Thread: Mass: a tiny step for atoms, but a huge leap for us. (second edition, with a few corrections)

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

@le Repteux In a universe consisting of two hydrogen atoms can they move toward each other with your idea?

Hi Rob, thanks for the support! If my idea is accepted one day, I will share the honors with you!

Yes, your two hydrogen atoms could execute small steps. If they form a molecule, they will execute steps between them that will carry their molecule straight line from the point it was accelerated. If they do not, it is their components that will execute steps, but to account for gravitation this time, so they may orbit or crash or form a molecule or get lost in space depending of their original direction and speed.

You need it to work for a two atom universe first. it is only those two atoms and nothing else, so there was nothing to accelerate them together. If they were held together by a molecular bond that was it. Would it move or what would make it move beyond there?
But how would they find each other in the first place? Gravity? Are you trying to explain gravity?

Doublon

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Go on then, show me how doppler effect cannot produce the small steps.

You need to stop trolling and to start learning how to read posts.

Show me where you explained it to me then.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Go on then, show me how doppler effect cannot produce the small steps.

You need to stop trolling and to start learning how to read posts.

Show me where you explained it to me then.

Here. Having your theory debunked and your threads thrown into "pseudoscience" and subsequently locked never stopped you from posting the same BS again.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

You need it to work for a two atom universe first. it is only those two atoms and nothing else, so there was nothing to accelerate them together. If they were held together by a molecular bond that was it. Would it move or what would make it move beyond there?

For a two atom universe to be in motion, something must put it in motion. What my idea says about that is that if something exists, thus if it has mass or if it can produce mass, then it is because its components are already in motion, thus because they are already executing small steps.

But how would they find each other in the first place? Gravity? Are you trying to explain gravity?

The steps explain motion, so they also explain gravitational motion, but we fist have to discuss the small steps of inertial motion, because I think that the gravity force comes from them.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Here is how I proceed, you tell me if it is a normal way: first, I try to convince scientists that the idea is interesting, second, I try to convince them to study it, thus to learn what I imagined until now, third, I ask them to use what they know about the data to establish the limits of the idea. If there is no liberty inside these limits, then the idea may be rejected. It is no use to try to falsify an idea before it is studied and expressed scientifically, and I can't do that as precisely as scientists can. Remember that this idea is only an embryo and that I am not a scientist.

First then, I ask you if you like the idea! If you don't, it is no use that you insist, and it is the same for everybody here. If you don't even like the idea, then find some other idea you like and discuss it. If some want to discuss about bullshit, then find some bull herd and study their shit.

What you describe is not science. It is the sort of conversation that takes places in bistros and small bars, preferably after a glass or two of Nuits St. George and a cognac. It is an approach that is alien to the scientific method. You will not find anyone willing to pursue that approach here, for two reasons.

1. You are not following the scientific method.
2. You are dealing with a specific area of research that is unlikely to be a field in which any of the handful of practicing scientists on the forum work in - and it would require their level of understanding to progress (or more likely permanently refute) your idea. Any who might be in a position to do so have far more interest in their own work.
3. Your attempts to interest people in the idea fall down badly because you can provide no supporting evidence to make the idea seem likely.

68 is not too old to actually learn something serious about physics. Why not start now?

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Go on then, show me how doppler effect cannot produce the small steps.

You need to stop trolling and to start learning how to read posts.

Show me where you explained it to me then.

Here. Having your theory debunked and your threads thrown into "pseudoscience" and subsequently locked never stopped you from posting the same BS again.

I cite what you said before about doppler effect and the small steps:

"Here is the deal, science is not done by stringing a list of buzzwords and referring the audience to wiki. The bottom line is that there is no Doppler effect inside the atoms or in-between the atoms. There is no aberration inside the atoms or in between the atoms."

Gee, I wish I had your knowledge, this way, I could avoid trying to understand what is going on between two atoms! I ask you to show how the small steps could not be produced by doppler effect, and you answer me that there is no doppler effect between atoms. What an argument! Poor students!

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

It thus has fuck-all to do with calculations, and fuck-all to do with observation also.

…in which case it has fuck-all to do with science.

Originally Posted by John Galt

You will not find anyone willing to pursue that approach here, for two reasons.

1. You are not following the scientific method.

I use the same method that I used to invent Paraskiflex. If this method was enough for inventing something that works for real, then it is enough for inventing an idea that has chances to work for real.

2. You are dealing with a specific area of research that is unlikely to be a field in which any of the handful of practicing scientists on the forum work in - and it would require their level of understanding to progress (or more likely permanently refute) your idea. Any who might be in a position to do so have far more interest in their own work.

If somebody knows that, its me. I very well know that, if I trigger the interest, it will be by chance.

3. Your attempts to interest people in the idea fall down badly because you can provide no supporting evidence to make the idea seem likely.

This is the opinion of those who do not like the idea at first sight.

68 is not too old to actually learn something serious about physics. Why not start now?

I already learn a lot, but I also actually know enough to defend what I have to propose. Tell me if small steps between two sources of waves could be produced by doppler effect.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

It thus has fuck-all to do with calculations, and fuck-all to do with observation also.

…in which case it has fuck-all to do with science.

And you have fuck-all to do here because its no science.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

It thus has fuck-all to do with calculations, and fuck-all to do with observation also.

…in which case it has fuck-all to do with science.

And you have fuck-all to do here because its no science.

Yes quite right. I've had enough of this thread.

Newton developed his own mathematics (calculus) for his ideas.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Go on then, show me how doppler effect cannot produce the small steps.

You need to stop trolling and to start learning how to read posts.

Show me where you explained it to me then.

Here. Having your theory debunked and your threads thrown into "pseudoscience" and subsequently locked never stopped you from posting the same BS again.

I cite what you said before about doppler effect and the small steps:

"Here is the deal, science is not done by stringing a list of buzzwords and referring the audience to wiki. The bottom line is that there is no Doppler effect inside the atoms or in-between the atoms. There is no aberration inside the atoms or in between the atoms."

Gee, I wish I had your knowledge, this way, I could avoid trying to understand what is going on between two atoms! I ask you to show how the small steps could not be produced by doppler effect, and you answer me that there is no doppler effect between atoms. What an argument! Poor students!

You are not only incompetent, you are also dishonest. Here is the refutation of your fringe claim, as posted:

"I corrected this gross error of yours before, the frequency changes. The reason that the light speed doesn't change is that the wavelength change as well, in such a way that light speed remains constant. If you want to make up your own kind of physics, at least try to make up stuff that is DOA."

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

It thus has fuck-all to do with calculations, and fuck-all to do with observation also.

…in which case it has fuck-all to do with science.

And you have fuck-all to do here because its no science.

Yes quite right. I've had enough of this thread.

Thanks, and try to bring your gang with you.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Newton developed his own mathematics (calculus) for his ideas.

Here are mine, but I am not Newton, and I did not do any maths since I was at school 50 years ago.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Newton developed his own mathematics (calculus) for his ideas.

Here are mine, but I am not Newton, and I did not do any maths since I was at school 50 years ago.

Laughable. The fact that you persist in pushing this kind of nonsense is truly sad. Maybe you should find a different hobby.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

You are not only incompetent, you are also dishonest.

I always say the truth, you can count on that, but I can make mistakes, and you can count on that too.

Here is the refutation of your fringe claim, as posted:

"I corrected this gross error of yours before, the frequency changes. The reason that the light speed doesn't change is that the wavelength change as well, in such a way that light speed remains constant. If you want to make up your own kind of physics, at least try to make up stuff that is DOA."

This explains doppler effect, and I cannot conceive that you really though that I did not know about it. You really don't realize what you do! You are on automatic pilot thinking about something else than what is really happening. The question remains: how doppler effect could not account for the steps?

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Newton developed his own mathematics (calculus) for his ideas.

Here are mine, but I am not Newton, and I did not do any maths since I was at school 50 years ago.

Laughable. The fact that you persist in pushing this kind of nonsense is truly sad. Maybe you should find a different hobby.

Maybe you should try boxing. Hey, your friend Exchemist is leaving, why don't you have a walk with him? Walking is a good training for boxing!

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

You are not only incompetent, you are also dishonest.

I always say the truth, you can count on that, but I can make mistakes, and you can count on that too.

Here is the refutation of your fringe claim, as posted:

"I corrected this gross error of yours before, the frequency changes. The reason that the light speed doesn't change is that the wavelength change as well, in such a way that light speed remains constant. If you want to make up your own kind of physics, at least try to make up stuff that is DOA."

This explains doppler effect, and I cannot conceive that you really though that I did not know about it.

No, it exposes your errors in understanding the Doppler effect. So, you don't "say the truth", whether you realize it or not.

“A great discovery solves a great problem, but there is a grain of discovery in the solution of any problem. Your problem may be modest, but if it challenges your curiosity and brings into play your inventive faculties, and if you solve it by your own means, you may experience the tension and enjoy the triumph of discovery.”

George Pólya (Author of How to Solve It)


I myself lack the energy to think right now. If I try I'll fall asleep. I think you misunderstood what I meant, but I... like.. deliberately forget where I'm going with this. But think it was a cool quote anyway.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Newton developed his own mathematics (calculus) for his ideas.

Here are mine, but I am not Newton, and I did not do any maths since I was at school 50 years ago.

Laughable. The fact that you persist in pushing this kind of nonsense is truly sad. Maybe you should find a different hobby.

Maybe you should try boxing. Hey, your friend Exchemist is leaving, why don't you have a walk with him? Walking is a good training for boxing!

(1) Walking is not a good training for boxing. (2) Wait a while before challenging a forum contributing mathematical megafauna such as Exchemist.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

“A great discovery solves a great problem, but there is a grain of discovery in the solution of any problem. Your problem may be modest, but if it challenges your curiosity and brings into play your inventive faculties, and if you solve it by your own means, you may experience the tension and enjoy the triumph of discovery.”

George Pólya (Author of How to Solve It)


I myself lack the energy to think right now. If I try I'll fall asleep. I think you misunderstood what I meant, but I... like.. deliberately forget where I'm going with this. But think it was a cool quote anyway.

No harm Be! Even if I like my ideas, I can laugh at them too sometimes.

Originally Posted by shlunka

(1) Walking is not a good training for boxing.

Of course, but it is better than yelling at me, no?

(2) Wait a while before challenging a forum contributing mathematical megafauna such as Exchemist.

I do my best to be understood, and I'm sorry for people that cannot play the game. As I said, if ever I find someone to help, it is because I will have been very lucky. It was the same for every idea I had in my life, so why would it be different this time?

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

No, it exposes your errors in understanding the Doppler effect. So, you don't "say the truth", whether you realize it or not.

I think that I know how doppler effect works since I am twelve. Maybe you had a problem to understand it, and you think that it is the same for everybody? ( I am joking of course, I can't believe that. See how I say the truth?)

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

You need it to work for a two atom universe first. it is only those two atoms and nothing else, so there was nothing to accelerate them together. If they were held together by a molecular bond that was it. Would it move or what would make it move beyond there?

For a two atom universe to be in motion, something must put it in motion. What my idea says about that is that if something exists, thus if it has mass or if it can produce mass, then it is because its components are already in motion, thus because they are already executing small steps.

But how would they find each other in the first place? Gravity? Are you trying to explain gravity?

The steps explain motion, so they also explain gravitational motion, but we fist have to discuss the small steps of inertial motion, because I think that the gravity force comes from them.

So in the 2 atom universe the two atoms have gravity to draw them together. So they start moving together, they gain inertia, then what?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

No, it exposes your errors in understanding the Doppler effect. So, you don't "say the truth", whether you realize it or not.

I think that I know how doppler effect works since I am twelve.

Your posts demonstrate the opposite.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

No, it exposes your errors in understanding the Doppler effect. So, you don't "say the truth", whether you realize it or not.

I think that I know how doppler effect works since I am twelve.

Your posts demonstrate the opposite.

My idea is about two identical sources of waves linked together by their waves. Will there be doppler effect between them? This a very simple question. Answer it if you know the answer!

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

The steps explain motion, so they also explain gravitational motion, but we fist have to discuss the small steps of inertial motion, because I think that the gravity force comes from them.

So in the 2 atom universe the two atoms have gravity to draw them together. So they start moving together, they gain inertia, then what?

As Howard pointed out to me, it is EM force that will bring them together first, because it is a lot more powerful than gravity. But if you have two molecules instead, then it is gravitation. When two bodies gain speed because of gravity, they do not gain mass, but they gain inertial motion, so they gain kinetic energy one against the other. Inertia is similar to mass, so I do not think that we can say they gain inertia.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

No, it exposes your errors in understanding the Doppler effect. So, you don't "say the truth", whether you realize it or not.

I think that I know how doppler effect works since I am twelve.

Your posts demonstrate the opposite.

My idea is about two identical sources of waves linked together by their waves. Will there be doppler effect between them? This a very simple question. Answer it if you know the answer!

I already answered that, in the your thread that was locked. Asking the same question over and over again doesn't change the crank essence of your threads.

No you did not, and you will not because it would force you to study the small steps, and you would thus be forced to lose your face.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

No you did not, and you will not because it would force you to study the small steps, and you would thus be forced to lose your face.

Serious delusions......sit in trash.

Before you get contaminated, get out of here fast and wash your hands thoroughly.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

The steps explain motion, so they also explain gravitational motion, but we fist have to discuss the small steps of inertial motion, because I think that the gravity force comes from them.

So in the 2 atom universe the two atoms have gravity to draw them together. So they start moving together, they gain inertia, then what?

As Howard pointed out to me, it is EM force that will bring them together first, because it is a lot more powerful than gravity. But if you have two molecules instead, then it is gravitation. When two bodies gain speed because of gravity, they do not gain mass, but they gain inertial motion, so they gain kinetic energy one against the other. Inertia is similar to mass, so I do not think that we can say they gain inertia.

OK they gain momentum, which because the mass doesn't change, that is gain in velocity. What next?

So you reckon two atoms of hydrogen will be attracted by the EM force but two molecules of H2 won't.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

As Howard pointed out to me, it is EM force that will bring them together first, because it is a lot more powerful than gravity. But if you have two molecules instead, then it is gravitation.

Not necessarily. Gravitation is so much more feeble than the electrostatic force that one cannot be so cavalier. Your statement could be true, but it need not be true.

Most molecules -- including diatomic hydrogen -- exhibit nonzero dipole moments. Despite the dipole field falling off as the inverse cube of distance (in the far-field limit), that still leaves considerable room for electrostatics to win. See, e.g., Molecular Dipole Moments

Hi TK, thanks for the nice link.

So, as I understand it, electrostatics will win on small molecules, but not on agglomerated ones otherwise gravity would not have the effect we see. Is that it? Anyway, if the small steps are responsible for any motion as I pretend, then electrostatics between two molecules would induce their acceleration too, thus a change in their length or their direction.

By the way, you made a few corrections to the details, but you did not show yet if you found the general idea interesting: do you?

Originally Posted by Rob

So you reckon two atoms of hydrogen will be attracted by the EM force but two molecules of H2 won't.

As I said to TK, it is not the kind of force that is important, it is the small steps. If motion is due to them, then any kind of force would induce their acceleration.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Hi TK, thanks for the nice link.

So, as I understand it, electrostatics will win on small molecules, but not on agglomerated ones otherwise gravity would not have the effect we see. Is that it? Anyway, if the small steps are responsible for any motion as I pretend, then electrostatics between two molecules would induce their acceleration too, thus a change in their length or their direction.

By the way, you made a few corrections to the details, but you did not show yet if you found the general idea interesting: do you?

Originally Posted by Rob

So you reckon two atoms of hydrogen will be attracted by the EM force but two molecules of H2 won't.

As I said to TK, it is not the kind of force that is important, it is the small steps. If motion is due to them, then any kind of force would induce their acceleration.

That is the bit I want to read - how do these two molecules progress toward each other under the influence of the EM or gravitation with your small steps. Once the motion starts are you saying it also stops? Step wise rather than once moving keeps moving with inertia (momentum)?

To analyze the small steps, we have to forget about inertia or mass. With them, mass or inertia results from atoms resisting to accelerate their steps towards changing incoming light pulses. If they form a molecule, the result is inertial motion, if they are distant, the result is gravitational motion, if they are in between, as in an accelerator, the result is what I would call an ionized or a charged motion. I cannot talk about the last one because I did not analyze it yet, but I analyzed gravitational motion, which is an acceleration, and I realized that if the small steps had to account for it, it meant that the doppler effect that would produce them should have the form of the red shift from galaxies. This way, an atom would accelerate its steps towards all the massive bodies around him in the same time, thus in the same step, which means that this step would integrate the incoming lights from all the directions, and at all the intensities, at a time. Is it clear enough?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

To analyze the small steps, we have to forget about inertia or mass. With them, mass or inertia results from atoms resisting to accelerate their steps towards changing incoming light pulses. If they form a molecule, the result is inertial motion, if they are distant, the result is gravitational motion, if they are in between, as in an accelerator, the result is what I would call an ionized or a charged motion. I cannot talk about the last one because I did not analyze it yet, but I analyzed gravitational motion, which is an acceleration, and I realized that if the small steps had to account for it, it meant that the doppler effect that would produce them should have the form of the red shift from galaxies. This way, an atom would accelerate its steps towards all the massive bodies around him in the same time, thus in the same step, which means that this step would integrate the incoming lights from all the directions, and at all the intensities, at a time. Is it clear enough?

No not really. You tell me "we have to forget about inertia or mass" yet next sentence you say "if they form a molecule the result is inertial motion". Make up your mind.
Define the following?
1. inertial motion
2. Gravitational motion

This way, an atom would accelerate its steps towards all the massive bodies around him in the same time, thus in the same step, which means that this step would integrate the incoming lights from all the directions, and at all the intensities, at a time. Is it clear enough?

"pulled in all directions, but strongest effect wins" is that about right?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

You tell me "we have to forget about inertia or mass" yet next sentence you say "if they form a molecule the result is inertial motion". Make up your mind.

What I meant is that we have to forget about the way actual theory explains mass or inertia, because it does not explain inertial motion, and we always tend to refer to it nevertheless.

Define the following?
1. inertial motion
2. Gravitational motion

I would define inertial motion as constant steps, same frequency, same length, same direction, because they depend on the light from atoms that have no choice but to stay at the same distance from one another all the time. And I would define gravitational motion as constantly changing steps in length and in direction (but not in frequency), because they depend on light coming from distant atoms that change direction and speed constantly.

Originally Posted by Rob"

This way, an atom would accelerate its steps towards all the massive bodies around him in the same time, thus in the same step, which means that this step would integrate the incoming lights from all the directions, and at all the intensities, at a time. Is it clear enough?

"pulled in all directions, but strongest effect wins" is that about right?

That's about it, and I add that the importance of the force depends (1) on the difference in frequency between the light and the steps, and (2) on the intensity of the light, which is very important in the case of atoms being part of a molecule, and a lot less important for atoms being part of two different bodies, like the earth and the moon for example. Next question is: how the atoms from the moon and the earth can get the difference in frequency that I am talking about, so that they would have to accelerate their steps to account for it? To answer that one, I'll wait till you are ready.

Rob, in case you or anybody else did not understand yet the mechanism of the small steps, here is a mind experiment.

- Imagine two cars at rest on the same straight road but one km away from one another and heading in the same direction.
- There is an emitter and a receiver in each car and the signal exchanged between them is about the speed from their speedometer.
- One of the cars accelerates and decelerates for 10 seconds, so a signal is emitted every fraction of second indicating the speed at which the car is going.
- Lets us admit that the signal will take more time to travel one km than the time it takes for the car to accelerate and decelerate to rest.
- When the signal will arrive at the second car, its receiver will indicate progressively the speed at which it has to accelerate and decelerate.
- While it does, its own emitter will transmit the signal to the other car, which will repeat exactly the same move forward, and so on for the other car, indefinitely.

If the energy to move the cars would be infinite and the signal absolutely precise, this slinky kind of motion would never end. For the atoms, the signal is given by the light pulses themselves, and the information on the speed is given by the doppler effect, thus by the distance between the pulses. The question that arose first here is about the capacity from atoms to exchange light pulses while forming a molecule. As we know, atoms already absorb and re-emit light pulses all the time, and they do not lose energy while doing so otherwise this process would not obey the conservation of energy law. But that law also applies to the energy they exchange when forming a molecule, the one that produces the small steps: if this energy is never lost, then the small steps would never end once they are initiated, which is exactly the way inertial motion principle works.