Types Of Clocks Which Have Actually Measured Time Dilation

[exchemist]

Reverse that, I meant we address scattering first, as it requires no inconcieveable dimensionality while also accounting for dark matter & energy, as we as providing an alternative to expansion.

Er, right. 

 

From now on I'll stick to commenting generally, rather replying to you specifically, on points of science for the benefit of other readers. Have a nice day. 

[mrg]

OK, let's go through the post of yours we are talking about. I will list the phrases that seem to me either wrong or nonsensical and explain why:- 

...  I could go on but it gets tedious. The rest is no better.

 

Nice post, EXC.   Though possibly like using a sledgehammer to smash a fly.

[mrg]

Reverse that, I meant we address scattering first, as it requires no inconcieveable dimensionality while also accounting for dark matter & energy, as well as providing an alternative to expansion.

 

Hey man, gimme a hit off that bong.

[AmishFighterPilot]

That is true. But equally, it does not mean that it does make sense and that the fault lies with me, either. 

 

 

 

OK, let's go through the post of yours we are talking about. I will list the phrases that seem to me either wrong or nonsensical and explain why:- 

 

- "There's only really superluminal quantum matter": Nothing with mass can reach the speed of light, let alone exceed it, unless you are throwing out all of relativity. If you are doing this, you need to make that clear.

 

- "quantum matter": this is meaningless. All matter is quantised, so either the term "quantum" is redundant, or you intend to give it a new meaning, in which case you need explain what that is. 

 

- "virtual particles" are not superluminal, (nor are they particles, but that's another story).

 

- "matter is a collection of localised time loops, etc": the term "time loop" has no recognised meaning in physics and you do not offer one.  You assert  that these "time loops" aggregate, without saying why or how, and that the aggregates have a vibration frequency, without saying what vibrates or why.

 

- "This is also a fee of Euclidean space allowing all such rifts to connect": a "fee" is something you pay someone, so the image of paying a fee to space is meaningless - at least it is without considerable explanation, which you do not provide. You introduce the term "rift" without explaining what is rifted, why or how.

 

I could go on but it gets tedious. The rest is no better. 

 

The thing is, Amish FP, in science, you can't just make sh1t up and claim to be the next Einstein.

 

First off, I never claimed to be Einstein. I was taking inspiration from the fact that he was not afraid of intuitive speculation.

 

I can see from your responses that we haven't communicated successfully. That doesn't justify hostility. The first part of your post was real progress though.

 

I've always been bothered by the similarities between the classical model of atoms and the larger structures of the universe. In someways, it makes sense that all reality is "nested", with every particle of the universe containing an infinite series of smaller parts, which represent different physical scales. This doesn't quite make sense though for a variety of reasons, but it did lead to aline of thought. What is the smallest, most fundamental state of matter. Also, what is the mechanism by which matter gains mass theougg the addition of energy adds mass. Einstein and Bohrs were not wrong in their modeling of the mechanisms of the universe, but there are questions about the actual mechanisms of matter and energy that they never answered. If anyone can explain time to me without using time-dependant terms, I'll give up speculating.

 

So, if there is a fundamental particle, why isn't it made of anything smaller? Why does mass clump together until it gets smashed super small? Where does that super small matter end up, and why do charged particles like electrons emit a steady field. Why do protons want them so badly, and why don't they meet up when found in simple atoms like hydrogen?

 

 

Anyway I'm short on time and will respond in more detail in a while when not on a tablet

[mrg]

First off, I never claimed to be Einstein.

 

That's OK -- we didn't mistake you for him.

[exchemist]

First off, I never claimed to be Einstein. I was taking inspiration from the fact that he was not afraid of intuitive speculation.

 

I can see from your responses that we haven't communicated successfully. That doesn't justify hostility. The first part of your post was real progress though.

 

I've always been bothered by the similarities between the classical model of atoms and the larger structures of the universe. In someways, it makes sense that all reality is "nested", with every particle of the universe containing an infinite series of smaller parts, which represent different physical scales. This doesn't quite make sense though for a variety of reasons, but it did lead to aline of thought. What is the smallest, most fundamental state of matter. Also, what is the mechanism by which matter gains mass theougg the addition of energy adds mass. Einstein and Bohrs were not wrong in their modeling of the mechanisms of the universe, but there are questions about the actual mechanisms of matter and energy that they never answered. If anyone can explain time to me without using time-dependant terms, I'll give up speculating.

 

So, if there is a fundamental particle, why isn't it made of anything smaller? Why does mass clump together until it gets smashed super small? Where does that super small matter end up, and why do charged particles like electrons emit a steady field. Why do protons want them so badly, and why don't they meet up when found in simple atoms like hydrogen?

 

 

Anyway I'm short on time and will respond in more detail in a while when not on a tablet

Well now you are making perfect sense. It is like talking to a different person :) What has happened? It is absolutely OK with me to explore questions like that, even though there may not be any current answers to some of them. You seem to be interested in the various fields, is that right? The electric field of an electron, or the gravitation field of a galaxy, for instance. Is that fair?

Edited May 25, 2017 by exchemist

[AmishFighterPilot]

 

Well now you are making perfect sense. It is like talking to a different person :) What has happened? It is absolutely OK with me to explore questions like that, even though there may not be any current answers to some of them. You seem to be interested in the various fields, is that right? The electric field of an electron, or the gravitation field of a galaxy, for instance. Is that fair?

Yes, the "quantum matter" as I roughly referred to it is the source of charge, heat, etc. in this concept. The notion of an actual, physical exchange does help address the issue of the immense amounts of seemingly-empty space around the nucleus of an atom. The concept that there's these orbital particles with a relatively-vast gap between them and the nucleus makes more sense if you don't picture that space between as being void.

 

When an electron is bumped up an orbit by a photon, the photon goes away, but the electron moves further out. I think it makes sense that "something" is filling this space. The thing is, that "something" is "space", and that's where this concept gets a little hard to articulate. So, if space-time expansion defines "space" as we know it, then a lack of space-time would mean a lack of the normal spacial dimensionality of "normal" space. Any time space-time is "destroyed", the only way for it to not violate conservation of energy is for that "quantum data" or whatever you want to call it to reemerge somehow. I'm talking about the "black hole information paradox". What if there is no paradox because that quantum information reemerges at any point that is connected to that non-space. Because it's non-space, there's no distances to travel; so I would imagine the only other requirement would be a spot available to emerge into. So, anywhere in the universe, any time there is a formation of a particle, it's this fundamental material being formed into a larger aggregate; essentially allowing that quantum data to emerge again. This exchange explains a lot of things.

 

When I say that matter is loops of "time", what I am really saying is that this charge substance gets stuck in a loop, flowing out from the event horizon of electrons and entering the event horizon of protons. On larger formations, the charged particles form tighter groupings with protons, forming neutrons. So the nucleus is all the tight grouped pairs of opposite particles and the orbitals are the ones that couldn't stabilize within the nucleus but with which there is still enough exchange to stabilize it. That explains why electrons further out from the nucleus have more power and not less. That's why when they drop a level or two the result is the creation of a photon, which is the "energy" remaining from that electron's higher orbit. Any radiation is just bubbles of this quantum matter or whatever you want to call it pushing through a medium called space-time that I believe is made up of neutralized quantum matter(cancellation?). Motion is caused by polarizing the time flow in a given mass. Adding more energy to one side creates motion in response to it on the other side. Its just like how an airfoil works.

 

I have more thoughts on this but it is extremely late here and I must sleep now that my kid has passed out finally! I'll follow up on this later.

[mrg]

AFP, if you are honestly sincere about mucking about with questions that can only be usefully considered -- if not necessarily answered -- by those with a doctorate in physics ... then the sensible thing to do is to get a doctorate in physics, and give up playing games.

[AmishFighterPilot]

Yeah I'll plop down 10 years worth of household income for a diploma. I'd better have a garage sale

[mrg]

Yeah I'll plop down 10 years worth of household income for a diploma. I'd better have a garage sale

 

Well, if you can't afford to get an airplane and a pilot's license, then you will just have to satisfy yourself with running around with your arms stretched out, and saying:  "ZOOM!  ZOOM!  ZOOM!"

[billvon]

Yeah I'll plop down 10 years worth of household income for a diploma. I'd better have a garage sale

Get a loan if you really want to do it.  Many of us did the same.

[mrg]

Get a loan if you really want to do it.  Many of us did the same.

 

AFP seems to have difficulty understanding the request of:  "Put up, or be quiet."   That's the polite version.

[AmishFighterPilot]

Well, if you can't afford to get an airplane and a pilot's license, then you will just have to satisfy yourself with running around with your arms stretched out, and saying:  "ZOOM!  ZOOM!  ZOOM!"

That sounds fun & I'm sure my kid will love it

[mrg]

That sounds fun & I'm sure my kid will love it

 

Then it sounds more profitable for you than being a wannabee physicist.

[AmishFighterPilot]

AFP seems to have difficulty understanding the request of:  "Put up, or be quiet."   That's the polite version.

I have asked you several times why you continue to "contribute" to this discussion in an Alternative Theories forum when amateur speculation bothers you so much. You put up or shut up. I have politely responded to all serious inquiry as best I can. If you dislike me being misguided, offer some useful guidance. If you have the answers, answer the questions. If you find the questions or discussion to be annoying, just avoid it.

[mrg]

I have asked you several times why you continue to "contribute" to this discussion in an Alternative Theories forum when amateur speculation bothers you so much.

 

It's no bother; I'm quite amused by it.  However, I still must observe that if you are sincere in asking professional-level questions about physics, the logical consequent is that you acquire professional qualifications in the subject matter.   Saying that you do not want to do that suggests a lack of sincerity.

[AmishFighterPilot]

Sure it does. It has nothing to do with all the people I know that are drowning in student debt. That couldn't possibly be a barrier could it? What economic class do you come from?