate that east bound clocks measure the passing of time, I used phrases like an east bound clock is heading into the rising sun. Late in the day, an east bound clock is heading away from the setting sun. I haven't given much thought to the different scenarios, but I could tell you which of two clocks would run fast relative to the other if you define the scenario relative to each clock's motion vs. the sun, moon, etc. I'm sure there is evidential data about the variance in the rate that clocks would measure time in such a scenario? How tiny, and how precise? A part in a million? A part in a billion? I don't know. Do you want a "wagner", which in the circles of us cosmological speculators means a wild arse guess not easily refuted, lol. I'd guess you don't. No I don't want a few paragraphs, I want equations, so that the earlier question about how tiny the effects are can be calculated. I won't bother you with my many "Wagners" then, though I have a few interesting ones that reveal the depths of "tiny-ness" that have been contemplated in the ISU model. I will say that when I reach the practical bottom of the infinitesimal, I am down there in the realm of the "otherwise waveless" oscillating background, or in terms of the quantum foam mentioned earlier by Velocity_boy in post post #2 or #3, I think it was. Previously you said the energy density depends on speed relative to some rest frame. I don't think I said that in that way, and I think you are taking my discussion about relative motion of two clocks out of context. How can the opposite sides of the earth be moving at the same velocity relative to this rest frame? How can two different latitudes? I don't think I said that either in regard to a common rest frame, which in your model would probably have to be inside the earth. When you say I said something, put my statement in quotes along with your comment about it, if you want my answer to be appropriate to the actual context. As for the different rates, based on different latitudes, there would be different distances between the clocks and other massive objects like the sun and the moon. Those different distances will cause slight differences in each clock's local wave energy density. Let me ask you about the curvature of spacetime and the geodesics that describe the predicted motion of the two clocks. Would the location of the sun affect the predicted paths or would it affect time dilation calculations? The equator moves almost half a km/s as the earth rotates. The poles are essentially at rest. I don't doubt that. I also don't know the context of my statement that you are implying might be wrong, given that data. Even the poles, which you say are essentially at rest, are essentially at rest relative to something, maybe only to each other. Tell me what you think they are essentially at rest relative to, and I'll be able to determine if you have accounted for the influence of other bodies in space, like the moon, planets, and the sun, and all of the permutations of their motion relative to the location of the poles in space, which would be contributors to the wave energy density environment of any clocks positioned at the poles. You would have to take all of that into account to get the best answer using SR/GR. Why would you not have to consider the influence of the mass of surrounding objects in the ISU mechanics?
swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 I didn't say mine might differ, I said my precising definitions would be descriptions of how I use the term in my model. Pretty sure you did: I don't disagree with that equation, but it requires two values, energy, and volume. Define energy in the context of your equation, and then I will be able to describe the difference between how you are defining the "energy" variable in the equation, vs. my definition of "wave energy" and "wave energy density", both of which may be entirely different than how you define the "energy" variable in your equation. Yup. (emphasis added) One very basic definition of energy in physics is the ability to do work. My definitions of wave energy (light waves and gravitational waves), and wave energy density (the sum of the energy carried by all light wave fronts and gravitational wave fronts passing a given point in space) are precising definitions, relative to that common physics definition. You should agree that light wave energy is acknowledged by (almost) every college physics book. Sure. But you had said yours might be different. The concept of multiple waves passing the same point is also a common phenomenon addressed by (almost) every college physics book. Sure. But they don't make the density different at the same point depending in who is doing the measuring. The clocks experience a local wave energy density that governs the rate that they measure the passing of time. You are asking "how" two different clocks can measure the passing of time at different rates, not can they, because we both agree there is sufficient evidence to support the fact that they can and do. The operative word is "how", and I have answered that question, but I will repeat my answer from before, by saying that two clocks in relative motion will experience different levels of local wave energy density, just like the paths of two clocks in relative motion in GR will follow different geodesics which result in time dilation between them if I am wording that comparison correctly. In the ISU, the level of local wave energy density governs the rate that clocks measure the passing of time. Clocks in relative motion will measure the passing of time at different rates, but in order to detect that, you have to be able to compare them as they are in the act of measuring time, meaning you need data about both clocks to make the comparison. No, I was asking how the measured energy wave density can be different. There is no reason to continually explain that the density variation is the reason clocks run at different rates. I want your explanation for the energy discrepancy. Ultimately, I want an equation that relates all of these variables. A good example of this is the solution to the twins paradox. The human bodies are the clocks. One twin travels and accelerates to relativistic velocities, and the other twin stays home. The traveling twin will come home looking like a much younger man than the twin who didn't travel. The explanation for the different rate of aging is that their rate of aging is governed by their individual local wave energy density environments. When you accelerate, especially to relativistic velocities, you are occupying a local environment that has an elevated level of wave energy density, relative to the level of the wave energy density in the environment occupied by that twin who stayed home, because the traveling twin is accelerating into the directionally inflowing component of the wave-particles that he/she is composed of, and that slows down the quantum action process that orchestrates the rate that wave-particles function in different wave energy density environments, just like relative motion of a moving clock relative to a rest clock. Giving me the same explanation I have already questioned, but applying it to a new scenario, does not help. Agreed. Have you gotten any sense of my answer from the times I have addressed that so far? Do you think about my description of wave-particles when read my answers? Do you have a beginning concept of a wave-particle as a complex standing wave pattern that has two components; a directionally inflowing wave energy component, and a spherically out flowing wave energy component. Can you imagine such a particle structure, and can you imagine two separate particles in relative motion, because that is the nature of all particles in the ISU model. The directionally inflowing wave energy component from one particle is from the spherically out flowing wave energy component from various distant wave-particles or objects. The concept is not the issue. It's reconciling the claims with what we measure. It's that Bob can measure the energy density at (x1, y1, z1), and Alice, by virtue of the fact that she is moving, gets a different answer at (x1, y1, z1) at the same instant Bob is making his measurement. No it doesn't. However, if you have two clocks in relative motion, my description suggests that each clock will be functioning in local environments that have different levels of wave energy density. If you are in either of the environments occupied by those clocks, you cannot tell if you are in motion, but if you see that the two clocks are measuring a different rate of time passing, I would determine that there is relative motion between the two clocks. The third clock, which might be referred to at rest relative to the other two clocks, would allow us to determine which of the other two clocks is moving fastest relative to the rest clock. Yes, they could, if they are in relative motion to each other, but the term "physical quantity" is not precisely correct. It is different measurements by two different instruments (clocks) that are in relative motion, and therefore are functioning in two different levels of wave energy density. In the ISU, that is a condition that causes the clocks to measure the passing of time at two different rates, because the local wave energy density governs the rate that a clocks measure the passing of time. Energy density is not a physical quantity? If you define briefly as that instant, you might have your answer. The locations are the same for an instant with no duration, so no time passes. I can line up a whole row of clocks. An infinite number of them, in a gedanken experiment. Now the regions become macroscopic. You said my "prediction" was wrong, so forgive me for thinking you considered it a prediction. Before I gave the experimental answer, it was a prediction. Unfortunately you changed your answer once the experimental results were given, and at that point you no longer get to call it a prediction. Your claim that the "data matches my prediction" is not true. (If you had a mathematical model, one could independently check this. Alas, you don't.) This has been addressed above in this post I think, where I said: ~"One very basic definition of energy in physics is the ability to do work. My definitions of wave energy (light waves and gravitational waves), and wave energy density (the sum of the energy carried by all light wave fronts and gravitational wave fronts passing a given point in space) are precising definitions, relative to that common physics definition. Also, light wave energy is probably acknowledged by (almost) every college physics book. The concept of multiple waves passing the same point is also a common phenomenon addressed by college physics books." So your definition is not different. Great! We can use the actual energy density in any analysis. Is that correct? Are there any scaling factors? Does gravitational wave energy count more or less than EM wave energy, or do they have equal impact? Are there any other contributions to the energy density? I usually use the word velocity, not speed, so I doubt if I said it that way. Relative velocity and relative motion would sound more like something I said. In the east traveling clock vs. the west traveling clock scenario, we have relative motion. I did not say the rate that the two clocks measure time depends on their speed relative to some rest frame, I said it is governed by the different level of wave energy density in which the clocks are functioning, because the level of wave energy density governs the rate that they will measure the passing of time. That scenario included the phrases "traveling in the direction of the rising sun" vs. "traveling in the direction of the setting sun".The answer to the third question, how does relative motion affect the local wave energy density of a clock, is that a clock at a stationary point, a rest position relative to the rest of the universe, is experiencing directionally equal inflowing wave energy from the surrounding space; that is the definition of "at rest" in the ISU. If that clock moves in any direction, it will experience an increase in directional wave energy density in that direction, relative to its previous rest position, because it is moving into a distant source of directional wave energy. You said this (emphasis added) The answer to the third question, how does relative motion affect the local wave energy density of a clock, is that a clock at a stationary point, a rest position relative to the rest of the universe, is experiencing directionally equal inflowing wave energy from the surrounding space; that is the definition of "at rest" in the ISU. If that clock moves in any direction, it will experience an increase in directional wave energy density in that direction, relative to its previous rest position, because it is moving into a distant source of directional wave energy. So you claimed there is a frame which is at rest with respect to the universe, and motion with respect to that frame increased energy density. But somehow that ignores EM and gravitational wave energy. Yes, lower relative to some clock heading toward the setting sun, but the velocity of the clock relative to the velocity of the rotation of the earth would help determine the degree of the effect. An equation would help. A lot. It's solar noon in Wichita, Kansas. A clock on the east coast is moving away from the sun, while a clock on the west coast is moving toward it. The clock on the east coast moves faster? There's a solar eclipse on one of the coasts. Does the corresponding clock speed up due to the decrease in solar radiation energy density? I don't know. Do you want a "wagner", which in the circles of us cosmological speculators means a wild arse guess not easily refuted, lol. I'd guess you don't. SI units, please. But I was looking for an order of magnitude. Let me ask you about the curvature of spacetime and the geodesics that describe the predicted motion of the two clocks. Would the location of the sun affect the predicted paths or would it affect time dilation calculations? Yes. I don't doubt that. I also don't know the context of my statement that you are implying might be wrong, given that data. Even the poles, which you say are essentially at rest, are essentially at rest relative to something, maybe only to each other. Relative to motion on the equator. The context of your statements can be found in your previous posts. Tell me what you think they are essentially at rest relative to, and I'll be able to determine if you have accounted for the influence of other bodies in space, like the moon, planets, and the sun, and all of the permutations of their motion relative to the location of the poles in space, which would be contributors to the wave energy density environment of any clocks positioned at the poles. You would have to take all of that into account to get the best answer using SR/GR. Why would you not have to consider the influence of the mass of surrounding objects in the ISU mechanics? We have equations, from which one can determine which effects are important and which can be ignored. That's one of the powers of having a mathematical model: quantification. Lacking that, one can at least look for effects present in one idea that are absent in another.
bogie Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) Pretty sure you did: Yup. (emphasis added) You are skipping over the important details so let me address them: You introduced the term "energy". After you did, I asked for you to define it, thinking that would set the stage for my precising definitions of wave energy and wave energy density, which I saw as a productive way of going forward. In referring to the two precising definitions that applied, I said "both of which may be entirely different than how you define the "energy" variable in your equation. How could we know though, if you didn't give me your definition? If you would rather interpret the post differently than I do, ... your prerogative. It still means what I say it means. I infer from your dismissiveness that you don't think it is important now to state your definition of such a central term to all physics, or to acknowledge my definitions which are central to my alternative model, as part of our communication. I still do though, because we would need to agree on definitions, or at least acknowledge each other's definitions, if we are going to communicate. Sure. But you had said yours might be different. Havning just addressed that, and now being of the opinion that you hesitate to acknowledge my definitions as being appropriate, you resorted to what I call a "tactic". Like I was some newbie, you gave me the bit about suggesting I come up with new and flashy words for my definitions. It is still funny when people try doing that, but those days are past for me. That inspired me to bring up the discussion of "precising" definitions. You didn't acknowledge that my "precising definitions" could add anything to the "discussion", and you didn't take exception to my introduction of the concept of precising definitions at the time, but now you want to claim you know the intent of what I said when I asked you for your definition of energy. I asked for it in an effort to get my definitions acknowledged, but instead, you come out strangely interpreting it wrong. Me saying that my definitions may be entirely different from the unknown definition, that you would not state (why does Harry Potter come to mind), was and is true until you state your definition. Interpret the statement where I lamented about how mine could differ, any way you want, it is true until you give your definition. You might come up with a definition that invokes "wave flooble density". However, I tired of trying to get your definition and I offered a possible definition that you might have used; energy is sometimes defined as the ability to do work. That may or may not be your definition, because after I offered that, you said, referring to your definition, "My definition of energy is the same as the one of mainstream physics, but since (as you have said) yours may differ, the physics definition doesn't matter. We're discussing your conjecture." Responding that way makes me wonder if you intend to communicate or if instead, simply repeatedly ask for explanations of things the many might say are clear. And there is the undertone of repeatedly asking for quantification, though I have twice responded appropriately, given the context of my presentation, and of the type of discussions that take place in the Speculations sub-forum. You could go about interpreting what I say any way that pleases you; my objections and corrections be darned. If I read you right, you are getting ready to put your moderator hat on, or will be now, lol, so you may as well put it on now. I'm too old to suffer the disparagement of continually having words put in my mouth, of having my statements misinterpreted willy nilly, and especially of being diligent in trying to respond, if no response will be able to alter some ultimate course you have in mind. Fifteen years or so of being on the alternative model side of science forums, or as some might say, the dark side, have made me quick to be suspicious of where people are coming from, especially moderators, when all of a sudden they start paying attention to me, lol, Maybe too quick. You tell me to if you would rather that I didn't offer any more speculations about the Infinite Spongy Universe. Edited April 12, 2017 by bogie
swansont Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 You are skipping over the important details so let me address them: You introduced the term "energy". After you did, I asked for you to define it, thinking that would set the stage for my precising definitions of wave energy and wave energy density, which I saw as a productive way of going forward. In referring to the two precising definitions that applied, I said "both of which may be entirely different than how you define the "energy" variable in your equation. You use the term "energy" 6 times in your initial post, and 5 more times in subsequent ones before I even posted. But I introduced the term? How could we know though, if you didn't give me your definition? You could just go ahead and define it. I wasn't asking you to compare, I was asking for the definition. If you would rather interpret the post differently than I do, ... your prerogative. It still means what I say it means. I infer from your dismissiveness that you don't think it is important now to state your definition of such a central term to all physics, or to acknowledge my definitions which are central to my alternative model, as part of our communication. I still do though, because we would need to agree on definitions, or at least acknowledge each other's definitions, if we are going to communicate. You aren't actually discussing mainstream physics, so the definition would not be necessary, if indeed you had a new definition. But since you have clearly stated that the energy is EM wave and gravitational wave energy, this is moot, no? You tell me to if you would rather that I didn't offer any more speculations about the Infinite Spongy Universe. I'd rather you answered my questions about your conjecture rather than chase imagined slights to your reputation down the rabbit hole. You spent a whole post trying to redefine history and re-hash a discussion that is of peripherally interest, and make hay out of the fact that this isn't the first time you've peddled this idea. I don't care. You talk of me "getting ready to put (my) moderator hat on" because, I suspect you've been subjected to similar scrutiny and you know how this ends. You know what? this isn't my first rodeo, either. I have seen many other proponents of some alternative science do exactly what you're doing. Characterizing objections to your idea as personal insults, puffing out your chest and saying, in effect, "How dare you! I don't have to take this kind of abuse!" Some threaten to leave in a huff. Others ask if they shouldn't post anymore. What they never do is present any science. You haven't offered any speculations that rises to the level of rigor that we require. You're dodging questions and you have no testable model. If you can't do any better, science-wise, then I would rather you didn't post anymore on this or any other similarly unsupported topic. It will save the mods from having to lock the thread. 1
bogie Posted April 14, 2017 Author Posted April 14, 2017 ... You haven't offered any speculations that rises to the level of rigor that we require. You're dodging questions and you have no testable model. If you can't do any better, science-wise, then I would rather you didn't post anymore on this or any other similarly unsupported topic. It will save the mods from having to lock the thread. Something did come to mind in regard to quantification. Does this equation qualify in any shape or form as a starting point of quantification of the basics of the ISU model?http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102607-wave-particle-speculation/?p=971347
swansont Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 Something did come to mind in regard to quantification. Does this equation qualify in any shape or form as a starting point of quantification of the basics of the ISU model? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102607-wave-particle-speculation/?p=971347 What can you calculate with it, which would be of interest?
bogie Posted April 14, 2017 Author Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) What can you calculate with it, which would be of interest?It returns the point in the quantum action process where a new quantum of energy, in the form of an expanding spherical wave, emerges from the convergence of two or more parent quantum waves. It works at both the quantum level in regard to quanta that make up the wave-particle, and at the macro level in regard to when a new expanding Big Bang arena wave will emerge in the landscape of the greater universe, from the convergence of two or more parent arena waves.http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/these-waves-may-let-us-see-big-bang-s-earliest-n744851 Edited April 14, 2017 by bogie
swansont Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 It returns the point in the quantum action process where a new quantum of energy, in the form of an expanding spherical wave, emerges from the convergence of two or more parent quantum waves. It works at both the quantum level in regard to quanta that make up the wave-particle, and at the macro level in regard to when a new expanding Big Bang arena wave will emerge in the landscape of the greater universe, from the convergence of two or more parent arena waves.http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/these-waves-may-let-us-see-big-bang-s-earliest-n744851 Can you calculate anything of interest with it? The energy states of Hydrogen, for example?
bogie Posted April 15, 2017 Author Posted April 15, 2017 Can you calculate anything of interest with it? The energy states of Hydrogen, for example?What are you saying, that my answer wasn't interesting :shrug:? Many constructive questions could have followed from it. Also interesting about the equation is the "sameness" between the two action processes, and how the micro realm and the macro realm play out in the same space, at the same time.
swansont Posted April 15, 2017 Posted April 15, 2017 What are you saying, that my answer wasn't interesting :shrug:? Many constructive questions could have followed from it. Also interesting about the equation is the "sameness" between the two action processes, and how the micro realm and the macro realm play out in the same space, at the same time. Your answer reads like word salad. One needs to test ideas against experimental results. Can you calculate anything of interest with you formula?
bogie Posted April 15, 2017 Author Posted April 15, 2017 (edited) Your answer reads like word salad. One needs to test ideas against experimental results. Can you calculate anything of interest with you formula? I don't deny it reads like word salad, and No, nothing interesting if you reject everything I find of interest. But with the idea of testing results, the equation is still of interest for the reasons stated in the last two posts, and because it is a starting point for quantifying the action processes in the ISU model in relation to known values in physics. The equation, and that graphic with it shows relationships, and explanations of the equation, in regard to one quantum. I'll just continue on and post some related ideas about quantification. From what we know about the proton at rest, and from what I hypothesize about the process of quantum action at the foundational level, we can derive a ball park figure (Wagner=wild arse guess not easily refuted) of the number of quanta within the proton, as I have described the quantum in my model. Divide the energy of a proton at rest by the number of quanta in the proton, and you derive the energy value of one quantum within the standing wave pattern that represents the "at rest" presence of the particle in my model. The speculation includes that there is a quantum of energy in each high energy density spot within the particle space of a wave-particle, and all of the particle space is filled with quanta, as described in the thread named, "Wave-Particle Speculations"; the premise discussed in that thread is that the wave-particle (all particles are wave-particles in the model) is composed of energy in quantum increments. We estimate the number of quanta contained in a proton at rest, and then, given the defined energy of a proton at rest in some standard unit, an estimate of the energy of a quantum in the model that equates to the contained energy of a proton could be derived. I am using the ratio of the rest energy of an electron vs. a proton, which is 1/1836, to equate the number of quanta in the proton to the number of quanta in the electron, which gives me a basis for a calculation. In addition, I am supposing that the number of quanta in an electron is equal to the number of quanta at the surface of the proton, based on some logic about the interactions between electrons and protons in an atom; word salad in the context of alternate speculation models, but for this exercise it serves as a mathematical relationship between the energy of the proton and the electron, to allow us to do the calculations. Area/Volume = (4 pi r^2)/(4/3 pi r^3) = 3/r = 1/1836, given the assumption above. Therefore r=3*1836 = 5508, thus the radius of the proton is equal to 5508 quanta across that diameter within the standing wave pattern of the proton wave-particle. 4 pi r^2 = surface area of a sphere 4/3 pi r^3 = volume of a sphere pi = 3.14159265 Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356 Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517 Those serve is useable numbers for talking purposes in my model. Edited April 15, 2017 by bogie
swansont Posted April 15, 2017 Posted April 15, 2017 What measurable quantity can you relate this to?
bogie Posted April 15, 2017 Author Posted April 15, 2017 Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356 Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517 Those serve is useable numbers for talking purposes in my model. What measurable quantity can you relate this to?The rest energy of the electron and the proton.
swansont Posted April 15, 2017 Posted April 15, 2017 The rest energy of the electron and the proton. Your equations predict them? i.e. Without using the information (or related information) as input?
bogie Posted April 16, 2017 Author Posted April 16, 2017 Your equations predict them? i.e. Without using the information (or related information) as input?No.
swansont Posted April 16, 2017 Posted April 16, 2017 No. Then that's not a test of the validity of the equations.
bogie Posted April 16, 2017 Author Posted April 16, 2017 In regard to starting the process of quantification, you commented that (obviously) an equation would help. I had already presented my basic equation and linked to it here: Something did come to mind in regard to quantification. Does this equation qualify in any shape or form as a starting point of quantification of the basics of the ISU model?http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102607-wave-particle-speculation/?p=971347 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102607-wave-particle-speculation/?p=971347 I followed your lead, and I went on with beginning steps of quantification by detailing a ball park figure for the number of quanta in rest particles, given the description of wave-particles and quanta in my speculative model. ... that's not a test of the validity of the equations. At this point we are agreeing that by equating my definition of the number of quanta in wave-particles at rest, to your view of the energy of a proton and electron (you representing the scientific community here), is not a test of scientific validity of the equation, in the context of what would be expected if it was presented as theory, and if there were predictions and proposed tests that could be falsified. Never the less, the equation is valid in regard to math, and has my accompanying logic. My follow up use of other simple and common equations returns ball park figures that are useful in the process of quantification; they put into perspective how tiny a quantum is in the quantum action process of the model. That is a step toward quantification. Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356 Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517 Moving along, there is a quantum associated with both action process. The arena action process invokes a quantum of energy equal the the energy in the hot, dense, ball of expanding energy, referred to as an arena wave, that emerges from a Big Bang, and so in a multiple Big Bang arena model like the ISU, quantification at the macro level logically begins with the Big Bang itself, the energy of which is the quantum at the level of the landscape of the greater universe.
swansont Posted April 16, 2017 Posted April 16, 2017 In regard to starting the process of quantification, you commented that (obviously) an equation would help. I had already presented my basic equation and linked to it here:I followed your lead, and I went on with beginning steps of quantification by detailing a ball park figure for the number of quanta in rest particles, given the description of wave-particles and quanta in my speculative model. At this point we are agreeing that by equating my definition of the number of quanta in wave-particles at rest, to your view of the energy of a proton and electron (you representing the scientific community here), is not a test of scientific validity of the equation, in the context of what would be expected if it was presented as theory, and if there were predictions and proposed tests that could be falsified. Never the less, the equation is valid in regard to math, and has my accompanying logic. My follow up use of other simple and common equations returns ball park figures that are useful in the process of quantification; they put into perspective how tiny a quantum is in the quantum action process of the model. That is a step toward quantification. Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356 Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517 Moving along, there is a quantum associated with both action process. The arena action process invokes a quantum of energy equal the the energy in the hot, dense, ball of expanding energy, referred to as an arena wave, that emerges from a Big Bang, and so in a multiple Big Bang arena model like the ISU, quantification at the macro level logically begins with the Big Bang itself, the energy of which is the quantum at the level of the landscape of the greater universe. It's not enough to be math and accompanying logic. It needs to be compared to something we can measure. Further, you haven't touched upon the significance of these numbers. What would it mean to change the quanta of action by 1 in an electron or proton? The quantized parameters in QM have distinct effects that one can measure. Did you ever call this idea Quantum Wave Cosmology?
bogie Posted April 16, 2017 Author Posted April 16, 2017 It's not enough to be math and accompanying logic. It needs to be compared to something we can measure. Further, you haven't touched upon the significance of these numbers. What would it mean to change the quanta of action by 1 in an electron or proton? The quantized parameters in QM have distinct effects that one can measure.It will take some time to address that part of your post, which I have started to work on.Did you ever call this idea Quantum Wave Cosmology?QWC was my a designation of my earlier model. After it had evolved, I had gone back to the drawing board, and what I called the model changed. BTW, brain-in-a-vat was accidentally a duplicate registration. I pointed that out some time ago, and the direction I got was to stop using it, and stick with my original registration, as "Bogie"
Recommended Posts