pcalton Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 The "speed" of the electron is not well-defined in atoms because they are not in eigenstates of the velocity operator. The best you can really do is an order-of-magnitude calculation: [math]\frac{mv^2}{2} \sim \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r}[/math] [math]mv \sim \hbar / r[/math] so: [math]v \sim \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c} \, c = \alpha c \approx \frac{c}{137}[/math] This is not a very large fraction of the speed of light. I.e. electrons do not really have "immense speed" in atoms, which is why non-relativistic quantum mechanics works so well. What field? What do you mean by "vortexes (sic)"? What do you mean by "probably"? That sounds very vague. This is all rather vague as well. It's hard to comment on "theories" which are not well-defined or precise. This is why math is important. Beliefs should be based on evidence. Apparently you don't agree? I can't argue with someone who does not take seriously the scientific method. Except we know for a fact that it does. This was demonstrated in 1919 with the original Eddington experiment to test General Relativity. Edition'so experiment only proved light curved, that's it, nada, zip, nothing else. The cause you claim is not proven. Other causes of light curvature are possible without gravity. -2
Mordred Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 Edition'so experiment only proved light curved, that's it, nada, zip, nothing else. The cause you claim is not proven. Other causes of light curvature are possible without gravity. GR is extensively tested in more tests than I care to link to. You really should study it in greater detail in many ways its one of the more tested theories we have today. Particularly since its tested everyday in particle accelerators. With every single proton sent. It always amazes me how some people argue theories they don't understand nor realize how common its applied in our everyday applications. Simply because it defies their beliefs or personal ideas. Of course they always think they are smarter than the thousands of professional physicists in the last century. Yet they never show any mathematical proof nor repeatable experiments.
pcalton Posted February 1, 2015 Author Posted February 1, 2015 What amazes me is the fools who still join themselves with concepts of absurdity, that is making an idea, 'time' and it have physical form. Please gather up some of those time particles and mail them to me. Until the science-minded establishment gets the guts to admit the lunacy of SpaceTime fabric warping to explain gravity this planet will remain stuck in stupidity. -4
Mordred Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Ah I see, despite being told there is no such thing as time particles you choose to ignore studying where your understanding was in error. Gotcha Why don't you start your own thread and post the predictive power of your metrics. I'd be curious to see how intelligent and comprehensive your mathematics work with your idea. How ever I suppose you don't have any do you? Too bad really, that's your loss I supplied you the material to correct your misunderstandings. There no TIME PARTICLE. Time is not a material of any form. Time is the observer measured rate of change or duration of a system being measured. I already explained your misconceptions of space time fabric in your other thread. Again you showed a lack of desire in learning why your understanding of space time is in error. I already explained your misconceptions of space time fabric in your other thread. Again you showed a lack of desire in learning why your understanding of space time is in error.
pcalton Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 The is no error on my part. You, on the other hand, have smoke screened yourself into dumbfounded conclusions and evidence that does not prove what you says it does. Ah I see, despite being told there is no such thing as time particles you choose to ignore studying where your understanding was in error. Gotcha Why don't you start your own thread and post the predictive power of your metrics. I'd be curious to see how intelligent and comprehensive your mathematics work with your idea. How ever I suppose you don't have any do you? Too bad really, that's your loss I supplied you the material to correct your misunderstandings. There no TIME PARTICLE. Time is not a material of any form. Time is the observer measured rate of change or duration of a system being measured. I already explained your misconceptions of space time fabric in your other thread. Again you showed a lack of desire in learning why your understanding of space time is in error. I already explained your misconceptions of space time fabric in your other thread. Again you showed a lack of desire in learning why your understanding of space time is in error. You are playing silly games with numbers and concepts that you hulucinate into physical form. You are the one not learning. -2
Mordred Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) Roflmao go ahead impress me post your math of your model according to the forum rules Your the one that doesn't realize physics is mathematics. If you don't have the math to your idea then you have zero zip of anything of importance. A model requires mathematics to be of any use whatsoever. For example particle accelerators used to smash protons use GR to their advantage. When the proton reaches 0.99 c it gains inertial mass. This allows them to produce particles that is heavier than the proton. The Higgs is a good example as it is 126* the mass of the protons rest mass. You claim to have the answers then prove it. Edited February 2, 2015 by Mordred
pcalton Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) I am not a Mathemagician and the rules are custom fit for the insane determinations of mainstream science-minded folks who have blocked learning by cementing concepts. I have the same battle with so called, "Rational Scientists," who claim their objectivity and observerless data. They define their terms to custom fit their presuppositions, but even with their naïveté about objectivity they are a big leap ahead of you and your science-kind of minds. I do communicate with like-minded folks who have the skill set to explain some of my assumptions to you but you could not handle the out-of-box thinking required to even entertain the premises. First, to prepare oneself to learn anything from me and those like-minded, one must have an understanding of how perceptions and conceptualizations are related, and you provide no evidence of the capacity to even comprehend such a state of mind. Any science-minded person could achieve an adequate mistrust in facts from history, facts of potential, and most important what is preceived as facts derived from body-sensory-input devices. Furthermore, trusting that insufficient data to be accurately complied by a blob of organics dwelling in skulls compounds the distortions and limitations to conceptualized an infestismal bit of reality. Nothing personal, you are only humans, frail, dumb as dog dodo, and think pomp, circumstance and scrolled lambskin make you special, when in fact, it only keeps you stupid. The pathway from understanding to Knowledge is a terribly difficult process of unlearning. Yes, undoing, shedding, forgetting everything you have learned about everything and starting from scratch. No, I do not believe you have the foggiest idea of what I speak, only a rare few have even an inkling. Then why do I even bother? Good question if you had lucked into such a question. Yes, luck, that is your slim hope out of your mental fog, hope that someday this seeming-nonsensical writing triggers a spark within your mind. Perhaps in a dream or just in an instant, a flash the folly of your assumed-solid facts crumble and let's you get a glimpse beyond your own obstructions. Edited February 2, 2015 by pcalton
Robittybob1 Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I am not...... The pathway from understanding to Knowledge is a terribly difficult process of unlearning. Yes, undoing, shedding, forgetting everything you have learned about everything and starting from scratch. No, I do not believe you have the foggiest idea of what I speak, only a rare few have even an inkling. Then why do I even bother? Good question if you had lucked into such a question. Yes, luck, that is your slim hope out of your mental fog, hope that someday this seeming-nonsensical writing triggers a spark within your mind. Perhaps in a dream or just in an instant, a flash the folly of your assumed-solid facts crumble and let's you get a glimpse beyond your own obstructions. What makes you think you are on the right path that we should listen to you?
Mordred Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I am not a Mathemagician and the rules are custom fit for the insane determinations of mainstream science-minded folks who have blocked learning by cementing concepts. I have the same battle with so called, "Rational Scientists," who claim their objectivity and observerless data. They define their terms to custom fit their presuppositions, but even with their naïveté about objectivity they are a big leap ahead of you and your science-kind of minds. Any science-minded person could achieve an adequate mistrust in facts from history, facts of potential, and most important what is preceived as facts derived from body-sensory-input devices. Furthermore, trusting that insufficient data to be accurately complied by a blob of organics dwelling in skulls compounds the distortions and limitations to conceptualized an infestismal bit of reality. Nothing personal, you are only humans, frail, dumb as dog dodo, and think pomp, circumstance and scrolled lambskin make you special, when in fact, it only keeps you stupid. The pathway from understanding to Knowledge is a terribly difficult process of unlearning. Yes, undoing, shedding, forgetting everything you have learned about everything and starting from scratch. No, I do not believe you have the foggiest idea of what I speak, only a rare few have even an inkling. Then why do I even bother? Good question if you had lucked into such a question. Yes, luck, that is your slim hope out of your mental fog, hope that someday this seeming-nonsensical writing triggers a spark within your mind. Perhaps in a dream or just in an instant, a flash the folly of your assumed-solid facts crumble and let's you get a glimpse beyond your own obstructions. Pray tell what species are you? You sit there insulting humans with this post. What are you some form of alien? I asked you before "How do you measure something without using some form of interaction." Your thread got locked before you could answer.
swansont Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 ! Moderator Note pcalton First of all, thank you for hijacking this thread right as I was admonishing others for doing the same thing [/sarcasm] If your agenda here is to crap all over science without actually discussing science, go get yourself a blog. If you have an actual alternative, post it in speculation. Just follow the guidelines that are posted there.
Recommended Posts