theory help

[swansont]

Thats the problem.

 

Step off the earth and visualise. see the earth and its atoms in motion from this new perspective.

 

See the spiral nature of the atomic oscillatory structure as it passes by you and resonates with its universal environment.

 

Atoms move similar to the DNA structure' date=' atomic models must also reflect this spiral environment too.

 

From your frame of reference the atom is stationary, the atom is talking to the universe and not talking to you.

[/quote']

 

We alrteady know that two reference frames that are moving with respect to each other measure different times. Nothing new there. But no inertial frame can be considered as preferred.

 

Why do I care if a clock sitting out in the middle of nowhere runs at a different rate? I'm here, not there. All the rest is mumbo-jumbo quasi-new-age philosophy. That and five bucks will get a latte' at Starbucks. You got any data? Any predictions? Any experiments that can be done?

[quick silver]

hey i'm back online. hey could some one please answer my question????

 

can something be so simple that it needs to be explained in a complex way?

 

 

this will prove or disprove my theory. so..........please, please, please. answer my question. thankyou.

 

i've got to go off line

[Ophiolite]

can something be so simple that it needs to be explained in a complex way?

Not that I can think of. But that would hinge on your definition of 'simple'. Would you clarify exactly what you mean - perhaps address what lies behind the question.

[SpaceTime]

Hi QuickSilver,

Some of those electro-magnetic formula's along with hundreds of other scientific physics values are available in a calculator available as a free trial download at:

http://www.dovada.com/calcdownload.shtml

You could extract all the info you need from this calculator before the free trial runs out.

 

As far as your latest question goes about things being so simple, until we know how the universe works it will appear complex at times.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[SpaceTime]

We alrteady know that two reference frames that are moving with respect to each other measure different times. Nothing new there. But no inertial frame can be considered as preferred.

 

Why do I care if a clock sitting out in the middle of nowhere runs at a different rate? I'm here' date=' not there. All the rest is mumbo-jumbo quasi-new-age philosophy. That and five bucks will get a latte' at Starbucks. You got any data? Any predictions? Any experiments that can be done?[/quote']

We must consider the alternate inertial frames, because the one we have doesn't work or explain gravitational forces.

 

I started another thread called "What stabilizes the atom" you remember. In that thread we both started to discuss the electron and proton in universal motion, maybe we should continue down that track.

 

The current atomic models are all 3 dimenional and fail to conform to classic electrical theory, this includes the quantum atomic model, it also fails.

 

When you add the velocity dimension, you get a 4 dimensional atomic model that totally conforms to and satisfies pure classic electrical theory.

 

I couldn't quite see your relavence to $5 and starbuck relating to atomic theory, maybe you could clarify this for me.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[swansont]

We must consider the alternate inertial frames' date=' because the one we have doesn't work or explain gravitational forces.

[/quote']

 

It does, so we don't.

 

I started another thread called "What stabilizes the atom" you remember. In that thread we both started to discuss the electron and proton in universal motion' date=' maybe we should continue down that track.[/quote']

 

I saw it. It's wrong.

 

The current atomic models are all 3 dimenional and fail to conform to classic electrical theory, this includes the quantum atomic model, it also fails.

 

You couldn't be more wrong here. Quantum electrodynamics is perhaps the most successful of all physics theories.

 

I couldn't quite see your relavence to $5 and starbuck relating to atomic theory' date=' maybe you could clarify this for me.

[/quote']

 

$5 gets you a latte' at Starbucks. Your lame attempt at rewriting physics that you clearly don't understand has no value. That's what it meant.

[SpaceTime]

1: If the reference frame you use is correct please explain the fundamentals of gravitation.

 

2: If the electron and proton in universal motion is wrong please explain why? or is your electrical theory inadequate. I have worked with electrical theory all day every day since before I left school and I am 57 years old. I have experience you haven't even dreamt about. Also I hadn't finished providing information for you to even judge.

 

3: Quantum mechanic's may the most successful of all atomic models but it is a classic electrical failure. It is only a mathematical model to surcumvent the original classical model which was incomplete. It also fails to include the affect call gravity, or predict it functioning.

 

4: This doesn't deserve an answer, its the type of statement a man makes when he cannot explain himself, when his words fail him.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[swansont]

1: If the reference frame you use is correct please explain the fundamentals of gravitation.

 

Mass and energy curve space.

 

2: If the electron and proton in universal motion is wrong please explain why? or is your electrical theory inadequate. I have worked with electrical theory all day every day since before I left school and I am 57 years old. I have experience you haven't even dreamt about. Also I hadn't finished providing information for you to even judge.

 

I have given you several already. These aren't mere inconveniences for you, they are stake-through-the-heart conflicts. This is the "theory slain by an ugly fact." (JBS Haldane; in this case there are multiple fatal facts)

 

3: Quantum mechanic's may the most successful of all atomic models but it is a classic electrical failure. It is only a mathematical model to surcumvent the original classical model which was incomplete. It also fails to include the affect call gravity, or predict it functioning.

 

Not too surprising, since it was never designed to address gravity in the first place. Science is incomplete. That's why scientists still have jobs.

 

QED incorporates Maxwell's equations.

 

4: This doesn't deserve an answer' date=' its the type of statement a man makes when he cannot explain himself, when his words fail him.

[/quote']

 

I guess I got a little frustrated waiting for you to address the gaping holes in your model, instead of just reiterating it, and piling on the new-age buzzwords.

 

If there is an absolute reference frame, how come no measurements can detect it? Why are there no daily or yearly fluctuations in atomic spectra, or in anything that depends on atomic spectra? Shouldn't atoms at rest with respect to the CMB collapse, in your model?

 

What are the specific failings of physics that you keep alluding to? Like how QED predicts the electron g-factor to 3 parts in 10¹¹?

[SpaceTime]

Mass and energy curve space.

 

Not too surprising' date=' since it was never designed to address gravity in the first place. Science is incomplete. That's why scientists still have jobs.

 

QED incorporates Maxwell's equations.

 

If there is an absolute reference frame, how come no measurements can detect it? Why are there no daily or yearly fluctuations in atomic spectra, or in anything that depends on atomic spectra? Shouldn't atoms at rest with respect to the CMB collapse, in your model?

 

What are the specific failings of physics that you keep alluding to? Like how QED predicts the electron g-factor to 3 parts in 10[sup']11[/sup]?

 

(Mass energy and curved space). This does not address gravitational theory but only attempts to explain the phenomina.

 

All atomic mass interacts at atomic level, this interaction is referred to as gravitation although it is fundamentally electrically based.

 

(Not too surprising, since it was never designed to address gravity in the first place. Science is incomplete. That's why scientists still have jobs.

 

QED incorporates Maxwell's equations.)

 

Exactly the quantum model was never designed to account for gravity, which means that it is incomplete.

 

(If there is an absolute reference frame, how come no measurements can detect it? )

I have not discussed an absolute reference frame. We work with what we have. If we could fix our atomic theory up then maybe we can detect our "daily or yearly fluctuations in atomic spectra".

 

(Shouldn't atoms at rest with respect to the CMB collapse, in your model?)

 

If you had no universal motion the electron and proton would be unable to generate the necessary repulsive electromagnetic field, yes they would fuse together.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[Ophiolite]

If we could fix our atomic theory up then maybe we can detect our "daily or yearly fluctuations in atomic spectra"

Wow!

Again, wow!

So our observations are wholly contingent on our theoretical model. I guess that's where physicists have been going wrong all these years!

[SpaceTime]

Gravity operates below the photon, electron reaction threshold level, it cannot be detected by bullying the atom as the photon does. Gravity is a gentle giant when dealing with the atomic structure. It has nothing to do with photons.

 

Photon energy that is emmited as electromagnetic radiation, has occurred only when the electron has received an energy level that is greater than that provided to it by the universal velocity condition.

 

Who has worked with energy levels below the photo electric affect? because you will find they do exist.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[swansont]

(Shouldn't atoms at rest with respect to the CMB collapse' date=' in your model?)

 

If you had no universal motion the electron and proton would be unable to generate the necessary repulsive electromagnetic field, yes they would fuse together.

[/quote']

 

So as an ion is accelerated in a particle accelerator and at some point achieves a net zero speed with respect to the CMB, it should collapse. Why is this not observed?

[SpaceTime]

So as an ion is accelerated in a particle accelerator and at some point achieves a net zero speed with respect to the CMB, it should collapse. Why is this not observed?

 

Which direction would you accelerate the ion particle long enough to enable this fusion to occur?

 

I don't think that absolute zero velocity can be acheived in any practical way.

 

The earth is a rotating and orbiting platform for a reason, and is one of the reasons atomic structure remains stable along with the universal velocity.

 

Or do we just say stop the world I want to make an experiment.

 

Swansont answer me this, the Quantum Model atom, can it only absorb energy at packets of photon quanta energy level, or can it receive packets of value say 0.84 or 1.24 quanta energy level.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[swansont]

Which direction would you accelerate the ion particle long enough to enable this fusion to occur?

 

In th direction opposite our current motion, of course.

 

I don't think that absolute zero velocity can be acheived in any practical way.

 

Why would this be necessary? Reduce the speed and the repulsive force you postulate would be decreased, and the attractive force remains. That results in a net force of attraction. Atoms should be collapsing left and right. Increase the speed and they should fly apart. These phenomena have somehow managed to esscape my attention all these years.

 

Swansont answer me this' date=' the Quantum Model atom, can it only absorb energy at packets of photon quanta energy level, or can it receive packets of value say 0.84 or 1.24 quanta energy level.

[/quote']

 

It depends on the linewidth of the transition, but basically the energy has to be exact; if it's not within a few linewidths that probability of absorption goes rapidly to zero.

[SpaceTime]

In th direction opposite our current motion, of course.

The current motion is helical, and if you must not overshoot with the velocity component. This is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

Why would this be necessary? Reduce the speed and the repulsive force you postulate would be decreased, and the attractive force remains. That results in a net force of attraction. Atoms should be collapsing left and right. Increase the speed and they should fly apart. These phenomena have somehow managed to esscape my attention all these years.

They dont fly apart, when you added the energy in the first place to accelerate, you changed the internal resonant wavelength structure, which forced a change in universal velocity to accomadate the change of the wavelength structure, or did you not account for the changed velocity in the atomic wavelength structure?

It depends on the linewidth of the transition, but basically the energy has to be exact; if it's not within a few linewidths that probability of absorption goes rapidly to zero.

I agree the energy has to basically exact when dealing with photon absorbsion and emmision.

The probability of absorption going rapidly to zero I see differently.

But when the atom deals with fractional component energy values the atom can absorb or release these minute energy components by simple phase modulation, i.e. the atom attempts to change its univeral velocity to correct for the induced phase error within its internal resonant structure, in this way the atom can be accelerated or de-accelerated within the universe.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[swansont]

Collection of assorted buzzwords deleted

 

I agree the energy has to basically exact when dealing with photon absorbsion and emmision.

The probability of absorption going rapidly to zero I see differently.

But when the atom deals with fractional component energy values the atom can absorb or release these minute energy components by simple phase modulation' date=' i.e. the atom attempts to change its univeral velocity to correct for the induced phase error within its internal resonant structure, in this way the atom can be accelerated or de-accelerated within the universe.

[/quote']

 

This doesn't happen though, so it doesn't matter what you see. When you tune a laser off resonance the light isn't absorbed.

[SpaceTime]

Collection of assorted buzzwords deleted

 

This doesn't happen though' date=' so it doesn't matter what you see. When you tune a laser off resonance the light isn't absorbed.[/quote']

Why the preoccupation with photon energy levels, when I am trying to discuss energy levels below this?

 

The principle electrical operating system in computers is the binary function, which is based on a logic state of one or zero (1 or 0) in the Quantum atomic model the system is based on photon absorption and emission.

 

The linear analog universe nevertheless still exists.

 

Whilst both these systems have their obvious invaluable benefits, they are only tools to enable us to work and research further with. They are not the beginning and end of our research, meaning we still don’t know it all.

 

This forum I have been advised is available for debating scientific concepts, ideas and questions about the current state of our scientific research.

Answers like:

“It does, so we don't”

“I saw it. It's wrong”

“Collection of assorted buzzwords deleted”

To me does not constitute reasonable debate, appearing more like I’m not interested in debating this, you do not know what you are talking about. If this is the case then be a gentleman step aside and let others have their say.

 

I had much more I wanted to discuss but I am inclined to hold back due to receiving a cold shoulder. Maybe not everything I say can be correct but it is intended to raise serious questions as to where we stand scientifically.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[swansont]

Why the preoccupation with photon energy levels, when I am trying to discuss energy levels below this?

 

 

 

I was responding to I agree the energy has to basically exact when dealing with photon absorbsion and emmision.

The probability of absorption going rapidly to zero I see differently.

so we were clearly talking about photon absorption.

 

What energy levels "below this" are you referring to? What phenomena can be observed that involve these levels?

 

This forum I have been advised is available for debating scientific concepts' date=' ideas and questions about the current state of our scientific research.

Answers like:

“It does, so we don't”

“I saw it. It's wrong”

“Collection of assorted buzzwords deleted”

To me does not constitute reasonable debate, appearing more like I’m not interested in debating this, you do not know what you are talking about. If this is the case then be a gentleman step aside and let others have their say.[/quote']

 

It's an open forum. Anyone is free to step in and contribute and have their say.

 

I have raised several objections to your "model" (though that's a charitable use of the term) and have been ignored. If you were interested in serious debate you wouldn't duck the questions that are asked of you. If you were interested in doing science you'd have a model that made specific predictions so it can be tested, instead of waffling with a bunch of jargon.

[quick silver]

Gravity operates below the photon' date=' electron reaction threshold level, it cannot be detected by bullying the atom as the photon does. Gravity is a gentle giant when dealing with the atomic structure. It has nothing to do with photons.

 

Photon energy that is emmited as electromagnetic radiation, has occurred only when the electron has received an energy level that is greater than that provided to it by the universal velocity condition.

 

Who has worked with energy levels below the photo electric affect? because you will find they do exist.

 

Signed

SpaceTime[/quote']

 

working with any thing below a photon will be hard. i'm working with the wieghts of all of the atoms. and the speed of light. on friday i seen one of my freinds Square it by hand. that was a lot of fun to watch. my notebook is in anothre state, so as for the number..............i don't know. i'm going to get it typed and the all of the corrections done.

 

soem one had said the the universe can seem simple and yet complex at times. that is true. my goal is to find what the answer is.

[SpaceTime]

I was responding to I agree the energy has to basically exact when dealing with photon absorbsion and emmision.

The probability of absorption going rapidly to zero I see differently.

so we were clearly talking about photon absorption.

 

What energy levels "below this" are you referring to? What phenomena can be observed that involve these levels?

 

It's an open forum. Anyone is free to step in and contribute and have their say.

 

I have raised several objections to your "model" (though that's a charitable use of the term) and have been ignored. If you were interested in serious debate you wouldn't duck the questions that are asked of you. If you were interested in doing science you'd have a model that made specific predictions so it can be tested' date=' instead of waffling with a bunch of jargon.[/quote']

Although I wrote "The probability of absorption going rapidly to zero I see differently." I meant that this value is never zero, never goes to zero.

 

These low energy levels are not accounted for in QM, and the observed phenomina is gravity.

 

I have not given you a new model at all, I have only questioned the QM and suggested looking at including some refinements.

 

It would take more than a few posts in a forum to describe a new model.

 

The questions I am supposed to have ducked mainly are your mis-interpretation and jumping to conclusions trying to defend the QM.

 

Try asking what I mean and do not keep trying to presume what I am saying.

 

Personally I have no real problems with the QM but I am suggesting there is more to it, another dimension, which could provide the key to electrical stability and open the door to a possible resolving of how gravity maybe is interacting atomically with the QM.

 

I am not attacking the underlying fundamental basics of the QM at all, as you said it is spectacularly successful.

 

Maybe you are a gentleman and could help unravel a mystery or maybe you could be a pompas ignorant so and so, the choice really is totally yours, sometimes we need to slow down and think first.

 

You are right. It's an open forum. Anyone is free to step in and contribute and have their say, including me.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[SpaceTime]

working with any thing below a photon will be hard. i'm working with the wieghts of all of the atoms. and the speed of light.

True working with any thing below a photon energy level will be hard, but the answers will be found because the masses of the atomic particles are different and they also react differently to similar energy levels.

Every atom is constantly reacting with gravitational energy at the surface of the earth. Unfortunately this reaction is not catered for in the current quantum atomic model.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[quick silver]

hey i'm back on line. does any one know of a good copywriting agency in the wilmington area?

[swansont]

Were you referring to copyright, or an agency that writes copy?

[quick silver]

Were you referring to copyright, or an agency that writes copy?

 

copywriting agencyies so no one can steal my work. i've driven many to the brink of insanity. i was told that i needed ome thing to calm me down; by the gym teacher. my friend's reaserch has proven what i had said to be correct. so now i'm optomistic. (copyright) ok.................... what did i do? c9old shoulder, or is no one on-line?

[swansont]

copywriting agencyies so no one can steal my work. i've driven many to the brink of insanity. i was told that i needed ome thing to calm me down; by the gym teacher. my friend's reaserch has proven what i had said to be correct. so now i'm optomistic. (copyright) ok.................... what did i do? c9old shoulder, or is no one on-line?

 

In the US (and AFAIK in any country that signed the Berne convention) your material is under copyright protection once it's put down in some fixed form. In addition, you can register the copyright, which allows you to sue for more kinds of damages should someone infringe on your copyright.