IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?

[Strange]

Maybe I am wrong but all chemical reactions are in fact physical actions where the main and only protagonist is photon.

 

Then it would appear that you are wrong. Apart from some photochemistry, photons are not involved in chemical reactions. It is mainly electrons.

 

By the way, there is a button under posts marked

. Perhaps you could try it.

[Sensei]

Kramer, your way to quote posts is making it very hard to read and follow..

 

Can't you simply use quote tool in toolbox above text area? It's on the left of twitter icon..

There is also important button on the left-top - switching on/off formatting of text during editing.

I am using it all the time to copy'n'paste quote tags and adding quote ends..

Edited February 26, 2014 by Sensei

[swansont]

 

2 – I think the planet rotate by own gravity, which is a property of bases particles of mater, as it is electric charge too.

The discrepancy between the calculated velocity and the fact, I think came from the counter clock movement as I have suggested in second part of my thread.

Sure orbit and rotate movements of planet are linked with their kinetic energies. I suppose that must be an equality between summa of both kinetics energies, with the summa of gravity energies of sun-planet and own planet.

 

So much for your defense that you were asking a question rather than making an assertion. Which brings us back to the requirement that you back up your claims with some kind of evidence or testable prediction.

[Kramer]

 

strange

Then it would appear that you are wrong. Apart from some photochemistry, photons are
not involved in chemical reactions. It is mainly electrons.
------Well, I think differently. It is only “my conviction” that electron in it’s virgin status is in absolute rest (as whole). Cooping with photons, or maybe even with neutrinos, electrons are forced to move, sure in a reduced velocity via their mass. I don’t insist. It is only “my conviction”. In this meaning the culprit for movement is photon, even in chemical reactions.

Sensei
Kramer, your way to quote posts is making it very hard to read and follow..

Can't you simply use quote tool in toolbox above text area? It's on the left of twitter icon..

There is also important button on the left-top - switching on/off formatting of text during editing.

I am using it all the time to copy'n'paste quote tags and adding quote ends.
----- I realise from your post, that it is not only “quote” that make them hard to read and follow? It is my lame language and the confused my ideas that made them hard to grasp.
Thanks for help about “quote”, I admit that I am not a computer gay. I merely type with one finger. I would liked from you, your “vikipedian” rebut about my idea, that I posted in question form.

Swanson
So much for your defense that you were asking a question rather than making an assertion. Which brings us back to the requirement that you back up your claims with some kind of evidence or testable prediction.
----- I sincerely am puzzled about yours replays. To defend what? My idea? I bring it in the table, for dispute. I bring my all thought about it. Bring yours opposite. If it is nobody interested to debate in constructive mode, it is without meaning to continue.

[Strange]

 

Well, I think differently. It is only “my conviction” that electron in it’s virgin status is in absolute rest (as whole). Cooping with photons, or maybe even with neutrinos, electrons are forced to move, sure in a reduced velocity via their mass. I don’t insist. It is only “my conviction”. In this meaning the culprit for movement is photon, even in chemical reactions.

 

What you say here has no basis in reality. Why come to a science forum if you are just going to make up stuff? Maybe you should take up writing science fiction.

[swansont]

Either you are asking a question or you are presenting you ideas. You can't have it both ways. You have to support your "conviction" with something that satisfies the rules or stop telling everyone about it. Pick one.

[Sensei]

In this meaning the culprit for movement is photon, even in chemical reactions.

 

Photon carries energy and momentum. When photon is absorbed by particle or molecule, it's energy and momentum is transfered to it, accelerating it. And photon disappears from the system.

 

"Free" photons appears when material has too much energy, and wants to give it, but there is not enough surrounding it regular atoms or molecules.

If you will take wire (especially alloy with higher resistance), pass current through it, it will become hot (it's accelerating air molecules surrounding it).

But if you will place wire in vacuum, and pass current through it, it will start emitting light.

In vacuum there is no air molecules which can take energy from hot wire, but it must lose that additional energy somehow (otherwise it would grow up to infinity).

And creation of photon is the only way to lose too high energy.

That's how light bulb works.

 

I realise from your post, that it is not only “quote” that make them hard to read and follow? It is my lame language and the confused my ideas that made them hard to grasp.

Thanks for help about “quote”, I admit that I am not a computer gay. I merely type with one finger. I would liked from you, your “vikipedian” rebut about my idea, that I posted in question form.

 

No. I was only talking about quoting method.

 

I would liked from you, your “vikipedian” rebut about my idea, that I posted in question form.

Question: IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?

Answer: No. It's absorbed energy that's accelerating particles, molecules and objects.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Sensei

[Strange]

 

It's absorbed energy that's accelerating particles, molecules and objects.

 

Didn't Newton say this several hundred years ago? And then, usefully, go on to formalise it.

[Kramer]

 

Studiot

What you say here has no basis in reality. Why come to a science forum if you are just going to make up stuff? Maybe you should take up writing science fiction.
------ I think that I am in Speculation Forum, the only one where you may discus issues that ones has conviction that have not jet “the seal” of absolute truth.
If you think that books of physics are Holy book, that means dogma, then you are right:
there is nothing left to debate.
As for me, you are right too. I am a lay-man that troubles waters with questions, in a sphere where I am a profane. But even though a profane, I have so logic to distinguish a serious thinker from a parrot. A serious thinker put always in doubt the given truth.
As for “making stuff”, ye, I play sometime with imagination to give an answer when is reached situation ” shut up and calculate”.
A childish play.
Swanson
Either you are asking a question or you are presenting you ideas. You can't have it both ways. You have to support your "conviction" with something that satisfies the rules or stop telling everyone about it. Pick one.

------ Both. Questions are linked with ideas, the ideas centered where questions have not satisfactory answers, or when nobody is interested to give a satisfactory answer.
For first part of my thread I think I have an affirmative answer from you. Am I right?
For second part: “Maybe the only… “ I admit it is a little provocative; my aim was to attire in debate, someone that want to debate, about the role of gravity in “ quantum world”. Is it a sacrilege? Why “stop telling about it”?

Sensei
Photon carries energy and momentum. When photon is absorbed by particle or molecule, it's energy and momentum is transfered to it, accelerating it. And photon disappears from the system.
----- From this part of your post I am okey with idea that Photon carries “energy” and momentum, and transfers them to the particles, “accelerating” them.
I have doubt about “ photon disappears”. And for me when there is doubt, there must be debate.

"Free" photons appears when material has too much energy, and wants to give it, but there is not enough surrounding it regular atoms or molecules.

If you will take wire (especially alloy with higher resistance), pass current through it, it will become hot (it's accelerating air molecules surrounding it).

But if you will place wire in vacuum, and pass current through it, it will start emitting light.

In vacuum there is no air molecules which can take energy from hot wire, but it must lose that additional energy somehow (otherwise it would grow up to infinity).

And creation of photon is the only way to lose too high energy.

That's how light bulb works.
-------From this part of your post, a technical explanation of real facts, again I have doubt about “disapear” and “creation”

Question: IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?
Answer: No. It's absorbed energy that's accelerating particles, molecules and objects.

------- Somewhat an obfuscated answer. Do you mean that gravity absorb energy, or that gravity is absorbed energy?. Sorry. It is my English for many misunderstandings.
Studiot.

Didn't Newton say this several hundred years ago? And then, usefully, go on to formalise it.
-----?

[Sensei]

-------From this part of your post, a technical explanation of real facts, again I have doubt about “disapear” and “creation”

 

What if absorbed photon has completely different frequency than emitted.. ?

What if emission happens millions or billion years after absorption?

 

Plants absorbed energy from photons in Paleozoic, photosynthesis happened in them, and now after millions of years we are burning remains of them in furnaces..

And long time ago stored energy is used to heating and producing light right now.

 

I am reminding you - energy is conserved.

 

Question: IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?

Answer: No. It's absorbed energy that's accelerating particles, molecules and objects.

------- Somewhat an obfuscated answer. Do you mean that gravity absorb energy, or that gravity is absorbed energy?.

 

Of course not!

Gravity is not material thing. Gravity of planet is result caused by billions of billions of particles.

I said - particle absorbs energy, and result of it is acceleration of particle.

The more energy it absorbed, the faster it's moving.

 

f.e. if I have 25 cm^3 of hydrogen in test tube (~90 seconds of work of electrolysis with ~2.5 A in mine case)

I am placing match or blowtorch below it, and see that hydrogen is expanding, its volume is increasing the more energy it absorbed.

Molecules have higher velocity, so volume of gas is bigger and bigger.

After turning fire off, gas is slowing cooling down and returning to initial volume.

If I will touch and hold test tube by dry ice (that has -79 C), I will receive opposite result. Volume of gas will shrink. Cooled particles will have smaller velocity.

According it ideal gas law, each molecule of gas is absorbing 1.38*10^-23 Joules of energy per 1 Kelvin temperature.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Kramer,

 

This is the Speculations forum, but it is still part of SFN and as such, you are required to provide evidence for your claims and to explain in explicit detail what predictions your ideas make and how the comply with what we observe in nature. If you want to make up stories, then this is not the place for it and if you should choose to continue down this line, we will be closing the thread.

[Kramer]

 

Sensei
Photon carries energy and momentum. When photon is absorbed by particle or molecule, it's energy and momentum is transfered to it, accelerating it. And photon disappears from the system.
----- From this part of your post I am okey with idea that Photon carries “energy” and momentum, and transfers them to the particles, “accelerating” them.
I have doubt about “ photon disappears”. And for me when there is doubt, there must be debate.

"Free" photons appears when material has too much energy, and wants to give it, but there is not enough surrounding it regular atoms or molecules.

If you will take wire (especially alloy with higher resistance), pass current through it, it will become hot (it's accelerating air molecules surrounding it).

But if you will place wire in vacuum, and pass current through it, it will start emitting light.

In vacuum there is no air molecules which can take energy from hot wire, but it must lose that additional energy somehow (otherwise it would grow up to infinity).

And creation of photon is the only way to lose too high energy.

That's how light bulb works.
-------From this part of your post, a technical explanation of real facts, again I have doubt about “disapear” and “creation”

Question: IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?
Answer: No. It's absorbed energy that's accelerating particles, molecules and objects.

------- Somewhat an obfuscated answer. Do you mean that gravity absorb energy, or that gravity is absorbed energy?. Sorry. It is my English for many misunderstandings.
Studiot.

Didn't Newton say this several hundred years ago? And then, usefully, go on to formalise it.
-----?

Sensei

What if absorbed photon has completely different frequency than emitted.. ?

What if emission happens millions or billion years after absorption?

Plants absorbed energy from photons in Paleozoic, photosynthesis happened in them, and now after millions of years we are burning remains of them in furnaces..

And long time ago stored energy is used to heating and producing light right now.

I am reminding you - energy is conserved.

----- What you say, for me is all right. Even the well-known slogan “energy is conserved”. What I want to debate against you is:
What happens with “carriers” and in the same time “owners”, of energy--- photon particles that after your assertion “appears” and “disappears”--- “to reappears” after million of years?
This is because for me, energy is nothing else but movement of matter, and, again maybe only for me, matter are always particles even when they move with C velocity in linear or circular movements.

Of course not!
Gravity is not material thing. Gravity of planet is result caused by billions of billions of particles.
I said - particle absorbs energy, and result of it is acceleration of particle.

The more energy it absorbed, the faster it's moving.

--- For me, gravity is a inner property of particles of matter, to attracts and holds together “its buddies” in spherical body---we call planet. But as I supposed in my thread, gravity not only hold together the other “buddies” but dances with them in circular rounds too. My hunch is that nature must have the opposite: antigravity.

hypervalent_iodine

!

Moderator Note

Kramer,

 

This is the Speculations forum, but it is still part of SFN and as such, you are required to provide evidence for your claims and to explain in explicit detail what predictions your ideas make and how the comply with what we observe in nature. If you want to make up stories, then this is not the place for it and if you should choose to continue down this line, we will be closing the thread.

-----Please do. It will be a relief for me.

[Strange]

I have doubt about “ photon disappears”. And for me when there is doubt, there must be debate.

It might be a better use of your time if, when you have doubts, you made an effort to learn something about the subject. Just making things up that appear to make sense to you is never going to be very productive.

 

You could start by investing 30 seconds or so understanding how the "quote" system on the forum works. It is no more difficult than colouring everything red. And a lot easier to follow.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Strange