Jump to content
Science Forums

Simon4159870717

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Simon4159870717

  1. I have to say: Not everything must be composed of something. Under the sun light, you can see your shade, that means sun light is blocked partially, so sun light is not a whole piece. Light from star take years to come to earth, even the star was gone, that means light can be separated from the resource. So I think light is composed by photons is reasonable. Gravity is NOT composed by anything, gravity is just a phenomenon, not a substance.
  2. My friend, if I say: Gravity is not caused by the curve of space, but by the consumption of space.
  3. I never witnessed any experimental evidence personally. So I doubt everything. I believe in photons because I think photon is the lowest unit of light. Light must be composed of something, and it's okay to call it a photon. I am very interested in light, I will read your articles.
  4. The reason why I don't believe in the theory of relativity is mainly because the phenomenon can be explained by the theory of relativity, and other theories can also explain it, and it is more reasonable. Nowadays, the theory of relativity is more like religion than science. People who do not support the theory of relativity basically have no right to speak. Sane scientists are no less enthusiastic about the theory of relativity than priests preaching Catholicism, and they can't even insist on being objective. If the momentum of a photon can be absorbed by others, can its speed be reduc
  5. If photon has momentum, could that be possible: When two photons collide, part of the momentum of one is transferred to the other?
  6. I don't trust lativity, and I don't trust anything. I want to know "the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the light source" is correct or not. To me, facts are more persuasive then theory. Is there any factto support it? I think this experiment can prove it or not easily, it is easier than Michelson–Morley experiment to do. I am curious if a similar experiment has been done. Based on your understanding of the theory of relativity, can you tell me what the result of this experiment will be?
  7. Thanks for your explaintion. But I am a Relativity skeptics. I admit that my expression is wrong. What I want is some proof that "the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the light source". I think this experiment can prove it or not. Each time I asked some questions and always got some theory answer. I care about fact more than theory.
  8. Thanks for your information, it is too much to me. It sounds like somebody has already done this experiment, do you know the name and the result? To me, this experiment can prove light is affected by inertia or not. So I really want to know it.
  9. "not affected by inertia" I mean "the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the light source".
  10. If I have two perfectly balanced boards. I shoot a pinball between the two boards at a perpendicular angle (90°), the pinball will bounce back and forth in the same position between the two boards. I think everyone will have no objection to this point, because this pinball is affected by inertia, and the rotation of the earth has no effect on it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now presume that light is not affected by inertia. We set up two perfectly balanced mirrors. One faces south and the other faces north. I can set up a light source
  11. I don't think time exists in reality either. I think time is same idea with lenth and weight, it is created by human, it is kind of concept exists in our mind. But it is NOT a fact that can be dilated.
  12. There are other explanations for the fact of atomic clocks on satellites besides the theory of relativity, but you just don't want to know it and just focus at the theory of relativity.
  13. All Energy Hypothesis Simon Zhou Abstract Everything is a state of energy. Energy can influence each other, their relationship can be attraction, mutually exclusive or no affection. Space is kind of energy, it can be consumed and generated. Space consumption causes gravity. Hypothesis Everything is a state of energy There are many forms of energy: particles, rays, fields, etc. They are the smallest constituent unit and cannot be divided anymore. They have no structure or even volume, they are just pure energy exiting. En
  14. Photons Repulsions Hypothesis Light is made of photons In March 1905, Einstein created the quantum theory of light, the idea that light exists as tiny packets, or particles, which he called photons. After this, there appear many theories and conclusions of light. Einstein’s one is good and simple enough , more complicated hypotheses will come out with specific conclusions. Photons are repulsive Between the same kind of energy, they always are repulsive. If they are not repulsive, they probably will merge into a bigger unit, and we should find out the mega size energy. In a distance, they wil
  15. This is similar with Michelson-Morley experiment, base on different understanding about light diffraction, will come out different conclusions. In other words, we can NOT measure the light speeds form east-to-west and from west-to-east yet?
  16. Testing the light speed from west to east and from east to west? Is there any information about it?
  17. Proton-Electron structures consume some Space-Energy, and the Space-Energy will disappear and the space it maintains will be extinguished. The space around the atom is constantly annihilated, and is immediately replenished by the nearby space. The movement of space carries the matters in the space to move. Because the quantity of particles of the earth is so large, the space is annihilated very quickly, and the outer space is also replenished so quickly that we feel that we are pulled to the center of the earth by gravity. In essence, the space under our feet is decreasing, and we are carried
  18. My friend, you exactly understand what I mean. The gravity and universe expanding is the same nature. Universe expanding is SPACE moving to the VOID out of universe, Gravity is SPACE move to the VOID in the nucleus. I made some calculation as below, it is really simple math. In conclusion, Gravity proportional to the mass of the object, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
  19. I knew the GPS example, it is written in each book about relativity. I can NOT explain why the satellite set off 38 microseconds per day. It seems like only relativity provide an explanation. But I have an open mind to accept any other explanation, such like "How the electronic clock works". If you want to use GPS example to prove relativity, the quantity of samples is not enough. By the way, I hope let everybody know, even if there is no relativity theory, GPS can work as well.
  20. What I mean is: gravity is a phenomenon, not a force, it essentially is : SPACE carry stuffs and move to nucleus. It seems like stuffs are pulled to core, so people would think it as a kind of force naturally. Gravitation Lens support my idea: when the light cross the space closeby a mass, the SPACE is moving to the mass, and the SPACE carry all things to the mass as well, including photon. So the direction of photon is changed, and that looks like bended. What we see through Gravitation Lens is the light which was running to another direction. Photon has no mass, so if gravity is a force, g
  21. I prefer to think gravity as "side effect" than "force" I can explain it simply: SPACE is kind of energy; nucleus consumes some SPACE; the SPACE out of nucleus move to nucleus to fill the VOID, the moving mode is similar with air filling vacuum. The movement of the SPACE is gravity. I did get a equation at another post: http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36820-all-energy-hypothesis/ It is very similar with Newton's, and the math is really simple, like middle school level.
  22. It is really convenient to calculate in this way. But I prefer it is positive in the opposite direction. There are many diffirent between us. One of them is: to you, gravity is force from particles; to me, gravity is space movement.
  23. Thanks, you are so kind. I'll use some days to read your links, then we will discuss about it. Sometime, it is really hard to shake somebody's faith (in God or Albert Einstein). I won't waste his time, or mine.
×
×
  • Create New...