language image world image
(language image = world image;-)
Since we substantivize "ideas", because they too are "complexes", we tend to reify them.
We cannot touch, for example: process, height, language, force, momentum, God, speed, mass, light, capitalism, space.
They are concepts, they are sufficiently accurate ideas to cope with everyday life. And some are resulting from inadequate observation and following misinterpretation)-;
"Space" and "time", for example, are everyday concepts. Which have been uncritically woven into "science"-)-;
"Space" and "time", for example, are untouchable and uncurveable - but what would be prerequisites for the RT;-)
(language image = world image;-)
Since we substantivize "ideas", because they too are "complexes", we tend to reify them.
We cannot touch, for example: process, height, language, force, momentum, God, speed, mass, light, capitalism, space.
They are concepts, they are sufficiently accurate ideas to cope with everyday life. And some are resulting from inadequate observation and following misinterpretation)-;
"Space" and "time", for example, are everyday concepts. Which have been uncritically woven into "science"-)-;
"Space" and "time", for example, are untouchable and uncurveable - but what would be prerequisites for the RT;-)
Last edited:
One day, scientists may succeed in reifying dark matter by finding the particle (or particles) supposed to be directly associated with it.
At the moment detection experiments seem to be stabbing in the dark, hoping that dark matter particles lie within their capability to detect them.
The null results obtained so far do not mean that dark matter particles do not exist, rather it's our equipment that's not yet optimised to detect them.
Meanwhile, we have to be content with the indirect observation of dark matter as seen, for example, in the Bullet cluster data.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-ba...nt-directly-detected-dark-matter-3d04021b314e
If matter, including dark matter to > 90%, curves spacetime, including the "light paths", we should see diffractions everywhere.
The diffractions of spacetime by mass predicted by RT are not even observed at the sun. I do disallow the explanation of the (allegedly - I refer to method check, like recording errors, processing errors, processing inaccuracies based on misconceptions of the researchers...) observed distortions in the Bullet cluster by dark matter. Especially since it is questionable whether this is not also a "science" fraud. Dark matter is a thesis. An unnecessary one, one would use electrophysics as explanation.
More interesting, and probably also more scientific, is the question: why the electrophysics is not noted on galactic level;-? Do the children, probably in the belief to have understood the RT, and to be able to put themselves on a level with the probably most hyped and probably best known "scientist" of the human history, hold on to his theses;-? The necessary answers are probably to be found in sociology and psychology, for example;-)
By the way: Does mass bend spacetime or does mass fall into spacetime;-?
The diffractions of spacetime by mass predicted by RT are not even observed at the sun. I do disallow the explanation of the (allegedly - I refer to method check, like recording errors, processing errors, processing inaccuracies based on misconceptions of the researchers...) observed distortions in the Bullet cluster by dark matter. Especially since it is questionable whether this is not also a "science" fraud. Dark matter is a thesis. An unnecessary one, one would use electrophysics as explanation.
More interesting, and probably also more scientific, is the question: why the electrophysics is not noted on galactic level;-? Do the children, probably in the belief to have understood the RT, and to be able to put themselves on a level with the probably most hyped and probably best known "scientist" of the human history, hold on to his theses;-? The necessary answers are probably to be found in sociology and psychology, for example;-)
By the way: Does mass bend spacetime or does mass fall into spacetime;-?
"Electrophysics" includes areas such as magnetically confined plasma, high power sources of coherent and pulse radiation and the interaction of radiation with plasmas and solids, nonlinear dynamics and chaos, lasers, nonlinear and quantum optics, quantum dots and nanophotonics, optical communication and computation, plasmonics, solar energy conversion, bioelectromagnetics, magnetics and spintronics.
Perhaps you could be more specific?
Suns are anodes.
Pulsars are part of a tilt oscillator, a resonant circuit.
My opinion as well;-)
Pulsars are part of a tilt oscillator, a resonant circuit.
My opinion as well;-)
Returning to the subject of edbarx's original post, the following quote from the scientific paper requires analysis.
"Within the nucleon the force is the strong force. As quarks movements are back and forth movements, called zigzag or oscillating movements, there is movement in opposite directions. So the oppositely acting forces annihilate each other."
Now, it is true that quarks interact via an 'action at a distance' force called the strong nuclear force, which is repulsive at small separations and attractive at larger separations.
Let's call the force that the LH quark in the image exerts on the RH quark, the action force. Then, according to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, the RH quark exerts an equal and opposite force, called the reaction force, on the LH quark.
Now, Since the action and reaction forces act on different objects, they can not cancel each other out. Only equal and opposite forces acting on the same object (balanced forces) can cancel each other out.
The forces between all of the quarks in a nucleon comprise action and reaction pairs - so what exactly do the authors mean when they say "the oppositely acting forces annihilate each other"?
"Within the nucleon the force is the strong force. As quarks movements are back and forth movements, called zigzag or oscillating movements, there is movement in opposite directions. So the oppositely acting forces annihilate each other."
Now, it is true that quarks interact via an 'action at a distance' force called the strong nuclear force, which is repulsive at small separations and attractive at larger separations.
Let's call the force that the LH quark in the image exerts on the RH quark, the action force. Then, according to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, the RH quark exerts an equal and opposite force, called the reaction force, on the LH quark.
Now, Since the action and reaction forces act on different objects, they can not cancel each other out. Only equal and opposite forces acting on the same object (balanced forces) can cancel each other out.
The forces between all of the quarks in a nucleon comprise action and reaction pairs - so what exactly do the authors mean when they say "the oppositely acting forces annihilate each other"?
Now, Since the action and reaction forces act on different objects, they can not cancel each other out. Only equal and opposite forces acting on the same object (balanced forces) can cancel each other out.
The forces between all of the quarks in a nucleon comprise action and reaction pairs - so what exactly do the authors mean when they say "the oppositely acting forces annihilate each other"?
This is looking at a system, not an object. In fact the net force on the system is zero.
This is exactly what happens when two wave fronts interfere with each other. There will be places where the net displacement (or energy) of the two fronts is zero. But it's not the result of nothing, it's the result of two wave fronts affecting each other ("cancelling out"). People that mess around with speakers understand this very well (or should).
If you can understand this, then you can understand enough about quantum physics to understand you don't understand it.
However, the authors go on to say a “left over” force “leaks” out of the nucleon.
So they do not consider the net force on the system to be zero. 😵
I read somewhere that gravity may be caused by the motion of atomic particles. It was thought or rationalized that a spinning particle is radiating gravity waves into space while losing some amount of energy in the process. Maybe there is "Leaky Energy" from moving or spinning particles because they are wiggling the ether while creating gravity waves. It was theorized that this process does use energy but that it was so small that it would take eons for the particle to decay. Maybe the Leaky Guys are more right than wrong. Maybe Dark Energy is hiding in spinning masses as angular momentum.
Zero, net negative, or net positive makes no difference. The principle is applied uniformly.
Exothermic reactions are nothing new. With an exothermic reaction, the net force on the system can still be zero with energy left over. There you go, energy from "nothing."
I think Laurence Krauss explains it better. He wrote a whole book on "nothing."
Well, Dark Matter is just another name for "gravitating stuff that seems to be there, but we don't know what it is" and MOND doesn't work at cosmic scales beyond single galaxies, which is like proposing a theory of oceans that can account for clumps of sand but not beaches.
;-)
Wasn't dark matter introduced to be able to describe the closed rotation of galaxies? That electrophysics explains this phenomenon, was and is not considered. That electrophysics also explains almost all further observations, was and is not considered.
Wasn't dark matter introduced to be able to describe the closed rotation of galaxies? That electrophysics explains this phenomenon, was and is not considered. That electrophysics also explains almost all further observations, was and is not considered.
I'm glad that the "gravitating stuff that seems to be there, but we don't know what it is" has at least been given a manageable name! 😉