Everything in the Universe has a viscosity!

[Relative]

When considering viscosity, we often associate viscosity with fluids, and the differences proceeding the mixing of fluids, example the viscosity of oil to water, the oil will not mix with the water, because it has a different viscosity.

 

 

However, if we consider other elements , such as air, the general atmosphere, space, emr, there is also pause for thought to consider, that these also have a viscosity.

 

 

Example , energy, lightning has a higher energy level than the surrounding energy, the energy has a different viscosity, so we see lightning, by a difference in viscosity of the energies.

 

 

Weather , the difference in energies of hot and cold, pressure fronts, different energies unable to join, making weather patterns.

Cold and hot is two different viscosities.

 

Night and day!,

 

It is day ere, I can clearly see out of my window into the garden.

 

The natural light in my room, has a close viscosity to the light outside, only a windows difference, been the transparency of the glass, and the glasses minimal viscosity.

 

However at night, the outside has a different viscosity to my light bulb on the inside, the viscosity of the outside becomes far greater than my 60w light bulb, the outside viscosity of negativeness, holds my 60w light bulb light in place, the viscosity of the glass changes, the surface becoming more reflective at night, but it does not actually become more reflective, it is the greater outer negative viscosity that slows down the lights escape rate.

[Strange]

When considering viscosity, we often associate viscosity with fluids, and the differences proceeding the mixing of fluids, example the viscosity of oil to water, the oil will not mix with the water, because it has a different viscosity.

 

That has nothing to do with viscosity.

 

Syrup has a higher viscosity than water but you can mix them.

 

 

 

However, if we consider other elements , such as air, the general atmosphere, space, emr, there is also pause for thought to consider, that these also have a viscosity.

 

The air is a fluid and so it has viscosity.

 

 

<rest of post>

 

No.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Strange

[Bignose]

Viscosity is the result of intermolecular forces acting on one another. If there is nothing there, like empty space, how can there be anything to interact with and thus has a viscosity?

 

I think you are grossly overestimating what viscosity is.

[John Cuthber]

As far as I recall, the viscosity is something like the ratio of the momentum flux to the velocity gradient.

 

It simply can not be applied to most of this

"Weather , the difference in energies of hot and cold, pressure fronts, different energies unable to join, making weather patterns.

Cold and hot is two different viscosities.
Night and day!,
It is day ere, I can clearly see out of my window into the garden.
The natural light in my room, has a close viscosity to the light outside, only a windows difference, been the transparency of the glass, and the glasses minimal viscosity.
However at night, the outside has a different viscosity to my light bulb on the inside, the viscosity of the outside becomes far greater than my 60w light bulb, the outside viscosity of negativeness, holds my 60w light bulb light in place, the viscosity of the glass changes, the surface becoming more reflective at night, but it does not actually become more reflective, it is the greater outer negative viscosity that slows down the lights escape rate."

 

because there's no momentum flux and no velocity gradient.

[Relative]

Interesting that the world of science does not think that there is more to viscosity. Yes maybe I am altering the definition of viscosity slightly, but if you could see my vision of the Universe works, I truly think you would be intrigued.

 

Someone mentioned space has nothing, that is completely false, space is made up of energy, and different energies.

 

Everything that exists, and everything you think does not exist, i.e. a medium in space, I am sorry to tell you science truly has that wrong.

Everything, all , is energy , even bodyless space. Space contains clumps of energy, where there is no physical bodies or entities, there is still energy, there is not nothing and never was. Ether theory wrong, energy theory correct,

 

We see different viscosities of energy, whether matter or gaseous clouds.

 

Consider your window, consider night and day, consider why your window pain becomes more reflective at night, this is because the outside has more negative viscosity than the positive inside your room from your bulb.

 

 

Consider light suppose to be a constant, so why does the light from my room not continue and light up the street, because the positive is lost in the negative.

 

 

Do you not see this, look , open your eyes ,

[Ophiolite]

Very well. Define viscosity. Mathematically. You say you have altered the definition only very slightly, so that should require only the smallest alteration in the equation.

 

If you cannot do this, if you wish to argue that an equation does not apply, then you are not talking about viscosity.

 

Let's get that potential misunderstanding dealt with promptly.

[Relative]

In another words the negative of night holds the light in place that is trying to escape your window, this makes the glass become reflective.

The light bounces back more.

 

 

hence reflection

Very well. Define viscosity. Mathematically. You say you have altered the definition only very slightly, so that should require only the smallest alteration in the equation.

 

If you cannot do this, if you wish to argue that an equation does not apply, then you are not talking about viscosity.

 

Let's get that potential misunderstanding dealt with promptly.

I truly understand what you are saying about the maths, the maths is irrellavent, I am a begiiner to science compared to you guys, but my ideas have logical merit and I know the definition of a troll, I am not . I can see something, and you guys really need to listen and try to understand what Im saying although it may not be worded greatly.

and also you will find that maths is made to fit....

[Strange]

 

you guys really need to listen and try to understand what Im saying

 

Why?

[Ophiolite]

If you have something, then you need to express it without talking about viscosity. Viscosity has a very precise, well documented, established and understood meaning in science. You cannot go around changing it randomly. You need to find another word or phrase to convey the sense you intend.

 

You might also wish to consider how bored some long term members can become faced with yet another person who has a deep insight into Nature, yet is a self confessed ignoramus in terms of basic scientific theory and methodology. I ask you, out of curiosity, what I have asked others before. What gives you the arrogance to challenge a subject of which you are so woefully ignorant? I strive to understand the mindset that leads to such irrational behaviour. Can you help me?

[Strange]

Consider light suppose to be a constant,

 

Light is not a constant. Why would you think it is, especially when you talk about night (small amounts of light) and day (large amounts of light).

 

Or perhaps you have redefined the meanings of the words "light" and "constant" as well.

 

And maybe you have redefined "consider", "be", etc. Maybe this is a made-up language and it would all make sense if we understood it.

[swansont]

In another words the negative of night holds the light in place that is trying to escape your window, this makes the glass become reflective.

The light bounces back more.

 

 

hence reflection

 

You need to demonstrate that this is quantitatively true. I think you are mistaken, and the reflectivity is unchanged.

 

I truly understand what you are saying about the maths, the maths is irrellavent,

 

 

Another thing about which you are mistaken.

[Relative]

If you have something, then you need to express it without talking about viscosity. Viscosity has a very precise, well documented, established and understood meaning in science. You cannot go around changing it randomly. You need to find another word or phrase to convey the sense you intend.

 

You might also wish to consider how bored some long term members can become faced with yet another person who has a deep insight into Nature, yet is a self confessed ignoramus in terms of basic scientific theory and methodology. I ask you, out of curiosity, what I have asked others before. What gives you the arrogance to challenge a subject of which you are so woefully ignorant? I strive to understand the mindset that leads to such irrational behaviour. Can you help me?

I truly thank you for your time, I am not arrogant but verbally common, straight to the point, and I can only explain things how I can describe it.

The mindset is often of a troll bored nature from most, however I have studied and do know quite a bit about current science. However wording something that is new is not easy . I have a good IQ and I am been genuine, what I talk about I have learnt from current science and do not see it how current say it is.

I am trying hard to convey what I am on about, and if you continue the conversation I am sure I will convey it properly.

 

You are science, you are the people I need to come to. I am not arrogant, it will be science that puts what I say into understandable context.

 

Why?

Because it is you , science that will gain from this and the only possible people who will understand it....

 

You need to demonstrate that this is quantitatively true. I think you are mistaken, and the reflectivity is unchanged.

 

Another thing about which you are mistaken.

My eyes do not lie, the glass is more reflective at night, I can clearly see my image, what I am saying is what happens.

[Strange]

I am not arrogant

 

Because it is you , science that will gain from this and the only possible people who will understand it....

 

It is arrogant to think that anyone will benefit from your statements which are ignorant and factually wrong. There is no reason for anyone to take anything you say seriously.

[Relative]

 

Light is not a constant. Why would you think it is, especially when you talk about night (small amounts of light) and day (large amounts of light).

 

Or perhaps you have redefined the meanings of the words "light" and "constant" as well.

 

And maybe you have redefined "consider", "be", etc. Maybe this is a made-up language and it would all make sense if we understood it.

I apologise Strange, my English literature has improved from two year ago.Light has a constant speed, the Einstein part, and continues constant in travel.

[Strange]

I apologise Strange, my English literature has improved from two year ago.Light has a constant speed, the Einstein part, and continues constant in travel.

 

The speed of light is constant. Well done.

 

Now you can try and explain how that is relevant to your point here.

[Relative]

 

It is arrogant to think that anyone will benefit from your statements which are ignorant and factually wrong. There is no reason for anyone to take anything you say seriously.

And I would reply by saying science is been arrogant for not listening, I may be wrong, I may be right, but is it not duty has a scientist to try to understand? suppose I am right, do you want to wait 15 years like faraday when today is current?

Edited July 22, 2014 by Relative

[Fuzzwood]

but if you could see my vision of the Universe works, I truly think you would be intrigued.

The universe doesn't care and it can still be described with the currently known theories which are based on observations. If there are new observations made, we might have to alter our theories. Now however, there is no need.

[Relative]

 

The speed of light is constant. Well done.

 

Now you can try and explain how that is relevant to your point here.

If light is at a constant, and continuous?

Why does night stop it?

The universe doesn't care and it can still be described with the currently known theories which are based on observations. If there are new observations made, we might have to alter our theories. Now however, there is no need.

So you can deny that space is not full of energy, energy been its own medium with its own viscosities?

 

 

The red dwarfs filled space , the entire universe with energy.

[Fuzzwood]

So you can deny that space is not full of energy, energy been its own medium with its own viscosities?

 

 

The red dwarfs filled space , the entire universe with energy.

The burden of proof is in your corner.

 

Incidentally, I saw a unicorn just stomping through the meadow outside my window. Can you deny unicorns exist?

[Delta1212]

I truly thank you for your time, I am not arrogant but verbally common, straight to the point, and I can only explain things how I can describe it.

The mindset is often of a troll bored nature from most, however I have studied and do know quite a bit about current science. However wording something that is new is not easy . I have a good IQ and I am been genuine, what I talk about I have learnt from current science and do not see it how current say it is.

I am trying hard to convey what I am on about, and if you continue the conversation I am sure I will convey it properly.

 

You are science, you are the people I need to come to. I am not arrogant, it will be science that puts what I say into understandable context.

 

Because it is you , science that will gain from this and the only possible people who will understand it....

 

My eyes do not lie, the glass is more reflective at night, I can clearly see my image, what I am saying is what happens.

The glass is not more reflective at night. But it is easier to see your image. Here's why:

 

Imagine you are watching TV. You have the volume set to a moderate level that is easy to hear. Now imagine that someone turns on a vacuum cleaner and someone else starts using a blender. Suddenly the room is very noisy and the TV is hard to hear. Did the volume on the TV decrease? No, it just has more competing noise that is interfering with your ability to hear the sound coming from the TV.

 

The reflection in glass works similarly. At night, a certain amount of light is reflected by the glass and, because it is dark out, a very small amount of light comes through the glass from the other side. Most of the light you see when you look at the window is from the reflection and it is easy to see. During the day, the same amount of light is reflected but a lot more light is coming through from the other side and interfering with your ability to make out the reflection in the glass.

 

In both cases it is not that the source you are concerned with has diminished (sound from the TV or light from the reflection in the glass), it is that it is much harder to make out when there is a lot of competition from other sources.

[Relative]

The burden of proof is in your corner.

 

Incidentally, I saw a unicorn just stomping through the meadow outside my window. Can you deny unicorns exist?

And its a invisible pink Unicorn, I believe.FYI.

 

The burden of proof, yes I am sure I have the equipment to do that up my loft, not.

 

Well when everything stops, like the ionized layers is, because the rock we live on becomes thermodynamically equal to space, I will not say i told you so, because I will be burnt to a crisp or froze.

[ajb]

...the maths is irrellavent...

The mathematics is vital here, it is the only way we can be sure we are talking about the same thing and have some real understanding. I urge you to think about mathematically describing your notion of viscosity.

[Relative]

The glass is not more reflective at night. But it is easier to see your image. Here's why:

 

Imagine you are watching TV. You have the volume set to a moderate level that is easy to hear. Now imagine that someone turns on a vacuum cleaner and someone else starts using a blender. Suddenly the room is very noisy and the TV is hard to hear. Did the volume on the TV decrease? No, it just has more competing noise that is interfering with your ability to hear the sound coming from the TV.

 

The reflection in glass works similarly. At night, a certain amount of light is reflected by the glass and, because it is dark out, a very small amount of light comes through the glass from the other side. Most of the light you see when you look at the window is from the reflection and it is easy to see. During the day, the same amount of light is reflected but a lot more light is coming through from the other side and interfering with your ability to make out the reflection in the glass.

 

In both cases it is not that the source you are concerned with has diminished (sound from the TV or light from the reflection in the glass), it is that it is much harder to make out when there is a lot of competition from other sources.

No not diminished, stopped, the light can not escape your window, the negative viscosity of night is greater.

 

As for sounds, the waves are doppler affected, the louder noise forcing the lesser noise waves out of the way by stronger energy viscosity.

The mathematics is vital here, it is the only way we can be sure we are talking about the same thing and have some real understanding. I urge you to think about mathematically describing your notion of viscosity.

Do you not know that maths is an invention? an invention to quantify.

 

Maths is and was always made to fit.

 

This can have no maths, this is reality.

[Delta1212]

If light is at a constant, and continuous?

Why does night stop it?

 

So you can deny that space is not full of energy, energy been its own medium with its own viscosities?

 

 

The red dwarfs filled space , the entire universe with energy.

Night does not stop light, the Earth does. Night happens, not because light slows does or stops, but because it travels in straight lines (sort of) and the straight line between you and the sun happens to go through the Earth at night. Since light can't go through the Earth, sunlight can't reach you at night unless reflected off of something else (like the moon).

 

All the light is still moving at the same speed, there is just less of it reaching you because it is bouncing off the day side of the Earth. That light is all still traveling at the same speed it always does. And anyway, there's no law that says the amount of light in a given place is always constant, only that the speed it travels at is always the same.

[ajb]

If light is at a constant, and continuous?

Why does night stop it?

Is this a serious question?

 

So you can deny that space is not full of energy, energy been its own medium with its own viscosities?

You have to be careful here. Energy is a property of some physical configuration, it does not exist "by itself". It don't know what you mean by "its own medium" nor "its own visocity". (Unless you are think of something like thermal conductivty?)