Thread: Hypothesis , Matter from energy from matter.

When plotting a graph with a sin wave and adding arrows to it to show direction, then drawing an inverse sin with arrows in the opposite direction, we get loops with continuous direction.
So electrons following these waves could result in 2 electrons revolving this is s1 right?
Think that's bonkers ? It gets worse.
Theory on double slit.
When observation circuit is off, photons collide with the edges of the slit gaining spin and rebound thus changing direction.
When observation circuit is powered photons that hit are absorbed leaving only those with clear passage to show up.
Photo electric effect is where photons shunt electrons. Does this occur to the same degree in a current carrying conductor ?
Here is the bonkers bit.
I postulate that a photon and an electron are interchangeable with enough potential difference.
To further explain, photons that collide with the slit/ observation circuit are pulled into the circuit, becoming electrons.

Consider an electron dumped into space it would expand right ? So one sucked into a solid would condense. Electrons at the right frequency are visible light.

When we burst a proton we see many smaller energetic particles, what is the difference between them ? Spin ? Spin speed ? Quantity of spinning entities in shells and their directions?
The standard design for an atom shows protons and neutrons sitting next to one another, could it be that they are trapped within each other ? Concentric.

With plenty of practice we should be able to make matter from energy. Higgs boson or no. If there is a fundamental particle everything is made of it so pick an entity and play .

Big bang explosion expands, particles at leading edge lose momentum/inertia, and/or particles slipstreaming catch up and collide, rebounding particles create the effect described above. Or...
I can visualise space before the big bang as glass(particles of random trajectories frozen at absolute 0). Just 1 particle oscillating (for unknown reason, tempted to put radio active half life but do not know if that is possible at absolute 0) at the resonant frequency of that glass causes an implosion that then explodes, good morning universe. So now I see a glass ball with a star shaped void with our universe inside the void. Universal expansion occurs with each particulate interaction with the remaining glass.

Could this be science or just poetry ? Consider firmament.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Could this be science or just poetry ? Consider firmament.

If you can't express it in maths then it is poetry.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Could this be science or just poetry ? Consider firmament.

If you can't express it in maths then it is poetry.

So my mathematical inadequacy collapses science ?
0Hz + any frequency = energy .
Without energy no opposites to attract no condensation no matter .
0hz, no oscillations, no time.
Base 0 (maths) can be applied to any base, omnipresent, present in all things, Boson.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Could this be science or just poetry ? Consider firmament.

If you can't express it in maths then it is poetry.

Actually, I think I'll take rasberry vinagrette tonight...

Sounds delicious.

I miss this matter!
So long out in this area..

Tldr. What's your hypothesis and how would you go about testing if it holds true?

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Tldr. What's your hypothesis and how would you go about testing if it holds true?

Tldr ? Ok I looked it up. Too Long ? you think this kind of thing can be explained in a sentence ?

I am theorist, you are asking me practical ?

At a guess. First you need a vacuum. Then you need to fire pulses or even single electrons on a sine trajectory. Only 2 electrons, timing essential. when first electron reaches approximately half way fire second. When timed correctly the loop should occur.
I see a gravitational issue though.
Magnetic field would be necessary to eliminate gravity so the electrons gravity attracts them to each other whilst their charge keeps them apart. Once loop initiated it should hold.

Further thinking makes me wonder about ^^.

Do electrons have a magnetic north and south ?
If so sine wave could indicate spin direction. Magnetism could be the attractive force while charge repulses.
Getting electrons to spin at identical speed and getting them to meet in magnetic polar opposite orientation would give the required result.
The how is beyond me.

These 2 electrons spinning in this orientation could set up 2 P type lobes that attract the constituents of a nucleus. Sub atomic particles that bond in a similar fashion to create proton(s) and or neutron(s).

I am still missing something........
For P type lobes magnetic orientation must be the same (right ?)
Or perhaps north/south magnetism are uneven and the p type lobes are a biased ac field.

Aside.

The standard model for a nucleus shows protons alongside neutrons. I think that in reality they are concentric.

If only we could see them.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I am theorist, you are asking me practical ?

Yes. Theories are testable or they're not theories. If you're producing ideas but you haven't considered what testable implications they have, then what you are is a dreamer or philosopher, not a theorist.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I am theorist, you are asking me practical ?

Yes. Theories are testable or they're not theories. If you're producing ideas but you haven't considered what testable implications they have, then what you are is a dreamer or philosopher, not a theorist.

Then that is what I am, as I have no means to test.

So you have no theory, just a wild idea, and we are supposed to accept it?

ROFL!

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Yes. Theories are testable or they're not theories. If you're producing ideas but you haven't considered what testable implications they have, then what you are is a dreamer or philosopher, not a theorist.

no, i'm sorry Proofs are testable, Theories are untestable. the theory of general relativity is not testable per se. it's individual constituent proofs are testable, but they are not the whole of the theory either. the individual experiments underlying GR are replicable proofs, but it is only the sum of them which we cognitively accept as the greater theory holding true.

a theory doesn't need to have its proofs in lab experiments and mathematical formulae to be considered acceptable as a theory. a theory only needs to explain what appears to be possible in relation to a phenomena. it is conjectural and suggests that there might be an identifiable pattern.

@MaxTimeTaken: yeah, you're a theorist. crappiest job in the Sciences, believe you me. but "they" have scoffed at many theorists in history, and turned out to look like idiots after the theory reached 'testable'.

Alchemy was skewered with its theory that lead could be transmuted to gold. which, given modern apparatus and knowledge of atomic theory, turns out to actually be possible (if impractical and uneconomic). they just were imagining theories that took the demystification of 500 years to be proven as accurate.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I am theorist, you are asking me practical ?

Yes. Theories are testable or they're not theories. If you're producing ideas but you haven't considered what testable implications they have, then what you are is a dreamer or philosopher, not a theorist.

Then that is what I am, as I have no means to test.

Other than my own fallible logic and reasoning, and by asking those who know better than myself to consider the idea, rather than them not reading it and slating me for not being in their eyes qualified enough.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

So you have no theory, just a wild idea, and we are supposed to accept it?

ROFL!

No this is a forum, a discussion. A place to share and learn.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Other than my own fallible logic and reasoning, and by asking those who know better than myself to consider the idea, rather than them not reading it and slating me for not being in their eyes qualified enough.

For me, Max, it is not a question of you not being qualified enough: you may well be more qualified to speculate on these topics than I. What I find off putting is the following:
1) Your ideas are not expressed with any clarity. You do not define terms. There seems to be no structure to your comments. There is no precision in your statements.
2) Despite fozaea' remarks you most certainly do not have a theory. A theory is an extensive and cohesive body of observation, experimental result, mathematical models and the like that together provide a powerful and well validated explanation of some phenomena. You have a speculation only. Nothing wrong with that, but please don't call it a theory.
3) You are speculating in the scientific arena, yet you have little or no knowledge of the scientific method. I mean, seriously, would you give the time of day to a complete layman who wished to advise you on his ideas about a serious medical condition you had? I think not. So why should we seriously entertain what are probably less than half baked ideas on an equally complex topic from yourself.
4) You say you cannot test the 'theory', but that is not what TheBiologista was proposing. He wished you to define a test that could be made, not necessarily one that you could make yourself. Again, failure to understand that simple aspect of scientific methodology causes me doubt that you have much idea what you are talking about.

May I ask you how much studying have you done in relation to this speculation? And what specific studying has this been? For example, what textbooks have you referred to? How many papers have you read? If the numbers aren't there I think your airing of the speculation may be premature.

Originally the word theory is a technical term from Ancient Greek. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action

If I had all the qualifications and worked in a science environment or university I would have no need for this forum.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally the word theory is a technical term from Ancient Greek. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action

The origin of the word is interesting, but its original meaning is irrelevant in the context of science. You will find that readers with a scientific background are much more open to your ideas if you describe them as scpeculations, not as theories.

If I had all the qualifications and worked in a science environment or university I would have no need for this forum.

I didn't ask you if you had qualifications, or worked in science environment. I asked you how much study and how much of a literature search you had made around the subject of your speculation.

For example, on another thread in the forum there was discussion of meteorites that originate from Mars. I have had passing interest in this before, but in order to better understand some details of the issue I did a literature search. Thus far I have read approximately fifteen or twenty peer reviewed research papers on the subject, a further fifty or sixty abstracts, and consulted the relevant chapters of seven textbooks. And this was so I could be confident that my posts within the thread were accurate.

You are proposing a substantially novel idea. I would expect that your reading in this area should be at least an order of magnitude greater. Is it?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally the word theory is a technical term from Ancient Greek. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action

The origin of the word is interesting, but its original meaning is irrelevant in the context of science. You will find that readers with a scientific background are much more open to your ideas if you describe them as scpeculations, not as theories.

If I had all the qualifications and worked in a science environment or university I would have no need for this forum.

I didn't ask you if you had qualifications, or worked in science environment. I asked you how much study and how much of a literature search you had made around the subject of your speculation.

For example, on another thread in the forum there was discussion of meteorites that originate from Mars. I have had passing interest in this before, but in order to better understand some details of the issue I did a literature search. Thus far I have read approximately fifteen or twenty peer reviewed research papers on the subject, a further fifty or sixty abstracts, and consulted the relevant chapters of seven textbooks. And this was so I could be confident that my posts within the thread were accurate.

You are proposing a substantially novel idea. I would expect that your reading in this area should be at least an order of magnitude greater. Is it?

I have pondered the existence of, god/higgs boson, that which is omnipresent for over 30 years. I enjoy philosophy, am qualified in electronics, have a penchant for physics. To list all the things I have read would take many years.

I consider the idea that protons and neutrons are concentric rather than side by side as seen in the conventional model.
This eradicates the need for nuclear strong force and lays open the possibility that the weak force is actually the Compton or photo electric effect when it passes between the orbiting atoms and strikes the nucleus.
It also kinda suggests that if you can get 2 electrons to spin together that they will set up a field that pulls subatomic particles and protons neutrons are created in this way.

Theory is the only thing that can see this until we can actually view an atoms nucleus.

Originally Posted by foszae

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Yes. Theories are testable or they're not theories. If you're producing ideas but you haven't considered what testable implications they have, then what you are is a dreamer or philosopher, not a theorist.

no, i'm sorry Proofs are testable, Theories are untestable.

the theory of general relativity is not testable per se. it's individual constituent proofs are testable, but they are not the whole of the theory either. the individual experiments underlying GR are replicable proofs, but it is only the sum of them which we cognitively accept as the greater theory holding true.

a theory doesn't need to have its proofs in lab experiments and mathematical formulae to be considered acceptable as a theory.[/quote]

When did I say that it did? I said that they must be innately testable, not that they must have been tested. A theory that lacks falsifiable implications is useless.

Originally Posted by foszae

a theory only needs to explain what appears to be possible in relation to a phenomena. it is conjectural and suggests that there might be an identifiable pattern.

And that conjecture must be falsifiable/testable or however you want to put it, or we can't have confidence that the overall model, our theory, is a useful representation of the phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I am theorist, you are asking me practical ?

Yes. Theories are testable or they're not theories. If you're producing ideas but you haven't considered what testable implications they have, then what you are is a dreamer or philosopher, not a theorist.

Then that is what I am, as I have no means to test.

Having the means to test is not relevant. You only need to demonstrate testability. Showing us the parts of your model that might be shown to agree or disagree with reality is what matters.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I have pondered the existence of, god/higgs boson, that which is omnipresent for over 30 years. I enjoy philosophy, am qualified in electronics, have a penchant for physics. To list all the things I have read would take many years.

I'm sorry, but that won't cut it. That is simply background reading. What sepcific reading, relevant to your proposal, on particle physics, atomic theory, quantum mechanics, etc at graduate and post-graduate level have you done? I am not talking about popular science books and articles in Scientific American. If you are making the pretence of offering cutting edge concepts, then you need to demonstrate that you are familiar with a) the standard model, b) other, current cutting edge thinking.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I have pondered the existence of, god/higgs boson, that which is omnipresent for over 30 years. I enjoy philosophy, am qualified in electronics, have a penchant for physics. To list all the things I have read would take many years.

I'm sorry, but that won't cut it. That is simply background reading. What sepcific reading, relevant to your proposal, on particle physics, atomic theory, quantum mechanics, etc at graduate and post-graduate level have you done? I am not talking about popular science books and articles in Scientific American. If you are making the pretence of offering cutting edge concepts, then you need to demonstrate that you are familiar with a) the standard model, b) other, current cutting edge thinking.

I have not formally studied, not privileged enough. I have searched online and read/watched all I can on topics of interest/relevance.

Do you think it possible for me to arrive at this theory from pure ignorance ?
I openly admit that I am fallible and that there are bound to be gaps in my knowledge.
It is by challenging convention/concepts we prove or disprove it/them as a fact. Not by challenging the background knowledge of the person that perceived the concept.

Theory only I have no way of proving this, just an observation.

Imagine a ball of semi conductive fluid suspended in an inert suspension(be it vacuum or fluid), with electrodes attached to the top and bottom. Now striking the outer meniscus, (with sound waves, depending on scale), of the semi conductive fluid will produce pressure waves internally, with pressure applied in the correct place a high pressure column can be created in the centre between the electrodes, the high pressure increases density of conductive particles, current flows between electrodes.

With say, a ball rolling around the meniscus you could encourage the fluid to spin creating a vortex that would bring the larger particles to the centre.

Magnetic fields in space are a fluid not a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Theory only I have no way of proving this, just an observation.

Then it's really rather pointless, isn't it?

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Theory only I have no way of proving this, just an observation.

Then it's really rather pointless, isn't it?

In as much as any observation is pointless.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

In as much as any observation is pointless.

Observations of real events and objects, validated by replication of those observations are generally considered to be more valuable - and thus to have more point - than observations that are simple, speculative commentaries. Don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

In as much as any observation is pointless.

Observations of real events and objects, validated by replication of those observations are generally considered to be more valuable - and thus to have more point - than observations that are simple, speculative commentaries. Don't you agree?

At the centre of the solar system, there is a large mass orbited by masses do these orbiting masses reflect energy/matter toward the centre of the vortex ?
Don't all planets have magnetic poles ?
Could electrons be responsible for collecting sub atomic particles and building the nucleus ? Are "s type" electron orbitals the meniscus(or balanced force equivalent) of a proton ?

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

In as much as any observation is pointless.

Observations of real events and objects, validated by replication of those observations are generally considered to be more valuable - and thus to have more point - than observations that are simple, speculative commentaries. Don't you agree?

At the centre of the solar system, there is a large mass orbited by masses

Not true strictly speaking. The sun also orbits the center of mass of the solar system (the barycenter).

do these orbiting masses reflect energy/matter toward the centre of the vortex ?

\

Huh? This statement makes no sense

Don't all planets have magnetic poles ?

No

Could electrons be responsible for collecting sub atomic particles and building the nucleus ?

No

Are "s type" electron orbitals the meniscus(or balanced force equivalent) of a proton ?

More gibberish. meniscus means nothing like that.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

In as much as any observation is pointless.

Observations of real events and objects, validated by replication of those observations are generally considered to be more valuable - and thus to have more point - than observations that are simple, speculative commentaries. Don't you agree?

At the centre of the solar system, there is a large mass orbited by masses

Not true strictly speaking. The sun also orbits the center of mass of the solar system (the barycenter).

do these orbiting masses reflect energy/matter toward the centre of the vortex ?

\

Huh? This statement makes no sense

Don't all planets have magnetic poles ?

No

Could electrons be responsible for collecting sub atomic particles and building the nucleus ?

No

Are "s type" electron orbitals the meniscus(or balanced force equivalent) of a proton ?

More gibberish. meniscus means nothing like that.

I agree but I am not in a position that allows me experimentation, and I have a lacking in my knowledge. A good reason why I ask questions on forums like this.

The barycentre is another example just on a larger scale - or can be seen to be.

If planets don't all have magnetic poles consider that geological principles of pressure and time affect condensation, expansion, fusion and fission. There will be areas of greater density in all planets that correspond to the pressures/forces relative to their location.

Meniscus is impenetrable layer or skin, if an object cannot get closer then it can be considered to be in contact with said skin.

A fan blade or propeller works by the same principle of drawing matter, as the electrons being the leading edge of the blades and the forces that hold the electron at its distance are the rest of the blade.

Are all elements dissoluted according to temperature/pressure/force ?
Can a mix of elements produce a solution of the same fluid with enough force ? (hot entropy).

Do elements occur where they occur naturally due to the phenomenon previously mentioned ?

All elements can be compressed or expanded depending on relative conditions.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

In as much as any observation is pointless.

Observations of real events and objects, validated by replication of those observations are generally considered to be more valuable - and thus to have more point - than observations that are simple, speculative commentaries. Don't you agree?

At the centre of the solar system, there is a large mass orbited by masses

Not true strictly speaking. The sun also orbits the center of mass of the solar system (the barycenter).

do these orbiting masses reflect energy/matter toward the centre of the vortex ?

\

Huh? This statement makes no sense

Don't all planets have magnetic poles ?

No

Could electrons be responsible for collecting sub atomic particles and building the nucleus ?

No

Are "s type" electron orbitals the meniscus(or balanced force equivalent) of a proton ?

More gibberish. meniscus means nothing like that.

I agree but I am not in a position that allows me experimentation, and I have a lacking in my knowledge. A good reason why I ask questions on forums like this.

The barycentre is another example just on a larger scale - or can be seen to be.

Huh? An axample of what?

If planets don't all have magnetic poles consider that geological principles of pressure and time affect condensation, expansion, fusion and fission. There will be areas of greater density in all planets that correspond to the pressures/forces relative to their location.

OK, so what? What is the point you are trying to make, because it is not at all clear.

Meniscus is impenetrable layer or skin, if an object cannot get closer then it can be considered to be in contact with said skin.

Really? Where did you find that definition? I've checked 4 dictionaries, and have found nothing like it. It appears you like to throw words around without understanding the meaning.

A fan blade or propeller works by the same principle of drawing matter, as the electrons being the leading edge of the blades and the forces that hold the electron at its distance are the rest of the blade.

Sheesh. Until you can communicate, this coversation is pointless.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

In as much as any observation is pointless.

Observations of real events and objects, validated by replication of those observations are generally considered to be more valuable - and thus to have more point - than observations that are simple, speculative commentaries. Don't you agree?

At the centre of the solar system, there is a large mass orbited by masses

Not true strictly speaking. The sun also orbits the center of mass of the solar system (the barycenter).

do these orbiting masses reflect energy/matter toward the centre of the vortex ?

\

Huh? This statement makes no sense

Don't all planets have magnetic poles ?

No

Could electrons be responsible for collecting sub atomic particles and building the nucleus ?

No

Are "s type" electron orbitals the meniscus(or balanced force equivalent) of a proton ?

More gibberish. meniscus means nothing like that.

I agree but I am not in a position that allows me experimentation, and I have a lacking in my knowledge. A good reason why I ask questions on forums like this.

The barycentre is another example just on a larger scale - or can be seen to be.

Huh? An axample of what?

If planets don't all have magnetic poles consider that geological principles of pressure and time affect condensation, expansion, fusion and fission. There will be areas of greater density in all planets that correspond to the pressures/forces relative to their location.

OK, so what? What is the point you are trying to make, because it is not at all clear.

Meniscus is impenetrable layer or skin, if an object cannot get closer then it can be considered to be in contact with said skin.

Really? Where did you find that definition? I've checked 4 dictionaries, and have found nothing like it. It appears you like to throw words around without understanding the meaning.

A fan blade or propeller works by the same principle of drawing matter, as the electrons being the leading edge of the blades and the forces that hold the electron at its distance are the rest of the blade.

Sheesh. Until you can communicate, this coversation is pointless.

Calm down dear. Terms come with education without the right terms i have to use what I know.

I tell you what If you can explain how piezzo electric effect works in a better way with better terms please share them.

I am trying to say that electron orbiting nucleus is held there by pressures/forces that equate to a skin .
By increasing external pressure the electron is forced closer to the nucleus so orbits faster making for faster vortex within the nucleus, increasing the density at the centre, changing the electrical value.

I am in turn suggesting that what makes matter solid is exactly the same. Density is relative to the forces contained, pressures applied etc..

A force field is a wall or skin or membrane that you can see through but not walk through.

A fan blade or propeller works by the same principle of drawing matter, as the electrons being the leading edge of the blades and the forces that hold the electron at its distance are the rest of the blade.


Picture or draw 2 concentric cirlces, place a small circle on the outer circle, now draw a tangental curve from the inside of the(electron), joining the inner circle at a distance of 90degrees rotation.
What a pretty picture .

If we consider a pea sized bubble of gas from the ocean floor becomes the size of a football field when it reaches the surface, just how big does a sub atomic particle expand to in space ?

An energy field works like a filter medium, any less dense particles of greater volume are moved by it.

The most dense particles, ie black hole nucleus are the smallest(volume), but also have the largest field.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

If we consider a pea sized bubble of gas from the ocean floor becomes the size of a football field when it reaches the surface, just how big does a sub atomic particle expand to in space ?

It doesn't expand at all, since the structure and size is not governed by outside forces.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

If we consider a pea sized bubble of gas from the ocean floor becomes the size of a football field when it reaches the surface, just how big does a sub atomic particle expand to in space ?

It doesn't expand at all, since the structure and size is not governed by outside forces.

I happen to disagree, expansion does take place, and is governed by external and internal forces finding a balance. This includes temperature and pressure.

Can you supply a link that proves your statement or at least backs it up ?

If matter does not condense then how do you explain the size of the nucleus of a black hole ?

And the expansion from a black hole when it creates a new galaxy.

Your statement implies there is no such thing as entropy, a common denominator.

I was under the impression that, in order to form a hypothesis on a subject, one would require at least enough knowledge about that subject to form a hypothesis on it.

Common denominator, a logical progression.

circumpunct, circle and point, zero and one, spin a ring and it is a circle or rotated 90 degrees a 1, ring, resonance.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

I was under the impression that, in order to form a hypothesis on a subject, one would require at least enough knowledge about that subject to form a hypothesis on it.

Examples of what you have seen are not enough?, indicating circumstantial evidence is no lead.

A theory from wikipedia "Originally the word theory as it is used in English is a technical term from Ancient Greek philosophy. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) an Aristotelian concept which is used in a broad way to refer to any activity done for the sake of action, in contrast with theory, which does need an aim which is an action. By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts."

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

A theory from wikipedia "Originally the word theory as it is used in English is a technical term from Ancient Greek philosophy. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) an Aristotelian concept which is used in a broad way to refer to any activity done for the sake of action, in contrast with theory, which does need an aim which is an action. By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts."

Being that this is a science forum, however, it should be abundantly obvious that the more appropriate approach is to use the scientific interpretation of the term theory.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

A theory from wikipedia "Originally the word theory as it is used in English is a technical term from Ancient Greek philosophy. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) an Aristotelian concept which is used in a broad way to refer to any activity done for the sake of action, in contrast with theory, which does need an aim which is an action. By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts."

Being that this is a science forum, however, it should be abundantly obvious that the more appropriate approach is to use the scientific interpretation of the term theory.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

I am a self taught guy with no qualifications to speak of, but I feel there is something to what I have correlated. By posting it here I hope that someone in a better position to make something of these observations can do so.
I am doing my inadequate best to explain this phenomena.
Would you prefer me to delete my posts as I am not elite enough ?

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Would you prefer me to delete my posts as I am not elite enough ?

No, but I would be quite thankful if you would stop playing a persecuted victim and acting like a Victorian-era woman who suddenly was overcome by a case of the vapors, and instead put forth something of substance with adequate support.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Would you prefer me to delete my posts as I am not elite enough ?

No, but I would be quite thankful if you would stop playing a persecuted victim and acting like a Victorian-era woman who suddenly was overcome by a case of the vapors, and instead put forth something of substance with adequate support.

I thought I was talking to educated people. If you do not have the background knowledge that is hardly my fault.

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

How can one find a new perspective and describe it using the old perspectives laws ?
Especially if they are not well versed in those laws.

If you find something that changes everything you can't quantify it with outdated models.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I thought I was talking to educated people. If you do not have the background knowledge that is hardly my fault.

Good idea. It's always best to blame the audience instead of looking inward to see how we can personally do and be better.

If you cannot see what I am trying to explain please ask questions or research the parts you don't get.
Or you are not the person this is intended for.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I thought I was talking to educated people. If you do not have the background knowledge that is hardly my fault.

Good idea. It's always best to blame the audience instead of looking inward to see how we can personally do and be better.

I am the one without the education please tell me areas to research that confound my observations . If my terminology is not good enough in some areas give me a link to some site that can forward my education. I am willing to learn.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I am trying to say that electron orbiting nucleus is held there by pressures/forces that equate to a skin.

A "skin"? What do you mean held by "forces equating to a skin"? Also, you have made a fundamental mistake in your assumptions- you have claimed that electrons orbit the nucleus. This is not technically true, they exist in orbitals around the nucleus- which are quantised energy levels. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle



tells us that we cannot know the exact momentum and position of an electron (or any other sub-atomic particle- an electron is a 1st generation lepton) at any one time.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

By increasing external pressure the electron is forced closer to the nucleus so orbits faster making for faster vortex within the nucleus, increasing the density at the centre, changing the electrical value.

An electron can shift between energy levels by absorbing (or emitting) photons of energy



as it absorbs a photon of energy it will become excited to a higher energy level (only if the photon is of a high enough energy- ). It is nothing to do with "external pressure" as you put it.

And the electrical value (if this is what you mean) of an electron is a constant at a relative of -1 or a charge value of .

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I am trying to say that electron orbiting nucleus is held there by pressures/forces that equate to a skin.

A "skin"? What do you mean held by "forces equating to a skin"? Also, you have made a fundamental mistake in your assumptions- you have claimed that electrons orbit the nucleus. This is not technically true, they exist in orbitals around the nucleus- which are quantised energy levels. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle



tells us that we cannot know the exact momentum and position of an electron (or any other sub-atomic particle- an electron is a 1st generation lepton) at any one time.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

By increasing external pressure the electron is forced closer to the nucleus so orbits faster making for faster vortex within the nucleus, increasing the density at the centre, changing the electrical value.

An electron can shift between energy levels by absorbing (or emitting) photons of energy



as it absorbs a photon of energy it will become excited to a higher energy level (only if the photon is of a high enough energy- ). It is nothing to do with "external pressure" as you put it.

And the electrical value (if this is what you mean) of an electron is a constant at a relative of -1 or a charge value of .

Skin I have tried to explain many times , i will try again. Skin,membrane,barrier, that which stops something, a filter,mesh, surface. Energy/force can produce a barrier, this refers to the rest of the propeller blade previously described. With regard to the electrons, the position the electron is held in, the equilibrium of forces (neutron zone between protons, s1 in a 2s or greater system). The electron as it can no longer get closer is riding the skin,surface or equivalent thereof.

Is not also true that because an electron has mass and is orbiting at the speed of light, by current formulae it is everywhere at once ?

I understand the Compton effect. Charging an electron with an x-ray will change it's electrical value causing it to move up or out from say s1 to s2 . As it dissipates this "excitement" it drops back.

When I mentioned pressure squeezing the electron closer to the centre of it's orbit, causing it to complete an orbit faster thus increasing the frequency/temperature I was not referring to Compton effect. More the piezzo effect on crystals and the heating produced by applying pressure.

Nothing in this universe is truly constant. Apart from the fact that all things cycle.

Thank you for the formulas but they are out of my league.

Ruminations on Compton effect, If electrons orbit at the same orbits per minute in s1,s2,s3 etc. then the x-ray/photon would have to hit the electron from behind to accelerate it to the speed it would need to be to orbit at the same rpm, from s1 to s2.

i am talkng about the first thing said. try it! try it on a small scale so that the charge would be small. i don't understand quite what your taliking abut, but you might be able to make it work!

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I am trying to say that electron orbiting nucleus is held there by pressures/forces that equate to a skin.

A "skin"? What do you mean held by "forces equating to a skin"? Also, you have made a fundamental mistake in your assumptions- you have claimed that electrons orbit the nucleus. This is not technically true, they exist in orbitals around the nucleus- which are quantised energy levels. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle



tells us that we cannot know the exact momentum and position of an electron (or any other sub-atomic particle- an electron is a 1st generation lepton) at any one time.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

By increasing external pressure the electron is forced closer to the nucleus so orbits faster making for faster vortex within the nucleus, increasing the density at the centre, changing the electrical value.

An electron can shift between energy levels by absorbing (or emitting) photons of energy



as it absorbs a photon of energy it will become excited to a higher energy level (only if the photon is of a high enough energy- ). It is nothing to do with "external pressure" as you put it.

And the electrical value (if this is what you mean) of an electron is a constant at a relative of -1 or a charge value of .

Skin I have tried to explain many times , i will try again. Skin,membrane,barrier, that which stops something, a filter,mesh, surface. Energy/force can produce a barrier, this refers to the rest of the propeller blade previously described. With regard to the electrons, the position the electron is held in, the equilibrium of forces (neutron zone between protons, s1 in a 2s or greater system). The electron as it can no longer get closer is riding the skin,surface or equivalent thereof.

Is not also true that because an electron has mass and is orbiting at the speed of light, by current formulae it is everywhere at once ?

I understand the Compton effect. Charging an electron with an x-ray will change it's electrical value causing it to move up or out from say s1 to s2 . As it dissipates this "excitement" it drops back.

When I mentioned pressure squeezing the electron closer to the centre of it's orbit, causing it to complete an orbit faster thus increasing the frequency/temperature I was not referring to Compton effect. More the piezzo effect on crystals and the heating produced by applying pressure.

Nothing in this universe is truly constant. Apart from the fact that all things cycle.

Thank you for the formulas but they are out of my league.

I'm afraid to say that I haven't got a clue what you're on about- you do not make yourself very clear. Please provide some clear, concise scientific evidence (preferably with some mathematics to back it up) for that which you are trying to say.

Would you prefer i said electrical/magnetic buoyancy instead of skin membrane whatever. I do not have the correct term. That which controls distance of orbit.

A boundary/threshold .

A repulsive concept ? I made a joke

Basically, planets surf the viscosity of space, this viscosity is a medium,not lack of one.

I believe the infinite properties associated with travel at light speed were invented to keep the Catholic church happy with God being divine light.
Infinite mass......that's all the mass in an unknown quantity....How does a spaceship become everything just by going light speed ? Does it create such a wake that it collects the entire universe ? Or does it become light and light is all so becomes one with everything ?
Or.....
Is that infinity the result of a division of 0, 0 being reference, reference being subject and the friction of space will cause all matter to become energy before it gets to the speed of light ?

If space had no viscosity at all light would accelerate, not remain at a constant speed.

Why when all things appear to grow in layers are the particles in the nucleus considered to be side by side ?

The universe expands at 48miles per sec, light travels at 186282miles per sec.

If light rebounds from the leading edge, there is pressure in space.

If light is absorbed, then outside our universe is frozen and is melting and evaporating at 48miles per second, implying pressure within space.

Just because it is more or less equilibrium and we use it as our reference point does not make it nothing(vacuum).

Simplifying somewhat, If nuclear strong and weak force action upon mass is directly relative to mass then, strong/weak is viscosity.

What do you think viscosity means in conventional hydrodynamics?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

What do you think viscosity means in conventional hydrodynamics?

The same or greatly similar, potential varies with scale, so nuclear strong/weak becomes electrical potential as the shear point is different.

Do you also write in English? That last sentence was unintelligible.

Sir, you ask too much!

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Do you also write in English? That last sentence was unintelligible.

Yes.

It takes less force to separate the bonds within molecules than it does to separate the atomic particles, less still to allow molecules to pass one another.

A scale effect, distance of shear point from the heaviest nucleus.

Approximately.

In what way was that an answer to my question "what do you think viscosity means in conventional hydrodynamics?"

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

In what way was that an answer to my question "what do you think viscosity means in conventional hydrodynamics?"

For a submarine to pass through liquid molecules have to separate to pass over the ship, the force required to separate them is viscosity.

In engine oils viscosity is often used to describe the length of the molecular chains, and the size of a hole it will pour through. And how fast it will pour through.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

In what way was that an answer to my question "what do you think viscosity means in conventional hydrodynamics?"

For a submarine to pass through liquid molecules have to separate to pass over the ship, the force required to separate them is viscosity.

In engine oils viscosity is often used to describe the length of the molecular chains, and the size of a hole it will pour through. And how fast it will pour through.

Thank you. You have confirmed what I suspected: you don't know what viscosity is.

It is not a force. In a Newtonian fluid it is the constant that defines the relationship between shear rate and shear stress.

Since you don't even understand the fundamentals of the terms you are using you will, perhaps, understand that I place little credence on your conclusions.

I recognise that will sound aggressive and adversarial. That is not my intent. I just believe (fervently) that if you are going to pontificate then you should at least be a cardinal with some prospects of making pope. Your in the position of claiming the Gospel according to Lune is in the Old Testament.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

In what way was that an answer to my question "what do you think viscosity means in conventional hydrodynamics?"

For a submarine to pass through liquid molecules have to separate to pass over the ship, the force required to separate them is viscosity.

In engine oils viscosity is often used to describe the length of the molecular chains, and the size of a hole it will pour through. And how fast it will pour through.

Thank you. You have confirmed what I suspected: you don't know what viscosity is.

It is not a force. In a Newtonian fluid it is the constant that defines the relationship between shear rate and shear stress.

Since you don't even understand the fundamentals of the terms you are using you will, perhaps, understand that I place little credence on your conclusions.

I recognise that will sound aggressive and adversarial. That is not my intent. I just believe (fervently) that if you are going to pontificate then you should at least be a cardinal with some prospects of making pope. Your in the position of claiming the Gospel according to Lune is in the Old Testament.

I know what viscosity is. The shear is the separation of molecules one to another or the division of a molecule or nucleus. If it is not force that bonds molecules and particles what would you call it ?

molecule to molecule shear components , magnetism,gravity,external pressure,surface tension(stickiness)
molecule shear - electrical bond
nuclear shear - nuclear bond

Hmm...Lets think about the black hole for a moment........as planets and stars approach the core do you honestly think the protons and neutrons jump out and penetrate right to the centre and join up next to one another, or is it more likely that the core of a black hole builds in layers ?

I have considered the possibility of heavy particles passing through "s"type orbital fields but chemistry shows us that is not the case. I believe that all particles burst under enough pressure and the nucleus grows by concentration, although built in layers there is a maximum number of layers as when that quantity is exceeded the innermost layer becomes........part of the singularity.

* although built in layers there is a maximum, number of layers/time spent in vortex*,