Prev: A castigation of Napoleon Bonehead Green, Doctor of Phrenology,
Next: INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?
From: Thomas Heger on 2 Aug 2010 01:50
If 'spacetime is observer independent, than we could put one observer
somewhere.
This observer is provided with a clock. Now he would find, his clock
seem to act differently on other positions. But he could find, that
certain locations allow to keep other identical clocks synchronized. The
set of these positions he calls a 'time domain' and because it his
clock, that is his domain. These positions seem to have a physical form
and would allow to move along this form, where the behavior of the clock
would not alter.
From experience we know, that the surface of the Earth has such a
behavior. So I assume such domains to be generally spherical.
But we know, that hight has an influence on clocks, too (from the
experience at the Harvard towers).
Since this also the direction of gravity, hight is related to different
time-domains as spherical shells.
Now the surface of the Earth has a diameter. So I assume that smaller
shells would have higher gravity and infinite large have zero gravity.
This is also a spherical shell with no time elapsing.

Since the Earth is spinning once a day, we could regard this spin
frequency to be typical for Earth-sized spheres, while infinitely large
would not spin at all, infinitely small would spin that fast.
If we would compare this to observed phenomena, that small spherical
structure would be like atoms, where it is actually gravity, that hold
them together, only way stronger, than on our usual scale.

TH
From: Hayek on 2 Aug 2010 07:12
Thomas Heger wrote:
> If 'spacetime is observer independent, than we could put one observer
> somewhere.
> This observer is provided with a clock. Now he would find, his clock
> seem to act differently on other positions. But he could find, that
> certain locations allow to keep other identical clocks synchronized. The
> set of these positions he calls a 'time domain' and because it his
> clock, that is his domain.

Actually, you mean by this domain, a domain where
inertia is constant, a clock is just an inertial field
meter.

If this inertial field is stronger in b than in a then
object will be attracted from a to b. Gravitation is the
gradient of the inertial field. The inertial field
strength sets the amount of inertia objects in this
field will experience. A clock measures this inertial
field by throwing a mass back and forth, the "time"
extracted from this cycle.

> These positions seem to have a physical form
> and would allow to move along this form, where the behavior of the clock
> would not alter.
> From experience we know, that the surface of the Earth has such a
> behavior. So I assume such domains to be generally spherical.
> But we know, that hight has an influence on clocks, too (from the
> experience at the Harvard towers).
> Since this also the direction of gravity, hight is related to different
> time-domains as spherical shells.
> Now the surface of the Earth has a diameter. So I assume that smaller
> shells would have higher gravity and infinite large have zero gravity.
> This is also a spherical shell with no time elapsing.

Do not forget the mass of the universe, this creates an
inertial field about a few billion times stronger than
the Earth's.

> Since the Earth is spinning once a day, we could regard this spin
> frequency to be typical for Earth-sized spheres, while infinitely large
> would not spin at all, infinitely small would spin that fast.
> If we would compare this to observed phenomena, that small spherical
> structure would be like atoms, where it is actually gravity, that hold
> them together, only way stronger, than on our usual scale.

Well, if you look at the properties of inertia, and then
look at quantum properties like uncertainty, the two are
not compatible. The fact that an electron does not fall
into the nucleus, can only be explained by saying that
Newtonian-Einsteinian-, also called classical physics
stops there. For the mass of an electron the uncertainty
region is about the sphere or orbital of an hydrogen
atom. You could say that the effect of the inertial
field, thus also its gravitational component stops
there. Even so, gravitation could be due to one end of
the atom being in stronger inertia than the other end.

But, in order to have quantum effects, inertia has to
stop at the limits of the Heisenberg equation. And it is
known that "time" under such conditions is something
quite different than clock time or say it with its real
name : inertia.

So, there is absolutely no way that gravitation hold
atoms together, au contraire, it is the missing action
of the inertial field, that stops atoms from collapsing
into themselves.

And here is my two cents on what holds nuclei together :
the fact that a combination of protons and neutrons find
a way to merge their internals, so that the total has
less energy that the parts. I think one does not have to
see protons and neutrons in the nucleus, but a jelly of
quarks and gluons, where protons constantly turn into
neutrons and vice versa. This wiggling allows them to be
at a slightly lower energy level compared to being apart.

For some combinations of protons & neutrons, this works
better than for others, when it works well, the nuclei
are considered to be more stable. This peeks at Iron
which is the element with the highest possible
stability. Transmutation of the lighter or heavier
elements into Iron will create a net gain of energy,
That is why splitting Uranium gives us energy, but also
fusing Hydrogen.

Uwe Hayek.







--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Thomas Heger on 2 Aug 2010 10:15
Hayek schrieb:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> If 'spacetime is observer independent, than we could put one observer
>> somewhere.
>> This observer is provided with a clock. Now he would find, his clock
>> seem to act differently on other positions. But he could find, that
>> certain locations allow to keep other identical clocks synchronized.
>> The set of these positions he calls a 'time domain' and because it his
>> clock, that is his domain.
>
> Actually, you mean by this domain, a domain where inertia is constant, a
> clock is just an inertial field meter.
>
Isn't mass a unit related to inertia?. So I call mass timelike stable.
In the spacetime view velocity could be treated like an angle. So a
massive object tends to stabilize its path.
More mass meas also more energetic content. Since I wanted to model
energy as rotation, more energy means more stability, or more mass.
Since faster spin means smaller spheres, the nucleus of an atom is mare
massive than the shell. The nucleus itself is similar to the atom, but
smaller and the field connecting it way stronger than that holging the
atom together.
This is a self-similar fractal scheme, because one could go up in scale
and compare the electrons potential to that of an object held in orbit
by gravity. Only the measure is different and the fields are weaker in
larger dimensions.
The next step would be a planetary system, that seems to be similar in
some respect, but with way larger extension and lower frequency.
This could be scaled up and down to infinity.
Those frequency is, what a clock would measure. A simple clock would be
a sun-dial, that 'counts' the Earth rotation. An atomic clock would be
based on atoms with way higher frequency.
The observed world is than an overlay of many such system of different
size (or a fractal).

> If this inertial field is stronger in b than in a then object will be
> attracted from a to b.
No, an atoms represents mass. a background of some kind had to be
invisible itself, only its structure we could observe: as things. As
such it has no fields, but field could appear as kind of stress within.

...
> Well, if you look at the properties of inertia, and then look at quantum
> properties like uncertainty, the two are not compatible.

A spherical shell is not a point. It gets more pointlike for higher energy.

> The fact that
> an electron does not fall into the nucleus, can only be explained by
> saying that Newtonian-Einsteinian-, also called classical physics stops
> there.

I assume, that particles are not 'real'. The electron shell is a
potential in respect to the nucleus, while that is representing kinetic
energy in in respect to the shell. so both are 'one thing', but
different aspects. That could not annihilate itself, because that
angular momentum had to get somewhere else.


TH
From: Darwin123 on 3 Aug 2010 19:14
On Aug 2, 7:12 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:

> Well, if you look at the properties of inertia, and then
> look at quantum properties like uncertainty, the two are
> not compatible. The fact that an electron does not fall
> into the nucleus, can only be explained by saying that
> Newtonian-Einsteinian-, also called classical physics
> stops there.
One can carry classical physics a bit farther by assuming that the
universe is filled with "zero point energy." One can assume that the
universe is filled with a Lorentz invariant distribution of
electromagnetic radiation. In this model, the zero point energy obeys
classical laws. However, each mode has an amplitude and a phase that
is determined by a random variable.
The distribution of amplitudes is characterized by one universal
constant, h. The universal constant, h, happens to have the value of
Planck's constant.
The zero point radiation keeps kicking the electron in a hydrogen
atom away from the proton. However, radiation reaction brings the
electron closer to the proton.
Many, although not all, quantum mechanical phenomena can be
explained using zero point radiation. If interested, look up:
"stochastic electrodynamics", SED, and "classical zero point
energy".
SED doesn't totally explain quantum mechanics. It is only a
classical analogue for quantum mechanics. However, it explains a good
deal.
The fact that an electron does not fall
into the nucleus, can be explained by saying that
Newtonian-Einsteinian-, also called classical, physics
works with the addition of a Lorentz invariant radiation
field. You don't have to throw away classical electrodynamics
entirely, just to explain orbitals.
From: Hayek on 4 Aug 2010 14:45
Darwin123 wrote:
> On Aug 2, 7:12 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Well, if you look at the properties of inertia, and then
>> look at quantum properties like uncertainty, the two are
>> not compatible. The fact that an electron does not fall
>> into the nucleus, can only be explained by saying that
>> Newtonian-Einsteinian-, also called classical physics
>> stops there.
> One can carry classical physics a bit farther by assuming that the
> universe is filled with "zero point energy." One can assume that the
> universe is filled with a Lorentz invariant distribution of
> electromagnetic radiation. In this model, the zero point energy obeys
> classical laws. However, each mode has an amplitude and a phase that
> is determined by a random variable.
> The distribution of amplitudes is characterized by one universal
> constant, h. The universal constant, h, happens to have the value of
> Planck's constant.
> The zero point radiation keeps kicking the electron in a hydrogen
> atom away from the proton.

Does not work, if it is a classical kick, the electron
would emit radiation, while nothing is observed.

There is no energy difference for the electron in the
entire orbital. It might get kicked, by ZPE or by
thermal nucleus agitation, the fact is that the kick it
receives does not justify the "motion" in the orbital,
which does not look like motion at all, but more like
being everywhere at the same time. This can also only be
accomplished by having no inertia.

This behavior is also seen in free particles, and they
remain confined in their uncertainty region, if they
would receive random kicks, it would more look like
Brownian motion.

This confinement in their uncertainty region, is exactly
what a failing inertia would do, exceed the uncertainty
condition and inertia kicks in.

Also, it neatly explains wave-particle duality, every
object has an uncertainty cloud in which it is not bound
to inertia, and thus obeys wave mechanics.

There are more arguments : inertia sets the speed limit
to c, remove inertia and the speed limit is removed, so
a particle can be at more places at the same time. And
when you catch it at one place, it disappears at all the
other places, which we call the collapse of the wave
function.

It also explains the non-locality, which can be quite
extreme for some very low mass components, like the
polarization of the photon.

How do you explain Aspects experiments with ZPE ?

Uwe Hayek.


> However, radiation reaction brings the
> electron closer to the proton.
> Many, although not all, quantum mechanical phenomena can be
> explained using zero point radiation. If interested, look up:
> "stochastic electrodynamics", SED, and "classical zero point
> energy".
> SED doesn't totally explain quantum mechanics. It is only a
> classical analogue for quantum mechanics. However, it explains a good
> deal.
> The fact that an electron does not fall
> into the nucleus, can be explained by saying that
> Newtonian-Einsteinian-, also called classical, physics
> works with the addition of a Lorentz invariant radiation
> field. You don't have to throw away classical electrodynamics
> entirely, just to explain orbitals.


--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: A castigation of Napoleon Bonehead Green, Doctor of Phrenology,
Next: INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?