What if instantaneous forces are a clue to how matter operates at the most basic level?

[Kurt Mueller]

Quantum entanglement would be one instantaneous force observed, the photon's speed of light another. Although, it's currently assumed that photons are always moving at the speed of light upon creation.

What if these are connected and a clue to how matter basically operates?

 

(Previous meandering post aside. If these ideas are out there, I may as well discuss them.)

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, Kurt Mueller said:

(Previous meandering post aside. If these ideas are out there, I may as well discuss them.)

 

Quantum entanglement would be one instantaneous force observed, the photon's speed of light another.

Please be more specific, this is still meandering.

By 'instantaneous force' I assume you mean some sort of action at a distance agent  ?

As far as I know neither speed nor entanglement constitute a force.

[swansont]

No forces are instantaneous, and entanglement isn't a force.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Kurt Mueller said:

(Previous meandering post aside. If these ideas are out there, I may as well discuss them.)

!

Moderator Note

The key to discussions here is the support you bring for "out there" ideas. Nobody wants to bother if this is all the rigor you're going to invest in the conversation.

It's up to you to take replies on board and fix your idea accordingly. Or admit that, after further study, it's wrong, like most ideas. But PLEASE be more specific, and do more to support your ideas than make statements and wave your hands. This is a science discussion site.

 

[Kurt Mueller]

See, I'm still being stymied by make lack of common vernacular. Perhaps I'll just make a simple video that lays it out step by step so people can understand in the way I do.

Thank you for your replies.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Kurt Mueller
clarity

[Phi for All]

55 minutes ago, Kurt Mueller said:

See, I'm still being stymied by make lack of common vernacular. Perhaps I'll just make a simple video that lays it out step by step so people can understand in the way I do.

!

Moderator Note

Please don't post it as support for your arguments. By our rules, you can't require someone to watch a video in order to participate. And making a video isn't going to correct problems with terminology, and may make things worse (since it's much more difficult for us to be precise in our response to a video).

Can't you simply take the replies into consideration, correct your thesis, and find a way to support that scientifically? Perhaps look up experiments where photons moving at c is observed and not assumed? Maybe ask questions, like why isn't entanglement a force? There's no need to make up new science just because you don't understand a mainstream explanation. We're all here to learn more about our best current scientific explanations for various phenomena.

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Kurt Mueller said:

See, I'm still being stymied by make lack of common vernacular.

Yeah well see it's kinda loik this.

Them scientist folksies have a conspiratorial amungst thmeselvesies to give particuliar meenings to there speshall wurds jest soaz dey cn all undrestand each udder.

 

[joigus]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yeah well see it's kinda loik this.

Them scientist folksies have a conspiratorial amungst thmeselvesies to give particuliar meenings to there speshall wurds jest soaz dey cn all undrestand each udder.

 

May the entanglement be with you.

[swansont]

15 hours ago, joigus said:

May the entanglement be with you.

And also superpositionally with you.

[Bufofrog]

20 hours ago, Kurt Mueller said:

See, I'm still being stymied by make lack of common vernacular.

I am rather amazed that you have spent a decade researching this and you do not understand the difference between basic physics concepts.  This is not a vernacular problem, this is a conceptual problem.  You should go to a basic physics site and look up the definitions of velocity, acceleration, momentum, force and energy.  

[Kurt Mueller]

It's because when I learn a physical law I remember it forever, but I'll forget the word everyone else uses for it the next day. I think in 3d objects and complex emotions, not words. I realize now that's been my real problem, and it makes me look crazy, even if only I can see it for now. 

I'll try to explain myself better and try again. Feel free to mock me over it, I know I come off as arrogant in silly in equal measure. I take no offense. 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Kurt Mueller
clarity

[joigus]

I for one apologise for having been facetious, but you really should write down these things and consider what dimensions they have in terms of mass, length, and time.

Then be aware that modern physics has all of them reduced to length, so the questions turns to writing down all your magnitudes in terms of length (or any other in the Plank scale).

You can't build all of physics from scratch. It's like ordering the demolition of the Taj Mahal because you've come up with a good idea for a bungalow summer resort there.

And believe me, I'm trying to be helpful. You're going to find strong opposition for very good reasons.

[Kurt Mueller]

Yes, I understand that. It's not just having a good idea, even if it's the thousandth idea that's come from who knows how many thousands of hours of putting the pieces together again and again until you find one that fits. I've got to demonstrate it. I'll try. Thank you.

[joigus]

Thousands of hours thinking about a physical problem without taking much input from experts' and known facts normally end up being thousands of hours down the drain. It's actually a very bad symptom. You're trying to re-write hundreds of years of progress in science. Be careful with how much time you spend thinking on your own.

The best physicists spend thousand upon thousands of hours studying (or using) physics they can claim no authorship of, and only tens of hours thinking of new ideas.

Most physicists spend their lives skillfully using other people's theories. That's how it works.

So it's the other way around. Thousands of hours of study culminate in tens of hours of inspiration at best.

Something like that.

Again, I'm trying to be helpful.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Kurt Mueller said:

It's because when I learn a physical law I remember it forever, but I'll forget the word everyone else uses for it the next day. I think in 3d objects and complex emotions, not words. I realize now that's been my real problem, and it makes me look crazy, even if only I can see it for now. 

It makes you look lazy, not crazy. You've developed a narrative that allows you to reject anything you deem too difficult or technical ("I think in 3d objects and complex emotions, not words") and substitute it for something you've made up by intuition and guesswork. Somewhere along the line, you got the idea that everything in science has to make intuitive sense to you before you'll accept it. It's pretty common in the age of the internet, where people learn science in the form of popular articles trying to get you hooked on "the mysteries". It's all too easy to take various bits of trustworthy information and stitch them together, filling the gaps with stuff you've made up based on a limited science education.

1 hour ago, Kurt Mueller said:

Feel free to mock me over it, I know I come off as arrogant in silly in equal measure. I take no offense. 

!

Moderator Note

I would take offense if I thought other members were mocking you. Please remember that part of the scientific methodology is removing unnecessary elements that might taint the findings of your experiments (there's nothing personal or mocking in correcting your use of common definitions). Ideas in science are meant to be reviewed with rigor to find their flaws, so please don't take replies helping you shore up the foundations of your idea as mockery. Isn't this why you came to a discussion site like this?

 

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, Kurt Mueller said:

I'll try to explain myself better and try again. Feel free to mock me over it, I know I come off as arrogant in silly in equal measure. I take no offense.

Sorry for the condescending tone.  Terminology is vital if you want to get your idea understood. 

Here is a suggestion, pick one small piece of your ideas and take some time to write it out.  If someone questions an idea like "energy has direction", let's discuss it and make sure we have the same definition of 'energy' and 'direction'.

[Kurt Mueller]

Yes, it did all look lazy in retrospect. That's the cost of cobbling together some of my notes after weeks of hardly any sleep and throwing them up online randomly with a long rant attached.

The focus was completely wrong. An obsession with coming up with a model that worked at every level and explained phenomena while not breaking down under (my own, ugh) scrutiny, and not with explaining things simply and in whole, while attempting to experimentally prove them step by step. Also, I was obsessed with credit for some reason, and now that seems ridiculous.

What is an idea if not shared? Nothing. And since I'm sleeping quite well now, I think you all put me on the right track. Thank you.