Jump to content
Science Forums

Dubbelosix

Members
  • Content Count

    3,690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Everything posted by Dubbelosix

  1. I would like to add though. The Idea holds only if a particle is truly pointlike.
  2. If you have two observers seeing a light hitting a single place on a mirror, it is not exactly the same way on (a point) of a mirror. Because, if we rotate a point you don't get back the same orientation in a 360 degree turn, the only way to do it, is by rotating it 720 degrees, I think. So in the end your thought experiment is interesting, because the rotations laws just are preserved in point approximated dynamics for particle. A detector and the detectee are inherently coupled in any physics model, so the rotation of the mirror should preserve these strange laws. We'll done, im impressed!
  3. If I understand what you are saying, and it's a bit (if) here. It depends on your frame of reference. Take the light emitted from two sources inside a ship. The person inside the ship measures the light signal normally, moving in a vertical motion from the first detector and emitter to the second detector which in turn, emits it again. But someone outside the ship measuring the light, does not see the light signal moving in a horizontal motion. They will see it move with a slight shift causing it to move in a zig zag motion. This was in fact Einsteins first realization about how the light clic
  4. I wasn't fighting though, I explained some physics which Ocean is twisting to suit his own interpretation of what I said and dangling my account about like it's his to take, it's not even mine to keep, I only choose to come here. I don't actually need to. In reference to what you're asking, did you look into the bending of light by the Shapiro effect? Because the earth rotating against the light emitted does mean it affects it's motion because of gravity and a sense of spin. When light goes against a rotating massive body like earth, it is affected by a distortion in spacetime whic
  5. And to add, if you do vacation me. I promise I won't be coming back and others can thank you for it. Your censorship reeks of impertinence, and your blatant refusal to acknowledge references is just as surmountable to the damage of any threats you can dish out to me. Put it this way, you'd probably have some moral highground if A. I had not provided references And B. That you had not just intentionally twisted what I said
  6. Go away, I never said they were the same thing, you're looking more foolish than you ever did. In fact I'm saying the complete opposite, I'm saying mass and matter is not the same thing. Besides, I provided not just a textbook quote, but even an online quote which clearly demonstrates that there is more to the notion that a photon has a measure of mass but not matter. See you don't like being corrected? Put me on a vacation all you want, I dont act kindly to idol threats, Ocean. If you even dare I'll never return. Either way, I would care. I'm in the middle of some serious chess t
  7. By the way. You quoted me saying "continues with mass", it's this damn spell checker. It should be "contributes to mass."
  8. I used think that any difference between mass and matter was purely a semantic argument but I have since changed my view on this.
  9. Maybe only because of the units it works in. According to actual physics textbooks that I have read such as the one quoted, and other online sources as provided, you can say a photon must be measured in units of mass, because again, a photon when absorbed by matter contributes to a total mass. So energy contributes to mass, hence why some physicists like discern there is a difference between mass, and matter. Energy does not have matter, but it may well have a mass. How do we discern between these two concepts, it's still curious the whole discussion. How can we tell the terminology of mass an
  10. The seven or ten. To just our usual three or four is one of the hottest debates in physics. I did learn independently that if bivector gravity was the correct model, it can only be applied I'm either three or seven dimensions. It was such a stringent result that it almost convinces me it was either, on the fence so to speak. This because the cross product in bivector gravity will only have solutions for either three or seven dimensions and no more.
  11. But who knows right? It's not as if anyone can be outside from the inside looking in? There is another idea that our universe has a boundary floating in higher dimensions, some say it completes several problems by inviting higher dimensions. Others think of you have only four and you can explain reality with those four dimensions, then that should suffice.
  12. Today, we don't really say it expands into nothing, simply that there is no outside to the universe. It is self contained we say, and because of that, it expands in itself, instead of in nothing.
  13. Ok, let's solve this with the instructions given, if you've done it at home, well done. I said we needed Bohrs inverse case of the orbital radius equation , so we just invert it again because the term R^3 lives in the numerator on the RHS of the ratio of forces equation. So, we have now R^3 = (64π^6B^3e^8 m^3)/h^8 And plugging it into F_N/F_0 = 16π^4m • B^2(e^4R^3)/h^3 ... Is not too difficult to solve. The hardest part is keeping all the terms at hand when finishing the simplification. Ok let's solve this, if you've done it at home, well d
  14. By the way, your snarky coment that I'll just resort to insults, you're right. I can do with you quite often. You're a simple case that you don't like receiving unto which you like to dish out. If you can't handle the heat of your own behaviour, and the expectation of any insults back, get outta the kitchen!
  15. Also, here's another reference in baby language for you en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Mass–e... Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia "If an isolated box of ideal mirrors could contain light, the individually massless photons would contribute to the total mass of the box, by the ..." so yes, a photon when absorbed by a system must contribute mass. The issue here is that the contribution has to measured in units of mass. This has nothing to do with the full relativitistic formula, just really an issue of you and your awful grasp of physics, once again.
  16. See now? I'll wait till you get the book. Hope you have a year to spare to read it. It's as big as a bible. Secondly, don't mess me about saying "its simple high-school stuff,"... Yeah, so simple you can't even understand it. Or whay I wrote.
  17. Right first of all I never said it has matter, what I said is that some physicists like to highlight exactly what I said, that light is measured in units of mass because of the said formula, Go read, "physics, the fundamentals for the inquiring mind" by Eric Rogers. He states exactly what I have said, that light contributes to mass through M = E/c^2 because of this, we cannot calculate it how it provides a system with mass without invoking a different concept, that is that light has a mass, but it is not matter. The fact you had serious problems in the past with subjects I ha
  18. Anyway... Now that I have a bit of spare time.. Let's get some things clear 1. Do not demand on me to cite something when I'm a voice of authority in threads that you can barely retort or give two cents worth 2. Don't assume that because I haven't yet replied to your requests that I cannot. Assumption is the biggest **** up of all errors
  19. Anyway, I've fixed it all, you'll see why it has been rewritten as it is, it's much more clearer, except for the fact it's and paste - this will be one if a few threads that discuss the spinor, gravity and torsion coupled to electromagnetism; F_N/F_0 = 1/(Gεµ) nh/(m^2c) By understanding that we have F = Nh/(εµ M_2c) (M/R)^2 by empirical dimensional analysis where relativity as the unifying idea is the same as saying it applies in a general sense the upper limit of the Gravitational force. (m/R)^2 ≡ c^4/G We remind ourselves that the rotational velocity inverse uni
  20. I beg your pardon. But I can recite anything. It's not my fault you do not have any patience, I've been in the muddle of writing physics, you know, because that's what I do. Now I'll answer and cite when I'm finished what I am doing, thank you.
  21. Don't get me started with Sabine. She's a cowboy physicist who gets things wrong a lot. I also discovered back in 2019 when I hypothesised dark matter was in fact a drag effect of gravity, she had gone and published a paper the same year saying it was a gravitational drag of Baryons. I don't like her because she did something similar to a physicist friend of mine where she literally took ideas from conversations they had. She doesn't give credit where credit is due and she only spouts what she learns like a parrot what she learns. But doesn't seem to add anything of significance to physics. An
  22. Session 2 Bohr obtained two major objects of importance, the Bohr radius and the Bohr inverse mass. he derived the inverse mass from the known classical laws 1/m = mv^2/m^2v^2 ≡(4π ^2Be^2)/h and his radius formula which when cubed is 1/R^3 = (12π^6B^3e^6 m^3)/h^6 these are standard equations from his model which is still considered accurate for a nuclear charge equal to 1, but we will be inviting wave functions soon. First we identify the mass in my following formula F_N/F_0 = 1/(Gεµ) nh/(m^2c) In which we have highlighted because of not only being a dimensi
  23. However, what I didn't do before was log in an extra factor if c in the denominator since ω requires one such factor, so it has to be modified properly D ψ(X,t) = (∂ - i/(4πc) ω σ(a,b)) ψ(X,t) D ψ(X,t) = (∂ + i/(4π) Ω/2c σ(a,b)) ψ(X,t) = (∂ - i/(4π) GL/2c^3R^3 σ(a,b)) ψ(X,t) Now the dimensions are spot on for further work
  24. F_N/F_0 = 1/(Gεµ) nh/(m^2c) By understanding that we have F = Nh/(εµ M_2c) (M/R)^2 by empirical dimensional analysis where relativity as the unifying idea is the same as saying it applies in a general sense the upper limit of the Gravitational force. (m/R)^2 ≡ c^4/G We remind ourselves that the rotational velocity inverse units of time is also a fundamental relaxation when seen to preserve torsion, it highlights the importance of Newton's G when prepping a theory that obeys the full Poincare group ω = - Ω/2 =GL/2c^2R^3 One thing you can naturally do is plug
×
×
  • Create New...