Physics questions!

[Relative]

 

12 months in a year because that is (approximately) the number of full moons in a year (that is where to word motnh comes from, month=moon).

 

 

A non-existent ruler?

 

 

The (average) distance from the Earth to the Sun is called an Astronomical Unit (AU).

1 AU = 92 955 807.3 miles = 149 597 871 km

 

 

Something has gone wrong there. I make it about 3,700.

 

 

Very slightly as we get closer and further away. I don't think it is noticeable to the naked eye.

Thank you Strange, your patience is admirable.

 

''The (average) distance from the Earth to the Sun is called an Astronomical Unit (AU).

1 AU = 92 955 807.3 miles = 149 597 871 km''

This is a concept I am struggling to grasp, how can something be measured without having two points to measure to and from?

With no background in space, how do you get your sizes of planets etc, I understand you must use some sort of scaling of planets, but i have a problem with the perception.

In this example I look at the Sun from observation point on the Earth.

In this example how do we know,define, is this Sun small and close, or is this Sun huge and far?

Or is this sun small and far and within a darkness realm, stands out like a sore thumb?

And it is always dark and never light?

Dark proceeds light always?

Darkness is negative/low energy compared to when light?

 

 

Dark becomes energised by EMR?

 

I remove all the energy from the Universe, you would see this?

We all would be technically blind?

And I think I know why my posts are confusing, all my posts I talk about future science, science ahead of our current thought.

 

 

My thoughts have not yet materialised into the science world. But if any of you do understand me, your eyes will be opened also.

 

 

I will stick to questioning of the Physics. And through questions hopefully will give you some new food for thought.

From a different perspective , I am going to add energy to the Universe and take a box section of the Universe.

 

We are in a central position inside the box section in this example, white representing light that fills all of space and only by obstruction is there a lack of light ,shadows..

 

 

 

We can see through the light in this instant?

 

The light is transparent?

 

 

We evolved to see through the EMR, our eyes adjusted to the radiation frequencies?

 

My white box has blended into the page, making my box seemingly infinite.

 

I expand our light box section, to see source.

 

 

We see the source because it has more energy than the surrounding area?

 

A different energy ''viscosity'' to space?

 

 

 

Our body cells age because of radiation decay? A bit like becoming a dried prune.

A cluster of electrolytes in the body would be more thermodynamically higher of receiving radiation than single electrolytes?

and how is the speed of light measured?

Edited August 17, 2014 by Relative

[Strange]

This is a concept I am struggling to grasp, how can something be measured without having two points to measure to and from?

 

Well, the two points in question are the Earth and the Sun. However, to measure that, you need so other reference points, so you can calculate the Sun-Earth distance.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=400

http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun

 

 

Dark proceeds light always?

Darkness is negative/low energy compared to when light?

Dark becomes energised by EMR?

 

Dark is just the absence of light. It is not a "thing," any more than "empty" or "quiet" are.

 

 

And I think I know why my posts are confusing, all my posts I talk about future science, science ahead of our current thought.

 

Err, no. You don't talk about "science ahead of our current thought". You talk about really, really, basic well-understood science. It just seems advanced to you because you are so profoundly ignorant. But you make an attempt to learn, which is good.

 

 

Our body cells age because of radiation decay?

 

No.

 

 

and how is the speed of light measured?

 

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed_evidence.html

[Relative]

Our perspective view is this

 

 

When actually it is this.

 

 

?????????

 

The background of blackness in space is where light has red shifted so bad, we can not see any further?

Any stars etc would be lost to visual narrowing of perspective view?

And finally for today on questions,

 

 

 

Is this how it works?

 

 

[Strange]

The background of blackness in space is where light has red shifted so bad, we can not see any further?

That is part of the reason. Also just because there are stars and galaxies so far away that the light from them has not had time to reach us yet (in the lifetime of the universe).

 

 

Is this how it works?

 

 

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking how light falls off with distance? If so, it follows an "inverse square law". What this means is that if you double the distance, the amount of light is divided by four.

[Relative]

I thank you Strange for your continued patience. And indeed I am trying to learn to the best of my abilities.

 

I understand light ''suppose'' to follow the inverse square law, and I understand what you are saying when you refer to dark has the absent of light and not been a thing.

 

I knew this from countless forums.

 

However, I still can not agree that , that is correct.

 

Dark is not the absent of light, I do not see this, in fact I see mostly opposites or different to everything science says!.

 

Light, is made, it is a property , a function of energy, if there were no red dwarfs,energy etc, the universe would be in complete darkness?, darkness was there first?, so how can darkness not be a ''thing'', when darkness proceeds light?.

 

Also you refer to light has light, were has I consider light is not light has such. I consider light is created, not has a thing, but has something we see through, transparent. An energy that evolution allowed us to adjust too, to see,see through?

Darkness is the lack of frequency we need to see at?

[swansont]

I thank you Strange for your continued patience. And indeed I am trying to learn to the best of my abilities.

 

I understand light ''suppose'' to follow the inverse square law, and I understand what you are saying when you refer to dark has the absent of light and not been a thing.

 

I knew this from countless forums.

 

However, I still can not agree that , that is correct.

 

Dark is not the absent of light, I do not see this, in fact I see mostly opposites or different to everything science says!.

 

Light, is made, it is a property , a function of energy, if there were no red dwarfs,energy etc, the universe would be in complete darkness?, darkness was there first?, so how can darkness not be a ''thing'', when darkness proceeds light?.

 

Also you refer to light has light, were has I consider light is not light has such. I consider light is created, not has a thing, but has something we see through, transparent. An energy that evolution allowed us to adjust too, to see,see through?

 

What are the properties of dark, then? Linear and angular momentum, energy, polarization, etc.? How does dark interact?

 

If a volume is dark, can I increase how dark it is by adding more dark? i.e. is there a darktensity, to correspond to the intensity of light?

[Ophiolite]

I understand light ''suppose'' to follow the inverse square law, and I understand what you are saying when you refer to dark has the absent of light and not been a thing.

 

However, I still can not agree that , that is correct.

 

Dark is not the absent of light, I do not see this, in fact I see mostly opposites or different to everything science says!.

That is because you are very deeply mistaken. You are completely free to disagree. Being as wrong as you are will have no observable effect on the universe. It will, however, have negative effects on you. That saddens me.

[Relative]

Brightness is too much frequency to what we see at

 

 

What are the properties of dark, then? Linear and angular momentum, energy, polarization, etc.? How does dark interact?

 

If a volume is dark, can I increase how dark it is by adding more dark? i.e. is there a darktensity, to correspond to the intensity of light?

Good question, and an answer I am yet unsure of.

 

I believe dark to be a negative, or near negative in energy. I believe dark to be the volume, I believe the entire universe is dark, and we only see because of evolution, and adjustment to see the different radiation frequencies. And through those frequencies.

 

I believe dark always ''exists'', and only process makes light, energising the dark.

 

I think dark is like a static conductor, a conduit for energy.

 

I also think volume of dark compared to ''light'' , has a part to play, because of reflections in glass at night is stronger. The dark seemingly holds the light back allowing a more intense reflection.

That is because you are very deeply mistaken. You are completely free to disagree. Being as wrong as you are will have no observable effect on the universe. It will, however, have negative effects on you. That saddens me.

Thank you and I understand, but to learn, is to question. If I see it differently, I need to ask about it.

Please never take my posts for saying this is how it is, I am always only asking.

[swansont]

Brightness is too much frequency to what we see at

 

But it isn't. Frequency and amplitude are distinct properties.

 

Good question, and an answer I am yet unsure of.

 

I believe dark to be a negative, or near negative in energy. I believe dark to be the volume, I believe the entire universe is dark, and we only see because of evolution, and adjustment to see the different radiation frequencies. And through those frequencies.

 

I believe dark always ''exists'', and only process makes light, energising the dark.

 

I think dark is like a static conductor, a conduit for energy.

 

I also think volume of dark compared to ''light'' , has a part to play, because of reflections in glass at night is stronger. The dark seemingly holds the light back allowing a more intense reflection.

 

Thank you and I understand, but to learn, is to question. If I see it differently, I need to ask about it.

 

Please never take my posts for saying this is how it is, I am always only asking.

 

Except that you're not just asking. You said you can't agree that some things are correct, and then proceed to make an assertion about dark.

 

There's a whole host of problems with a model where dark is an entity as well as light. And we discard models that don't work.

[Relative]

A test for you maybe?

 

 

dark outside, light shining through a window, another light in a box on the outside shining inside, look at the reflection difference of objects in the lit room?

 

May be nothing...but thought I would share.

But it isn't. Frequency and amplitude are distinct properties.

 

Except that you're not just asking. You said you can't agree that some things are correct, and then proceed to make an assertion about dark.

 

There's a whole host of problems with a model where dark is an entity as well as light. And we discard models that don't work.

Well I am just asking about my thoughts, they are not an assumption, but simple logic based thought .

 

I can't agree at the present that's all, until my own thought about it has been dissuaded with some talk of why not etc.

 

Did dark come first before light?

If we take away light , dark is always there?

Dark never leaves?

It is always dark?

Dark only becomes light by adding saturated forms of radiation?

Remove the energy we do not see?

Dark becomes energised?

Colour does not exist, we only see light at different saturation levels?

We see at the speed of the light?

Edited August 18, 2014 by Relative

[swansont]

I don't understand your "test".

 

As for your questions, they've mostly been answered by how we describe the situation. Dark, as an entity, does not explain the situations we encounter. Dark is the absence of light. It's only light when you add light.

[Relative]

I don't understand your "test".

 

As for your questions, they've mostly been answered by how we describe the situation. Dark, as an entity, does not explain the situations we encounter. Dark is the absence of light. It's only light when you add light.

Its only light when you add light, that is what I said. And I know dark is the absence of light, but all the same, dark is always there without light, regardless whether you add or don't add light , dark is still there, but illuminated when adding energy. Light is made, darkness is not, darkness is natural, light is not .

 

And the test was to show that by volume of darkness compared to the energy trying to escape the window, that the energy trying to escape is jailed by the volume of darkness.

 

And C , is slowed down dramatically.

 

Hence a near perfect reflection at night in glass.

 

Any way I better not go off track, my post will end up getting closed sorry.

In a pitch black room we can not see because we have added no radiant energy?

 

In a pitch black room we can not see because darkness is a different frequency to the frequencies we see at?

[swansont]

Its only light when you add light, that is what I said. And I know dark is the absence of light, but all the same, dark is always there without light, regardless whether you add or don't add light , dark is still there, but illuminated when adding energy. Light is made, darkness is not, darkness is natural, light is not .

 

 

No, actually, light is always there, too. We just didn't evolve to be sensitive to the wavelengths where all of the EM radiation is. You can't find an area that lacks it.

 

Any model that says that dark is still there when light is must redefine the properties of both light and dark. That basically breaks physics, since physics works really well with the definition of light as it is.

[Relative]

 

No, actually, light is always there, too. We just didn't evolve to be sensitive to the wavelengths where all of the EM radiation is. You can't find an area that lacks it.

 

Any model that says that dark is still there when light is must redefine the properties of both light and dark. That basically breaks physics, since physics works really well with the definition of light as it is.

I do not want to voice my opinions too hard, in fear of thread closure.

 

But I think you are missing the point that dark comes first and light is made, before the Universe begun, it would of been dark,

 

Before stars there can be no light, there never was light has such, light is made, created, apart of a process.

 

There is always EMR now agreed, but before there could not of been has the stars were not made.

 

If today I was able to turn the sun off by a switch, darkness is instant, because darkness is always there were has light is not.

 

I do see light, dark in a totally different context to current thought, and also I see a lot of other science thought I can see a lot deeper into than current thought.

 

To me science thinks it as come a long way, to me, science has got no where, stuck inside the box.

 

Sorry do not shut my post, I am sincere.

[swansont]

I do not want to voice my opinions too hard, in fear of thread closure.

 

That's not why threads get closed. Unsupported assertions are; these aren't truly opinions — we're discussing something that's science. One model will end up being objectively better than the other. Though perhaps I shouldn't use the future tense. One of these models arguably has already been shown to be better than the other.

 

But I think you are missing the point that dark comes first and light is made, before the Universe begun, it would of been dark,

 

Before stars there can be no light, there never was light has such, light is made, created, apart of a process.

 

There is always EMR now agreed, but before there could not of been has the stars were not made.

What would have been dark? There was no universe.

 

 

If today I was able to turn the sun off by a switch, darkness is instant, because darkness is always there were has light is not.

No, that's not true. The darkness, as it were, would propagate at the speed of light. IOW, photons that were created will still travel at c until they hit something. Only after that will it be dark. Photons in transit don't wink out of existence when the power is turned off.

 

I do see light, dark in a totally different context to current thought, and also I see a lot of other science thought I can see a lot deeper into than current thought.

 

To me science thinks it as come a long way, to me, science has got no where, stuck inside the box.

 

Sorry do not shut my post, I am sincere.

Sincerity is irrelevant. What you need is an actual model.

[Relative]

 

That's not why threads get closed. Unsupported assertions are; these aren't truly opinions — we're discussing something that's science. One model will end up being objectively better than the other. Though perhaps I shouldn't use the future tense. One of these models arguably has already been shown to be better than the other.

 

What would have been dark? There was no universe.

 

 

No, that's not true. The darkness, as it were, would propagate at the speed of light. IOW, photons that were created will still travel at c until they hit something. Only after that will it be dark. Photons in transit don't wink out of existence when the power is turned off.

 

Sincerity is irrelevant. What you need is an actual model.

Science forums always mention models, what exactly is a model? I do not think it is like a sculpture, so what do you mean by a model?

''What would have been dark? There was no universe.''

There would of been no visual Universe because we did not exist to see it, nothing says that our Universe is not apart of a bigger picture, if we could see further.

Science defines Universe from what we can see, which according to your own science, I can compare to been inside of a black hole, and especially since the maths of size fits us exactly in a black hole.

I believe the Big bang was caused by isotropic force centripetally , a force that by my estimate can only be achieved by your sphere shaped black hole.

An implosion that becomes an explosive force to super nova capability.

E=mc2 and Einstein's box in space, a Photon from left to right, is not Energy compared to isotropic centripetal pressure?

[swansont]

Science forums always mention models, what exactly is a model? I do not think it is like a sculpture, so what do you mean by a model?

A mathematical model — it would include the equation(s) and assumptions that go into the idea, and allow you to divide tests to see if the model works.

 

There would of been no visual Universe because we did not exist to see it, nothing says that our Universe is not apart of a bigger picture, if we could see further

No universe at all that we know of before the big bang.

 

Science defines Universe from what we can see, which according to your own science, I can compare to been inside of a black hole, and especially since the maths of size fits us exactly in a black hole.

 

I believe the Big bang was caused by isotropic force centripetally , a force that by my estimate can only be achieved by your sphere shaped black hole.

 

 

An implosion that becomes an explosive force to super nova capability.

E=mc2 and Einstein's box in space, a Photon from left to right, is not Energy compared to isotropic centripetal pressure?

 

What you believe matters a lot less than what you can demonstrate. Is your estimate an actual estimate, with equations and numbers? Or is it code for your gut feeling, in which case it doesn't count for much.

 

Can you make any quantitative predictions?

[Relative]

A mathematical model — it would include the equation(s) and assumptions that go into the idea, and allow you to divide tests to see if the model works.

 

No universe at all that we know of before the big bang.

 

 

What you believe matters a lot less than what you can demonstrate. Is your estimate an actual estimate, with equations and numbers? Or is it code for your gut feeling, in which case it doesn't count for much.

 

Can you make any quantitative predictions?

I am still using the Faraday defence, in time maybe I could invent some maths to fit something.

 

''No universe at all that we know of before the big bang.''

 

Not quite accurate if you consider that in a contained system, meaning the visual Universe, and been born, created in that system , your only perceived image of that system, could be of only a singularity, meaning one Universe, where has the obvious more logical thought, would be a multi-verse, and we are an enclosed system amongst over systems.

We witness closed systems within our own visual Universe, meaning black holes, which are confined to there own singularity , light can not escape, so If you was inside a black hole, then You could only perceive a single Universe.

 

''A mathematical model — it would include the equation(s) and assumptions that go into the idea, and allow you to divide tests to see if the model works.''

 

 

0 + EMR = light?

or more on the lines of this?

E= M

x C

 

In which I have no idea what that represents.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Relative

[Relative]

What does classical Physics actually mean?

 

Ancient Greek's?

 

The Earth's core, we can see that using thermal imaging?

If I had a Sun, and for scaling purposes the size of a football.

 

By gravity attraction, or other, my sun attracts two loose mounds of cement , the equivalent to two bags full.

 

 

What would happen?

MY Sun gains mass?

 

My Sun gains weight?

 

My Sun starts to become a solid?

 

 

The cement forms a group of matter inside the central core of the SUN?

I did already consider dissintergrate by the Heat, and remembered that nothing is ever lost.

My cement becomes un-fused?

My new star becomes more dense and expands?

And the speed of Darkness is 0?

Perfect pitch black in a perfect vacuum, dark has the energy level of 0?

A temperature of 0?

And what elements make up a Quark? is it Higg's.

[Strange]

 

What does classical Physics actually mean?

 

Not taking into account quantum effects.

 

 

The Earth's core, we can see that using thermal imaging?

 

Using seismic imaging - examining the vibrations and echoes of earthquakes.

 

 

If I had a Sun, and for scaling purposes the size of a football.

By gravity attraction, or other, my sun attracts two loose mounds of cement , the equivalent to two bags full.

 

So you want to know the gravitational effect of a ball of gas scaled down to the size of a football. In other words, a football. How much gravitational effect does a football have on a bag of cement? Pretty much zero.

 

 

And the speed of Darkness is 0?

 

It the same speed as "emptiness" or "silence".

 

 

And what elements make up a Quark?

 

Nothing. It is a fundamental particle.

[Relative]

''''So you want to know the gravitational effect of a ball of gas scaled down to the size of a football. In other words, a football. How much gravitational effect does a football have on a bag of cement? Pretty much zero.''

 

the cement is out of the bags still in powder form?

I have heard before of a god particle, this would be a quark?

[Strange]

''''So you want to know the gravitational effect of a ball of gas scaled down to the size of a football. In other words, a football. How much gravitational effect does a football have on a bag of cement? Pretty much zero.''

 

the cement is out of the bags still in powder form?

 

Put a football next to some cement powder and observe the gravitational attraction. (There isn't any.)

 

 

I have heard before of a god particle, this would be a quark?

 

No, that was a f**ing stupid nickname for the Higgs boson. Invented to market a book.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Strange

[Relative]

 

Put a football next to some cement powder and observe the gravitational attraction. (There isn't any.)

 

 

No, that was a f**ing stupid nickname for the Higgs boson. Invented to market a book.

I thank you, and I do not do God personally, but was curious about the why's the name come about .

 

And My Sun Is in a near perfect vacuum, has a singularity, I will rephrase my question, what happens to all matter that gets drawn into the Sun by gravity?

Why do solar flares from the Sun resemble a Lava burst?

Secondary questions- A car been A, and a lamp post been B.

 

A, travels at 100 mph towards B. B is static.

 

The collision is at 100 mph, some of the force <F>, is transferred from A to B by the impact.

 

B tries to continue the direction A was travelling at impact point.

 

 

Any loose objects in A will also continue to travel in the direction A was travelling on impact.

 

 

B's energy, stopping <F>, forces energy on impact to travel the opposite direction A was travelling, and A becomes crumpled by F of impact.

 

 

On an atomic level, what effect does this have on the atoms. In motion of A, is there any affect on direction of movement, of electrons?.

 

In another words , if I am accelerating, does the heavier matter, <Protons>, accelerate faster than the lighter electrons?

 

 

 

If I stop, does the electron try to over take the Proton?

 

 

Sorry I think its the other way around , and the Proton would trail?

On acceleration the rear of an object becomes heavier?

The energy of the accelerating object is transferred opposite direction to momentum?

Returning space craft to the Earth, the nose cone burns up because there is an electrical F at the front?

Edited August 20, 2014 by Relative

[swansont]

Put a football next to some cement powder and observe the gravitational attraction. (There isn't any.)

Well, there would be, but it would be exceedingly small.

[Relative]

Well, there would be, but it would be exceedingly small.

And if you took away the attraction of the Earth on the cement dust, the attraction of the cement dust to the ball would be greater?