And the aliens of course didn't get the memo.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
photons are born at c, they can only travel at this speed from the instant of their creation and hence there is no period of acceleration and hence even the concept of acceleration or inertia of a photon is non-sensical.
Only a small part of a fermion’s apparent mass comes from the Higgs field, most of it comes from the energy of motion and binding energy of the quarks and gluons. This was covered in the video I posted which you saw recently.
If quantum spin is not a physical spin but a quantum parameter (more connected with phase of the particles wave equation) how could it change during acceleration?
In your published work you talk about every particle having a deterministic relationship with it’s past, since the start of time at the big bang. And in another post you have said that humans do have free will and hence are not fixed by their histories. These two things are in direct contradiction.
can you explain further what is a ‘spin distance’ of a particle ?
Let’s take a fermion and somehow create a magnetic field so powerful that all the quarks inside it had their spins aligned. The gluons have no charge so no magnetic moment so they are not aligned. The energy of motion of the quarks and the binding energy of the gluon field are unaffected by the magnetic field or by the spins of the quarks and since these energies are responsible for the majority of the mass of the fermion how is it possible that they will behave like massless photons?
Last edited:
I'm not sure that's always true. At least it doesn't seem true for long periods of human lifetimes. I got interested in physics in my late 30s some 30 years ago. I used Richard Feynman as my ideal for a very long time. I read all of his "Lectures on Physics" and enjoyed them immensely. I still get a lot out of them and go back to them often.
But he did everyone a big disservice when he speculated about the energy of the vacuum, or "zero point field". I was amazed when I read that and sort of took it as gospel at the time. How wonderful that the vacuum could hold that much energy in each square centimeter of the universe. Now I think "what a load of crap!" But at the time I was enamored of the idea for several years.
From that single ZPF idea the ideas of supersymmetry, string theory, and all the other BS sprung. It revolved around the idea that the cooling expanding universe couldn't really be true and was just an illusion. Instead for the last 40 years physics has been doing contortions with extra dimensions and super partners all in a quixotic attempt to make the positive energy we experience balance out to zero. It's hopelessly stupid and denies the most basic laws of thermodynamics.
So Feynman made huge contributions to our knowledge. But he, more than any one in my opinion, sowed the seeds of its downward spiral for the last 40 years. It just goes to show you should never trust any scientist 100% of the time. All humans make mistakes.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Feynman was a clever guy but as you say there are ideas which may not have been fully correct. I guess that’s how things progress, new ideas, then these ideas have to be tested and explored and it can take years or more. The gold standard is experimental evidence/proof. I read String Theory can’t be proven experimentally which kind of makes it moot.
I said that information is always conserved. That means we humans have an innate sense of knowledge about how to act in any particular circumstance. It can be mysterious how we can know that information. A lot of times that information source is hidden from us but we sense it just the same.
I remember once I was going on a trip for three days and couldn't find someone to take care of my beloved basset hound. So I set out all his food and water in the house to last the three days. He was a house dog. I remember I was about 20 miles from home and in a good mood looking forward to my trip. In an instant I got this foreboding sad feeling completely out of the blue. It was sudden and unassociated with anything going on in my life. I just discounted it. I convinced myself it was nothing and went on with the trip.
When I got home after a good trip I found my dog had gone into one of the bedrooms and managed to somehow close the bedroom door and have it latch. He was nearly passed out from lack of food and water. I'm sure you will say that brain wave I got out of the blue while driving away was just a coincidence. You'll never convince me.
Now put yourself in a situation where a circumstance involves gaining something, perhaps money, perhaps more freedom. But you know it will involve someone else suffering. Maybe you don't know that person but you know it will happen. You have the information to avoid that and make the correct decision that doesn't make yourself gain at someone else's expense.
We all have that innate capacity to do the right thing. Its a deterministic ability even if we don't understand how we know. But we often choose not to pay attention and behave selfishly. We have that freedom.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I hope the book is better than the linked article because it left me feeling there was not much rigour in the thing. Nevertheless, I think it’s a topic worth exploring further because it fundamentally impacts SETI work.
How about turning the question around. Assume we have the means to broadcast a signal via any means such as radio, laser, gravity waves etc. and with enough energy to travel far enough so as to arrive at a detectable level at several alien civilizations. And assume we’re stupid enough to actually use it to announce nothing more than ‘we exist as sentient beings’. What message would we transmit?
We already know the universe has objects etc. that create signals, such as pulsars, signals that might look artificial. So we’d have to avoid our message being disregarded as a natural phenomena. A random signal is no use either. We have no expectation of being understood, in terms of language. If we were non-sentient computers we could transmit hexagons, pi, any kind of logic or math. What could we transmit that would convince the receiver that the signal was intentionally transmitted by sentient beings ?
Last edited:
I don't use belief as a measure for this, just stick to as many facts as there are available.
I've not seen one that doesn't have a more simple, rational explanation. Especially once you get past the emotional attachment some of the witnesses have to the exotic explanation.
I note that your request elicited no response!
I tried to analyse exeric's hypothesis, but only succeeded in making my head 'spin'
What was obvious to me was that no definition of "spin distance" was given, and I can't find any reference to that term in other sources.
Last edited:
If anyone is interested, here is the world wide, real time UFO tracker site...enjoy 🙂
UFO Stalker - Realtime UFO Sighting Map
UFO Stalker - Realtime UFO Sighting Map
I note that your request elicited no response!
I tried to analyse exeric's hypothesis, but only succeeded in making my head 'spin'
What was obvious to me was that no definition of "spin distance" was given, and I can't find any reference to that term in other sources.
I don't think that's being fair. Bigun's post included so many direct challenges it was almost impossible to answer all of them of them in short order. When I made the comment about determinism that took a lot to answer. It also applies to this attitude. You absolutely know that Bigun's questions were huge yet you don't give me any space for how that takes away from answering all of them. That's a poor moral position in which you are judging me. You are judging me n a way you wouldn't apply to yourself if you were in the same position.
We know work = F times distance or W =F x D. That can also be represented as energy in a different form. Massive particles such as quarks have a spin that I'm saying aligns its spin direction in the direction of any force. The quantum vacuum is a real physical thing whether there is a dispute about the amount of energy in it or not. When you put a force on a particle such as a quark that increases the energy as it moves in the direction of the force. However a quark is also constrained by nuclear forces which brings it back to the central part of the nucleon. This is not something you can measure directly in quantum processes but is probablistic. But like anything in quantum mechanics you take enough iterations over a long enough distance and it can be treated classically or "stochastically". You're doing more work in one direction of the spin, the direction the force is being applied, than in the direction in which the nuclear forces are trying to hold the quark. It's nothing more complex than spinning a tire by hand in one direction. You are changing its angular momentum, either in direction, in magnitude, or both. I would think that even the dunderheads on this forum might understand that!
In a photon the spin is restricted to a plane that orbits orthogonically to the direction of propagation. The definition of work says that work is only done if there is movement in the object in the direction of the vector force being applied. By it's definition then a photons allows no work to be done on it because of the direction of its spin. In other words all the work is being done in expelling the photon from wherever it came from and none along its trajectory. It literally darts away at the speed of light and exhibits no inertia in doing that.
So you could engineer the spins of a large massive object to align in one direction with a magnetic field. If you then put a force on that object that is orthogonal to that spin, (which includes the equipment to generate the magnetic field) then BY DEFINITION you'd be doing no work on that object. In other words You wouldn't be increasing the energy of the object.
This can easily be done on small objects first in table top experiments. (Not me. I'm too old to do that now.) You just get an immensely powerful magnet that is self powered and align the spins on an object of some sort. Then you put a thrusting device on the whole object with the vector of that thrust orthogonal to the spin induced by the magnet. Then you do the easy part: you observe the results. It can easily be proven to either work as I've described or to not work as I've described.
To all you geniuses out there who have never questioned or fought back against string theory, extra dimensions, parallel universes or "super partners" well now you have your chance to actually take on something that could possibly be proven wrong. THIS IS UNLIKE ALL THE QUACK IDEAS EVERYONE TAKES ON FAITH WHICH CAN'T BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN BUT EVERYONE BELIEVES BECAUSE SOMEONE IMPORTANT SAID IT. Why don't you guys think for yourselves instead of acting like lemmings. It's really pitiful. Or better yet, study some physics.
Last edited:
There's still no definition of 'spin distance' in your lengthy reply as far as I can see, but perhaps I am one of those "dunderheads" you mention! 
Might I suggest you try to learn more physics so you don't need to be spoon fed. Not everyone is good in all subjects. I'm certainly not. You need to hit the books if you're really interested and not just being argumentative. I can't do all the work for you.
If I am following your argument, the result would be that the magnet, thrusting device and object would instantly "dart away at the speed of light".
Now that would be quite an experiment to behold! 😉
No, I'm not saying that. There can be trouble in River City. It may be that larger magnetic fields may be required for stronger forces. Also, you have to account for how photons require energy just to be emitted. Nobody knows how those things interact in an "artificial" photon. It can only be found by experiment.
One thing is sure though is that the inertial mass of the object can be measured after the object hits something. If there is any significant difference with the measured speed of the object and the force of the impact against a solid object then something significant is going on. In other words, some momentum equated with the velocity and the measured weight of the object would be missing in the momentum measured by the impact.
Last edited:
For a UFO, wouldn't the source of the magnetism need to be incorporated into the vehicle itself?
And how would that immensely powerful magnet remain undetected?
And how would that immensely powerful magnet remain undetected?
Yes, it would have to be incorporated in any non-tethered vehicle. I think magnetic fields have been detected over and over. Never underestimate the ignorance of unscientifically educated observers. If you never ask the right questions then magnetic fields are never observed. Plus there seems to be a concerted effort to keep that aspect of propulsion devices secret by Earth bound governments. Thankfully I've thought up all this by myself and am not bound by any secrecy agreements on secrets I've learned from classified documents.
Of course, I'm sure the fact that I've actually done some original research is a big mark against me. Ha Ha!