Prev: Universe not expanding & caused by Einstein's gravity redshift
Next: LHC is Black Hole DOOMSDAY
From: Thomas Heger on 7 Jun 2010 23:07
Edward Green schrieb:
> On Jun 6, 3:14 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> Edward Green schrieb:
>
> <...>
>
>>> I don't know. Pick up a chunk of rock. Weigh it. From this, knowledge
>>> of the rock's mineral content and Avogadro's number, one seems to have
>>> a fairly straightforward way of counting the number of nuclei in the
>>> rock, and by extension the number of protons and neutrons. We can
>>> leave that rock in the storeroom a long time, and still get the same
>>> answer; so protons seem quite "countable" under some prosaic
>>> circumstances.
>> By this line of arguments the result (particles 'exist' and they are
>> countable) is used to prove the result (by using the term avogadro
>> *number*). Actually the countability of atoms is not in question, but
>> the realness and countability of elementary particles.
>
> You may be right, there may be some circularity involved in my
> invocation of Avogadro's number -- but you seem to agree that the
> countability of atoms is not in doubt, anyway.
>
>> The question is, if atoms are composed out of a nucleus and some
>> electron flying around.
>> The picture is somehow illogic, because the particles are also
>> wavy,space-filling and pointlike.
>
> Nonetheless, I think it was Feynman who said "the neutron is a
> particle for anybody's money", or words to that effect, and I tend to
> agree. For all the wavy point-likeness, we can count baryons, at
> least. Put enough of them together, with some electrons, and they make
> rocks. Further down in the particle zoo, I make no opinion. Photons,
> for example, we can certainly count detections, and possibly if we are
> very clever we can count emissions, but I doubt we can count the
> number present in a field: even if we have operators which claim to do
> so.
>
>> I found a way to model the same behavior without 'real' particles. The
>> trick -if you like- is to model the 'opposite' of the particles and
>> those as a pattern or structures within this kind of invisible medium.
>>
>> Than particles are somehow an equivalent to a vortex (like on large
>> scale a tornado). But such a structure could be created out of nothing,
>> only this 'medium' needs to be disturbed enough.
>>
>> So I think about particles as names for discontinuity in a continuum.
>
> I agree with you in broad strokes.
>
>> My example was a screw, like the form called kink-surface, that has
>> something to count (the ripples), but those build a continuum, only
>> wound up. At this you could look from the top and it would look like a
>> circle. From the side it looks like a sine wave. So there is no need to
>> say, because there is something, that we could count, this is composed
>> out of something countable as well. This is like the tornado: tornados
>> could be counted (and certainly are), but the air they are composed of,
>> we cannot count.
>
> Interesting. Though academically, we could count the air molecules, in
> principle. But I suppose your "air" is a continuum.

The air molecules represent a scale in a fractal system. Fractals are
selfsimilar and the behavior of the container is found within the parts.
As I think, that nature follows a fractal behavior, we find the same
problem at the smaller parts: we find the container is countable and
that is why we think the buildings blocks should be. But in a fractal we
can go as far as we like and will not find the final parts.
This means, we take the feature of the container and apply it to its
parts. But in a fractal system, we cannot find the step, where we have
no level below.
Usually we don't see this system, because the steps between the scales
are so large. And we cannot know, at which level we ourself operate.
This is certainly a problem for a particle physicist and kind of
philosophical unpleasant.
So I assume a connection to time, that could be treated in continuous
way as an imaginary axis, that is spinning on a large scale 'outwards'
to infinity, while having an inverse, that is contraction to infinitely
small systems. Than the entire universe undergoes this change and our
level is on the expanding branch.

To create a fractal model, we need a system with feedback and we need
imaginary numbers. I guess that complex four-vectors would work well for
this purpose. So I assume, that a fundamental model of nature has to be
based on such numbers.

> I also mention, out of academic interest, that if we had a lot of
> tornadoes close together we might in fact have some difficulty
> counting them... we might find two in the process of merging, for
> example.
>
> <...>
>
>>> I agree with you that particles are structures. But some of them are
>>> quite stable and very countable "structures". Why is there a
>>> contradiction here?
>> My favorite argument is the so called growing Earth hypothesis, because
>> that would be in direct contradiction to the particle concept, but I
>> think, it could be easily proven:
>
>> http://ray.tomes.biz/expand.html
>
> It's been a long time since I've seen that name one Usenet!
>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0005014
>
> Ah... there is a lot of interesting stuff out there.
>
>> The problem for the particle concept would be, that the Earth seems to
>> grow from the inside, while gaining also mass, what is hard to explain
>> with any kind of particle mechanism.
>
> That hypothesis is a bit far out for me, if you will forgive me.

You should see the similarity to growth of natural system, that undergo
a change from growth to decay, that is the behavior of the entire
universe (according to that fractal model) and would include all its parts.
That is certainly 'far out', but would follow from that model and would
be consistent with observations.

TH
From: john on 8 Jun 2010 02:33
On Jun 7, 9:07 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> Edward Green schrieb:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 3:14 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> >> Edward Green schrieb:
>
> > <...>
>
> >>> I don't know. Pick up a chunk of rock. Weigh it. From this, knowledge
> >>> of the rock's mineral content and Avogadro's number, one seems to have
> >>> a fairly straightforward way of counting the number of nuclei in the
> >>> rock, and by extension the number of protons and neutrons. We can
> >>> leave that rock in the storeroom a long time, and still get the same
> >>> answer; so protons seem quite "countable" under some prosaic
> >>> circumstances.
> >> By this line of arguments the result (particles 'exist' and they are
> >> countable) is used to prove the result (by using the term avogadro
> >> *number*). Actually the countability of atoms is not in question, but
> >> the realness and countability of elementary particles.
>
> > You may be right, there may be some circularity involved in my
> > invocation of Avogadro's number -- but you seem to agree that the
> > countability of atoms is not in doubt, anyway.
>
> >> The question is, if atoms are composed out of a nucleus and some
> >> electron flying around.
> >> The picture is somehow illogic, because the particles are also
> >> wavy,space-filling and pointlike.
>
> > Nonetheless, I think it was Feynman who said "the neutron is a
> > particle for anybody's money", or words to that effect, and I tend to
> > agree.  For all the wavy point-likeness, we can count baryons, at
> > least. Put enough of them together, with some electrons, and they make
> > rocks. Further down in the particle zoo, I make no opinion. Photons,
> > for example, we can certainly count detections, and possibly if we are
> > very clever we can count emissions, but I doubt we can count the
> > number present in a field: even if we have operators which claim to do
> > so.
>
> >> I found a way to model the same behavior without 'real' particles. The
> >> trick -if you like- is to model the 'opposite' of the particles and
> >> those as a pattern or structures within this kind of invisible medium.
>
> >> Than particles are somehow an equivalent to a vortex (like on large
> >> scale a tornado). But such a structure could be created out of nothing,
> >> only this 'medium' needs to be disturbed enough.
>
> >> So I think about particles as names for discontinuity in a continuum.
>
> > I agree with you in broad strokes.
>
> >> My example was a screw, like the form called kink-surface, that has
> >> something to count (the ripples), but those build a continuum, only
> >> wound up. At this you could look from the top and it would look like a
> >> circle. From the side it looks like a sine wave. So there is no need to
> >> say, because there is something, that we could count, this is composed
> >> out of something countable as well. This is like the tornado: tornados
> >> could be counted (and certainly are), but the air they are composed of,
> >> we cannot count.
>
> > Interesting. Though academically, we could count the air molecules, in
> > principle. But I suppose your "air" is a continuum.
>
> The air molecules represent a scale in a fractal system. Fractals are
> selfsimilar and the behavior of the container is found within the parts.
> As I think, that nature follows a fractal behavior, we find the same
> problem at the smaller parts: we find the container is countable and
> that is why we think the buildings blocks should be. But in a fractal we
> can go as far as we like and will not find the final parts.
> This means, we take the feature of the container and apply it to its
> parts. But in a fractal system, we cannot find the step, where we have
> no level below.
> Usually we don't see this system, because the steps between the scales
> are so large. And we cannot know, at which level we ourself operate.
> This is certainly a problem for a particle physicist and kind of
> philosophical unpleasant.
> So I assume a connection to time, that could be treated in continuous
> way as an imaginary axis, that is spinning on a large scale 'outwards'
> to infinity, while having an inverse, that is contraction to infinitely
> small systems. Than the entire universe undergoes this change and our
> level is on the expanding branch.
>
> To create  a fractal model, we need a system with feedback and we need
> imaginary numbers. I guess that complex four-vectors would work well for
> this purpose. So I assume, that a fundamental model of nature has to be
> based on such numbers.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I also mention, out of academic interest, that if we had a lot of
> > tornadoes close together we might in fact have some difficulty
> > counting them... we might find two in the process of merging, for
> > example.
>
> > <...>
>
> >>> I agree with you that particles are structures. But some of them are
> >>> quite stable and very countable "structures". Why is there a
> >>> contradiction here?
> >> My favorite argument is the so called growing Earth hypothesis, because
> >> that would be in direct contradiction to the particle concept, but I
> >> think, it could be easily proven:
>
> >>http://ray.tomes.biz/expand.html
>
> > It's been a long time since I've seen that name one Usenet!
>
> >>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0005014
>
> > Ah... there is a lot of interesting stuff out there.
>
> >> The problem for the particle concept would be, that the Earth seems to
> >> grow from the inside, while gaining also mass, what is hard to explain
> >> with any kind of particle mechanism.
>
> > That hypothesis is a bit far out for me, if you will forgive me.
>
> You should see the similarity to growth of natural system, that undergo
> a change from growth to decay, that is the behavior of the entire
> universe (according to that fractal model) and would include all its parts.
> That is certainly 'far out', but would follow from that model and would
> be consistent with observations.
>
> TH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

atoms are galaxies

those arms of stars are electrons

that quasar is a photon

the neutrinos from the stars pushes
on galactic centers

the same radiation from electrons
pushes on protons and causes our gravity

it is fractal

john
galaxy model for the atom
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jun 2010 13:13
On 6/8/10 1:33 AM, john wrote:
> atoms are galaxies
>
> those arms of stars are electrons
>
> that quasar is a photon
>
> the neutrinos from the stars pushes
> on galactic centers
>
> the same radiation from electrons
> pushes on protons and causes our gravity
>
> it is fractal
>
> john
> galaxy model for the atom

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Fractal.html
Atoms and galaxies don't fit the bill.
From: Thomas Heger on 8 Jun 2010 18:44
PD schrieb:
> On Jun 8, 11:47 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> PD schrieb:
>>
>>
>>

>>>> The picture is somehow illogic, because the particles are also
>>>> wavy,space-filling and pointlike.
>>> I disagree that there is something illogical about this.
>>> I can identify where the *feeling* of illogic comes from, though.
>>> There is a common *presumption* that there are two, distinct, non-
>>> overlapping, comprehensive categories of physical objects -- particles
>>> and waves.
>>> I'd like to point out that this classification is wholly man-made and
>>> is a *guess* based on a number of commonplace examples, turned by
>>> arbitrary fiat into a generalization.
>>> Notice that there is nothing inherently illogical in discovering that
>>> this classification is neither comprehensive or even accurate. It just
>>> means that our previous guess was wrong, and we have to let that go.
>>> What turns out to be the case is that subatomic particles can be
>>> classed as NEITHER particles NOR as waves, but as a third type of
>>> physical entity which exhibits some particle behaviors and some wave
>>> behaviors.
>>> Resistance to even considering this possibility is a sign of mental
>>> calcification.
>> Hi PD
>> I developed a system, that would generate structures with the same
>> features as elementary particles, but without waves or particles.
>
> See my general comments about the requirements of theories, which
> you've acknowledged that you do not have.
>

'Theory' means, that a hypothesis is an accepted model. But to have
something, that could possibly be accepted, this has to be developed first.
Such a set of assumptions is not a theory, but could be developed into
one.(Only the chances are small, because there are many restrictions and
to convince 'the community' is next to impossible.)

Anyhow, I think I could write about my ideas, as anybody else could
about his. But an idea itself has nothing to do with personal skills.
Proof of mastery in related subjects would certainly increase the
credibility. Only, that has nothing to do with the idea itself, because
the quality of an idea (or: its possible usefulness) is something
different than the qualities of the author.

TH
From: PD on 8 Jun 2010 18:46
On Jun 8, 5:44 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> PD schrieb:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 11:47 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> >> PD schrieb:
>
> >>>> The picture is somehow illogic, because the particles are also
> >>>> wavy,space-filling and pointlike.
> >>> I disagree that there is something illogical about this.
> >>> I can identify where the *feeling* of illogic comes from, though.
> >>> There is a common *presumption* that there are two, distinct, non-
> >>> overlapping, comprehensive categories of physical objects -- particles
> >>> and waves.
> >>> I'd like to point out that this classification is wholly man-made and
> >>> is a *guess* based on a number of commonplace examples, turned by
> >>> arbitrary fiat into a generalization.
> >>> Notice that there is nothing inherently illogical in discovering that
> >>> this classification is neither comprehensive or even accurate. It just
> >>> means that our previous guess was wrong, and we have to let that go.
> >>> What turns out to be the case is that subatomic particles can be
> >>> classed as NEITHER particles NOR as waves, but as a third type of
> >>> physical entity which exhibits some particle behaviors and some wave
> >>> behaviors.
> >>> Resistance to even considering this possibility is a sign of mental
> >>> calcification.
> >> Hi PD
> >> I developed a system, that would generate structures with the same
> >> features as elementary particles, but without waves or particles.
>
> > See my general comments about the requirements of theories, which
> > you've acknowledged that you do not have.
>
> 'Theory' means, that a hypothesis is an accepted model. But to have
> something, that could possibly be accepted, this has to be developed first.
> Such a set of assumptions is not a theory, but could be developed into
> one.(Only the chances are small, because there are many restrictions and
> to convince 'the community' is next to impossible.)
>
> Anyhow, I think I could write about my ideas, as anybody else could
> about his. But an idea itself has nothing to do with personal skills.
> Proof of mastery in related subjects would certainly increase the
> credibility. Only, that has nothing to do with the idea itself, because
> the quality of an idea (or: its possible usefulness) is something
> different than the qualities of the author.
>
> TH

I'm sorry, but some ideas are so thinly and poorly formed that they
have no value, at least in science.

When you have taken the trouble to polish your skills a little more to
develop the idea into something that has some value, then maybe we can
talk.

PD
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Universe not expanding & caused by Einstein's gravity redshift
Next: LHC is Black Hole DOOMSDAY