Dovada's new atomic model

[Klaynos]

"energy area"? What does that mean?

[Bignose]

I have a reason for asking (the units are possibly wrongly defined), if it is so simple please explain by example.

 

Fine, I'm in a good mood this evening.

 

[math]G = 6.67384 \cdot 10^{-11} \frac{{m^3}}{{kg} \cdot {s^2}}[/math] I'm going to convert it from m to feet and kg to pounds mass.

 

1 m is 3.28 feet

 

1 kg is 2.2 lbm

 

You just multiply the above by fractions made of these conversions:

 

[math]G = 6.67384 \cdot 10^{-11} \frac{{m^3}}{{kg} \cdot {s^2}} \cdot \left( \frac{3.28 ft}{1 m} \right)^3 \cdot \left(\frac{1 kg}{2.2 lb_m} \right)[/math]

 

The meters cubed on the top and bottom cancel as well as the kg on the top and bottom, and then you do the arithmetic -- namely you multiply 6.67384* 10^-11 by 3.28 cubed and divide by 2.2 and the result is

 

[math]G = 1.0705 \cdot 10^{-9} \frac{{ft^3}}{{lb_m} \cdot {s^2}}[/math]

 

you can do this with any constant and any system of units. Really, again, quite simple stuff. So, will you actually come to whatever point you are trying to make?

Edited October 27, 2011 by Bignose

[Dovada]

"energy area"? What does that mean?

If E=mc^2 then Centripetal force = m(c^2/r)

 

The continual centripetal force is the energy imposed on earth's atomic structure to continually change direction as it spirals around the sun.

 

Where:

149,793,753,493.686 = Radius distance between sun and the earth.

1836.151 = mass proton / mass electron.

9,000 meters/sec = Galactic U velocity (motion of the solar system toward the galactic center.

600,000 meters/sec = Velocity of the local group of galaxies (includes milky way).

 

599,995.098 = c^2/149,793,753,493.686

 

599,995.098 = 600,000 - (9,000/1836.151)

 

electron volt = ((599,995.098 x Magnetic constant)/ 2pi)^2 / c^2 = 1.602189 x10-19 Coulombs

 

The suggestion is that the gravitational centripetal force between the masses may be related to atomic electrical forces. Unfortunately this does not translate into other planets unless the constants are not necessary constant.

 

Any opinions on this?

 

Fine, I'm in a good mood this evening.

I really appreciated your post, having worked in a country that only works in decimal all my life my reliability in working with other areas needs some improvement. Thank you, you confirmed a value for me.

[Klaynos]

If E=mc^2 then Centripetal force = m(c^2/r)

 

Firstly, it's not, E=mc² is an approximation of:

 

E² = p²c²+m²c⁴

 

Secondly, I do not see how you go from your first statement to your second.

 

The continual centripetal force is the energy imposed on earth's atomic structure to continually change direction as it spirals around the sun.

 

Where:

149,793,753,493.686 = Radius distance between sun and the earth.

1836.151 = mass proton / mass electron.

9,000 meters/sec = Galactic U velocity (motion of the solar system toward the galactic center.

600,000 meters/sec = Velocity of the local group of galaxies (includes milky way).

 

599,995.098 = c^2/149,793,753,493.686

 

599,995.098 = 600,000 - (9,000/1836.151)

 

electron volt = ((599,995.098 x Magnetic constant)/ 2pi)^2 / c^2 = 1.602189 x10-19 Coulombs

 

The suggestion is that the gravitational centripetal force between the masses may be related to atomic electrical forces. Unfortunately this does not translate into other planets unless the constants are not necessary constant.

 

Any opinions on this?

 

Yes, a very simple and quick one, the gravitational force is many orders of magnitude smaller than the other fundamental forces. Any associated psydoforces (centralpetal for example) are therefore correspondingly small. This is trivially observable as a fridge magnet can support itself against gravity on a fridge.

[Dovada]

Yes, a very simple and quick one, the gravitational force is many orders of magnitude smaller than the other fundamental forces. Any associated psydoforces (centralpetal for example) are therefore correspondingly small. This is trivially observable as a fridge magnet can support itself against gravity on a fridge.

When you define actual gravitational force energy as smaller against the electrical force, in what way do you do the comparison? For example the ratio between the two forces, what values do you use?

[Klaynos]

"actual gravitational force"?

 

Well in the above example it's the mass of the earth - magnet system compared to the magnetic attraction between the magnet - metal.

[swansont]

If E=mc^2 then Centripetal force = m(c^2/r)

 

 

Any opinions on this?

Yeah, it's crap. One does not follow from the other. Centripetal force implies circular motion. Light is not in circular motion around the sun.

[Dovada]

Yeah, it's crap. One does not follow from the other. Centripetal force implies circular motion. Light is not in circular motion around the sun.

Mass also defined as charge is in circular motion around the sun and in motion within the galaxy.

 

Well in the above example it's the mass of the earth - magnet system compared to the magnetic attraction between the magnet - metal.

 

You say, "the gravitational force is many orders of magnitude smaller than the other fundamental forces" how do you arrive at this conclusion?

 

Firstly, it's not, E=mc2 is an approximation of:

 

E² = p²c²+m²c⁴

 

Secondly, I do not see how you go from your first statement to your second.

E = energy?

p = ?

c = speed of light

m = mass

Not sure of p and unsure of the purpose of what is written.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Dovada

[Bignose]

unsure of the purpose of what is written.

 

Dovada,

 

it means you need to study a lot of what is accepted physics today before you start trying to tear it down. Please don't take this personally, but you have demonstrated several fundamental flaws in this thread. From being unable to convert from one system of units to another to not even knowing why E=mc^2 is an approximation to just 'fiddling' with E=mc^2 and arriving at your 'centripedal force' equation, you are really not in a position to try to attack what you don't know.

 

Again, this is not personal, and it is not necessarily a problem. You just need to spend some time learning what is accepted today. It hasn't come around just because people fiddled with it -- it has been accepted because the preponderance of evidence supports it. There are plenty of unanswered questions in physics today, plenty of things to explore. But, without some basic tools, you just cannot even really begin.

 

So, I ask you to step back, find a text you are comfortable with, and work through these basics. And, every single time you have a question in your text, please post it on this forum. Lots of people willing to help you here.

[Dovada]

Dovada,

 

it means you need to study a lot of what is accepted physics today before you start trying to tear it down. Please don't take this personally, but you have demonstrated several fundamental flaws in this thread. From being unable to convert from one system of units to another to not even knowing why E=mc^2 is an approximation to just 'fiddling' with E=mc^2 and arriving at your 'centripedal force' equation, you are really not in a position to try to attack what you don't know.

 

Again, this is not personal, and it is not necessarily a problem. You just need to spend some time learning what is accepted today. It hasn't come around just because people fiddled with it -- it has been accepted because the preponderance of evidence supports it. There are plenty of unanswered questions in physics today, plenty of things to explore. But, without some basic tools, you just cannot even really begin.

 

So, I ask you to step back, find a text you are comfortable with, and work through these basics. And, every single time you have a question in your text, please post it on this forum. Lots of people willing to help you here.

What I fail to understand is the inability of modern day physics theories to accept the fundamental fact that atomic structure that is both defined as mass and as electric charge is in a state of high speed motion within the cosmos.

This motion must contribute to the energy structure that is present within and around atomic structure such that the motion of all atomic structure would not be possible without such contribution.

Why I ask questions about what is accepted in physics today is, modern theories do not and cannot explain this motion and I strongly believe that the physics today is overlooking one of the most important aspects that prevents the linking together of electrical and gravitational theory.

What you are suggesting to me is, to go away and study the accepted physics theories that are used today and when you think the same as us you will not need to question us about our theories.

I have questioned the modern theories used today and feel they are inadequate, meaning they are as yet incomplete. For this reason I question the definitions that are associated with various mathematical statements.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Dovada

[Klaynos]

Mass also defined as charge is in circular motion around the sun and in motion within the galaxy.

 

Mass and charge are not the same thing. They are both properties but are not the same.

 

You say, "the gravitational force is many orders of magnitude smaller than the other fundamental forces" how do you arrive at this conclusion?

 

The traditional way it to find the magnitude of the forces between two sub atomic particles.

 

E = energy?

p = ?

c = speed of light

m = mass

Not sure of p and unsure of the purpose of what is written.

 

p is momentum. I would suggest a basic special relativity course. You are trying to apply equations which you do no understand.

 

What I fail to understand is the inability of modern day physics theories to accept the fundamental fact that atomic structure that is both defined as mass and as electric charge is in a state of high speed motion within the cosmos.

 

Motion is relative. You have been told this, without teaching some basic and fundamental physics there's little more to add.

 

This motion must contribute to the energy structure that is present within and around atomic structure such that the motion of all atomic structure would not be possible without such contribution.

 

Motion is relative.

 

Why I ask questions about what is accepted in physics today is, modern theories do not and cannot explain this motion

 

That's because it's relative.

 

and I strongly believe that the physics today is overlooking one of the most important aspects that prevents the linking together of electrical and gravitational theory.

 

I think this is because you don't actually know modern physics.

 

What you are suggesting to me is, to go away and study the accepted physics theories that are used today and when you think the same as us you will not need to question us about our theories.

 

To actually question, and make reasoned arguments against the accepted physics, you need to understand it. We've tried to explain why this idea of cosmic motion is flawed but there is a lack of knowledge on your part. Read a good text book on special relativity is my advice for a starting point.

 

I have questioned the modern theories used today and feel they are inadequate, meaning they are as yet incomplete. For this reason I question the definitions that are associated with various mathematical statements.

 

How do you know they are inadequate, you don't know what they are?

[Dovada]

Unfortunately many assumed conclusions reached by our scientists and physicists in the past are seriously flawed, mainly because some of them were founded on an incomplete or incorrect scientific knowledge base from an earlier period.

Plus in the absence of any zero frames of reference within the cosmos to base theories on, the scientist has resorted to using the earth itself as the zero frame of reference point. This has created major problems for the physicist in that it prevents him from exploring the possibility of using motion within the fourth dimension as a reference for further development of his theoretical models.

 

Most importantly this accelerated cosmic motion allows us to add a new electrical dimension to quantum atomic theory to remove the “correspondence limit” that cripples quantum theory. The inclusion of cosmic motion within quantum atomic theory not only helps to explain why the quanta effect is occurring, but provides the atomic model with the ability to completely function under classical electrical theory because of cosmic motion of the charged particles. From this perspective of cosmic motion of the atomic charged particles our fundamental quantum mechanics can now be reduced back down to classical mechanical principles.

 

Motion is relative.

To what?

 

Using classical mechanics the movement of electric charge is relative to what? This is a major problem in physics today and has been taken to extremes.

Many of today's problems relating to the compatibility of quantum physics and classical physics can be understood if we consider infra red galactic velocity information which has only recently been brought to light.

 

When we have the information about the velocity of the local group of galaxies (600,000 m/sec) - it is not unreasonable to use that as a zero reference point instead of the earth as a zero reference point.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Dovada

[swansont]

Mass also defined as charge is in circular motion around the sun and in motion within the galaxy.

Mass, especially when discussing the center-of-mass of the earth, is not moving at c.

 

What I fail to understand is the inability of modern day physics theories to accept the fundamental fact that atomic structure that is both defined as mass and as electric charge is in a state of high speed motion within the cosmos.

This motion must contribute to the energy structure that is present within and around atomic structure such that the motion of all atomic structure would not be possible without such contribution.

Maybe because it's not a fundamental fact. From a scientific standpoint, you have done zero to try and establish this as fact.

[Ophiolite]

Unfortunately many assumed conclusions reached by our scientists and physicists in the past are seriously flawed, mainly because some of them were founded on an incomplete or incorrect scientific knowledge base from an earlier period.

Even in this one sentence there is so much that seems just plain wrong:

 

Scientists do not assume conclusions. Arguably science never reaches a conclusion, since every hypothesis can potentially be overturned by a new, contrary finding. However, lets imagine an implicit provisional in front of conclusion. No conclusions are assumed. Conclusions are derived by gathering data, analysing them, proposing a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, modifying it as appropriate, seeking further testing and validation, then arriving at a (provisional) conclusion. Where is the assumption in that?

 

Are you seriously contending that scientists are so intellectually stunted, regimented and dogmatic that they are unable to identify gaps in our knowledge base? Do you claim that earlier results are accepted at face value indefinitely, perhaps for ever? Do you actually have any idea about how science is conducted? It seems not.

 

Plus in the absence of any zero frames of reference within the cosmos to base theories on, the scientist has resorted to using the earth itself as the zero frame of reference point.

Since there is no universal reference frame (and you have done nothing to demonstrate that such a possibilty should be seriously considered) the only correct reference frame to use is the one you happen to be in.

 

 

This has created major problems for the physicist in that it prevents him from exploring the possibility of using motion within the fourth dimension as a reference for further development of his theoretical models.

Your statements here confuse me. You are suggesting that physicists do not use time in their models?

 

 

 

Most importantly this accelerated cosmic motion allows us to add a new electrical dimension to quantum atomic theory to remove the “correspondence limit” that cripples quantum theory.

Please define 'electrical dimension' in this context.

 

Quantum theory is hardly crippled by the correspondence limit. Why don't you say that relativity is crippled by the correspondence limit? Ah yes, it would all depend on your frame of reference.

 

 

Many of today's problems relating to the compatibility of quantum physics and classical physics can be understood if we consider infra red galactic velocity information which has only recently been brought to light.

This is completely off-topic, but I can't resist it: how do you bring infra-red to light? By approaching it rapidly?

 

When we have the information about the velocity of the local group of galaxies (600,000 m/sec) - it is not unreasonable to use that as a zero reference point instead of the earth as a zero reference point.

Why? Why should that be a preferred reference? Your arguments lack logical content.

[Dovada]

Mass, especially when discussing the center-of-mass of the earth, is not moving at c.

It is a known fact that atomic mass has at least a velocity of 600,000 meters per second along with the rest of the galaxy and more in that this 600,000 meters per second velocity applies to the local group of galaxies.

 

Since there is no universal reference frame (and you have done nothing to demonstrate that such a possibilty should be seriously considered) the only correct reference frame to use is the one you happen to be in.

The 600,000 meters per second is a suitable frame of reference. May I add a much more realistic frame of reference than a zero earth frame of reference.

 

Your statements here confuse me. You are suggesting that physicists do not use time in their models?

Time flows in one direction just as the local group of galaxies move in one direction. When we use the term 600,000 meters per second we are defining the time of one second itself.

 

Please define 'electrical dimension' in this context.

The motion of electrical charges moving with the local group of galaxies at 600,000 meters per second.

 

Quantum theory is hardly crippled by the correspondence limit. Why don't you say that relativity is crippled by the correspondence limit? Ah yes, it would all depend on your frame of reference.

The conditions under which quantum and classical physics agree are referred to as the correspondence limit. The rules of quantum mechanics are highly successful in describing microscopic objects, atoms and elementary particles. But macroscopic systems like springs and capacitors are accurately described by classical theories like classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics. If quantum mechanics should be applicable to macroscopic objects there must be some limit in which quantum mechanics reduces to classical mechanics. Bohr's correspondence principle demands that classical physics and quantum physics give the same answer when the systems become large. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle for more on this subject.

 

This is completely off-topic, but I can't resist it: how do you bring infra-red to light? By approaching it rapidly?

This is how scientists discovered our 600,000 meters per second for the local group of galaxies. They measured using the infra red shift of emitted light from galaxies.

 

Why? Why should that be a preferred reference? Your arguments lack logical content.

The 600,000 meters per second is a common velocity to all atomic matter in the local group of galaxies. The use of earth as zero is illogical in that any results will only apply to the earth environment itself.

 

Maybe because it's not a fundamental fact. From a scientific standpoint, you have done zero to try and establish this as fact.

The facts are all around us (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_%28physics%29 ) It is time we opened our eyes and progressed by expanding quantum physics to accept that all atomic structure is in motion. When we apply motion to electric charges we can then assign wavelength and frequency components. We can see the common values appearing in gravitational forces and electric charge. Edited October 29, 2011 by Dovada

[swansont]

It is a known fact that atomic mass has at least a velocity of 600,000 meters per second along with the rest of the galaxy and more in that this 600,000 meters per second velocity applies to the local group of galaxies.

 

You used mc^2/r as the centripetal force, which implies motion at c along a circular path. So far you have not been able to defend the use of the formula. Did you just use it because it gives the answer you want? That's the opposite of science.

 

The 600,000 meters per second is a suitable frame of reference. May I add a much more realistic frame of reference than a zero earth frame of reference.

A basic principle is that the choice of a reference frame doesn't matter, and there is a wealth of experiments that back this up. You are implying it does. Meanwhile, when it's pointed out that atoms aren't all moving at 600,000 m/s and this has no effect on atomic structure, you ignore the objections. It's evidence that motion has no effect on atomic structure. It falsifies your claim.

[Dovada]

You used mc^2/r as the centripetal force, which implies motion at c along a circular path. So far you have not been able to defend the use of the formula. Did you just use it because it gives the answer you want? That's the opposite of science.

The use of mc^2/r described simply as a centripetal force was to show the relationship that the Sun Earth experiences in a path that is similar to the ratio of the galactic velocity of 600,000 m/sec for the solar system as it moves with the galaxy and the solar radius distance between the Sun and the Earth.

The 600,000 m/sec centripetal force that would normally apply is (counteracted) balanced out by the 600,000 m/sec galactic velocity. This still leaves an active force between the masses we refer to as gravitation.

 

example: 600,000 * (Sun Earth radius) is simply equal to c^2 This is similar to Kepler's law that expresses the planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time, so the Earth's mass moves with the Sun's mass at a radial distance that equals (c^2/600,000) along with the galaxy at 600,000 m/sec to sweep out an area that simply equals c^2.

 

These types of numerical relationships need to be looked at a little closer, that is all I am implying here.

 

A basic principle is that the choice of a reference frame doesn't matter, and there is a wealth of experiments that back this up. You are implying it does. Meanwhile, when it's pointed out that atoms aren't all moving at 600,000 m/s and this has no effect on atomic structure, you ignore the objections. It's evidence that motion has no effect on atomic structure. It falsifies your claim.

Do you imply here that the galactic velocity that we are a part of is not moving at 600,000 meters per second? If you do agree we are moving at 600,000 m/s how can you say "It's evidence that motion has no effect on atomic structure. It falsifies your claim. I have not found any evidence that suggests this.

[insane_alien]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=600000*+distance+from+earth+to+the+sun+%2F+speed+of+light^2

 

close but no cigar.

 

i call numerology.

[John Cuthber]

Why in your opinion, did Newton need to use the numerical big G constant 6.673x10-11 in the first place?

As I understand it, he didn't.

He had no means of measuring the mass of the earth so he had no way of calculating the value of the constant.

 

However, the relation (i.e. the inverse square law) gives rise to predictions about the orbits of planets.

Those predictions agreed with the measured data (in a manner already described mathematically by Kepler). so the law was (perhaps tentatively) accepted.

It was rather later that Cavendish actually measured the constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

 

 

Anyway, you are still not answering the point that your "constants" change.

Failing to do that means that you are failing to do science.

[Klaynos]

Let me be frank. You have little to no understanding of the relativistic nature of speed. You asked "relative to what" earlier on, that indeed is the question. All speeds are quoted as relatives, x is move at speed s relative to y. There is no universal preference for picking what y is, normally scientists pick what simplifies the maths. This relativistic nature of velocities is well know and has been tested very thoroughly. You seem obsessed with some "cosmic" speed, which you state, but never state what it is relative to, it is both meaningless and arbitrary. It is perfectly valid to assume that Europa (the moon) is a rest frame and work out every other velocity relative to that, the problem is it makes the maths annoyingly and pointlessly complicated.

 

Imagine you are on a train watching the trees flash past the window, which is moving, the train, or the trees? There is no experiment method for determining which is moving, one is moving relative to the other, and which you pick as your rest frame is arbitrary!

 

I again fail to see how someone can march into a field about which their knowledge is severely lacking and decide that 100 years of experimental evidence is wrong, without understanding either the background nor the experiments, and when background reading is suggested to them to try and help them understand they just point blank refuse stating that it's all wrong when they have clearly shown they have no knowledge of what it contains.

 

Please, I implore you to read some texts on special relativity.

[Dovada]

Let me be frank. You have little to no understanding of the relativistic nature of speed. You asked "relative to what" earlier on, that indeed is the question. All speeds are quoted as relatives, x is move at speed s relative to y. There is no universal preference for picking what y is, normally scientists pick what simplifies the maths. This relativistic nature of velocities is well know and has been tested very thoroughly. You seem obsessed with some "cosmic" speed, which you state, but never state what it is relative to, it is both meaningless and arbitrary. It is perfectly valid to assume that Europa (the moon) is a rest frame and work out every other velocity relative to that, the problem is it makes the maths annoyingly and pointlessly complicated.

The simple answer here is that the atomic structure of the galaxy along with the solar system has a velocity which is 600,000 m/sec relative to other recorded galactic velocities which in some cases approach close to the speed of light itself. So if you need a reference, and assuming the speed of light is the maximum limit that is possible, then the speed of light is the relative factor. It is sufficient that we accept 600,000 as a limit in our calculations simply because it has been recorded as a local universal velocity condition.

 

Imagine you are on a train watching the trees flash past the window, which is moving, the train, or the trees? There is no experiment method for determining which is moving, one is moving relative to the other, and which you pick as your rest frame is arbitrary!

Are you saying in this case the trees are moving at 600,000 m/sec or the train is moving at 600,000 m/sec. I don't see the point here because we have discovered the motion and using logic suggests the galaxy is doing the moving.

 

I again fail to see how someone can march into a field about which their knowledge is severely lacking and decide that 100 years of experimental evidence is wrong, without understanding either the background nor the experiments, and when background reading is suggested to them to try and help them understand they just point blank refuse stating that it's all wrong when they have clearly shown they have no knowledge of what it contains.

If the use of infra red technology was available 100 years ago do you think we would be having this conversation, I doubt it.

It is important to understand that 100 years ago the information was not available to enable scientists to use alternative methods to explain atomic functions. I realize you are having difficulty understanding the practicality of what I am saying. But we need to adapt to new knowledge that clearly becomes available to us, otherwise what is the point of obtaining new knowledge and information if we do not adjust our theories to use that new knowledge.

 

close but no cigar.

 

i call numerology.

Why do you use information out of context. I was drawing an analogy.

 

Anyway, you are still not answering the point that your "constants" change.

Failing to do that means that you are failing to do science.

I am trying to draw your attention to the fact that we need to include our galactic velocity into our current models. This does not mean we should ignore this velocity completely.

As I commented before using the earth as ground zero means that we can only reliably depend on conditions that are in our local earth's environment. Conditions within the universe vary everywhere but somehow our atomic model cannot include this potential variation.

[Klaynos]

The simple answer here is that the atomic structure of the galaxy along with the solar system has a velocity which is 600,000 m/sec relative to other recorded galactic velocities which in some cases approach close to the speed of light itself.

 

Sorry, how can something be moving at 600000m/s and 3*10^8m/s relative to something else at the same time? This sentence makes no sense.

 

So if you need a reference, and assuming the speed of light is the maximum limit that is possible, then the speed of light is the relative factor.

 

Sorry, the rest frame of light is not valid. Light is always moving at the speed of light no matter what rest frame you measure it in.

 

It is sufficient that we accept 600,000 as a limit in our calculations simply because it has been recorded as a local universal velocity condition.

 

But it's ot a localy universal velocity condition, because the concept of a local universal velocity condition of fundamentally unphysical.

 

Are you saying in this case the trees are moving at 600,000 m/sec or the train is moving at 600,000 m/sec. I don't see the point here because we have discovered the motion and using logic suggests the galaxy is doing the moving.

 

I know you don't see the point, that is because you don't understand the underlying physics, please read a text on the subject.

 

If the use of infra red technology was available 100 years ago do you think we would be having this conversation,

 

Yes.

 

I doubt it.

 

But as commented you don't know enough about the subject area.

 

It is important to understand that 100 years ago the information was not available to enable scientists to use alternative methods to explain atomic functions.

 

Relativity works though, your idea opposes it. Your idea does not fit with how our experiments show the universe works.

 

I realize you are having difficulty understanding the practicality of what I am saying.

 

Not at all, you fail to understand why you are wrong due to lack of background reading.

 

But we need to adapt to new knowledge that clearly becomes available to us, otherwise what is the point of obtaining new knowledge and information if we do not adjust our theories to use that new knowledge.

 

I'd also recommend some general reading on the scientific method and it's modern application in physics.

 

Why do you use information out of context. I was drawing an analogy.

 

I am trying to draw your attention to the fact that we need to include our galactic velocity into our current models.

 

And we're pointing out to you why the concept of a set velocity galactic or not is flawed.

 

This does not mean we should ignore this velocity completely.

As I commented before using the earth as ground zero means that we can only reliably depend on conditions that are in our local earth's environment. Conditions within the universe vary everywhere but somehow our atomic model cannot include this potential variation.

 

Please understand that the velocity is relative, it depends which frame you choose to measure it from!

[Dovada]

If a electron particle has a velocity of:

 

462.9 m/sec what is its resonant frequency?

29770 m/sec what is its resonant frequency?

600,000 m/sec what is its resonant frequency?

 

What if it contains all three velocity vectors what harmonics are available?

[Ophiolite]

Which specific resonance are you talking about?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What does it mean for something to "contain" three velocity vectors?