Notices
Results 1 to 74 of 74

Thread: couple questions about light

  1. #1 couple questions about light 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    127
    as i understand it you cant accelerate an object past the speed of light because its mass increases as it approaches c, but light has no mass so why does it have a limit on its speed?

    another probably dumb question but theres no limit as to how long of a wavelength light can have so would faster than light communication be possible by just aiming the top of a very large light wave at something distant? (hope that made sense)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: couple questions about light 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cairo
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by medlakeguy
    another probably dumb question but theres no limit as to how long of a wavelength light can have so would faster than light communication be possible by just aiming the top of a very large light wave at something distant? (hope that made sense)
    I think if wavelength becomes larger than 700 nm it will be not light !
    But if u mean generally electromagnetic waves , radio waves have large wave lengths to be used in communications.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior anand_kapadia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    300
    hope u know about conversion of energy into mass...
    These electromagnetic waves convert into mass
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: couple questions about light 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by medlakeguy
    as i understand it you cant accelerate an object past the speed of light because its mass increases as it approaches c, but light has no mass so why does it have a limit on its speed?
    Well, this is a somewhat simplistic view. It SEEMS that its mass increases to infinity. Really, it does not. In fact, you have to analyse the relativistic impulse or kinetic energy of a particle. Classically spoken, the impulse is the product of the mass and the velocity. With relativity, it is a bit different, because you need an additional factor including the speed of light.

    This factor is negligible for very low speeds giving again the classical expression. For velocities close to the speed of light, the impulse reaches infinity. Now, you can separate the relativistic equation in such a way that you only have the classical velocity and another factor containing the mass and the relativistic modification.

    In popular demonstrations, this often called the relativistic mass, but it is actually wrong. It is more or less just a mathematical trick. Still, the equation for the impulse tells you that no particle can reach the speed of light. If this was the case, it would contradict the basic physical principles of conservation of impulse and energy. You would need an infinite amount of energy in the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    light does, in fact, have mass and takes up space.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: couple questions about light 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by medlakeguy
    as i understand it you cant accelerate an object past the speed of light because its mass increases as it approaches c, but light has no mass so why does it have a limit on its speed?
    The "limit" placed on how fast light can travel is based on the properties of space and not the light itself.

    another probably dumb question but theres no limit as to how long of a wavelength light can have so would faster than light communication be possible by just aiming the top of a very large light wave at something distant? (hope that made sense)
    Not really. Again, the light can travel only as fast as the properties of the space it travels through allows.

    The permittivity of free space is how space affects the forces between two charges while the permeability of free space is the proportional induction and intensity of magnetic fields, or the ratio between magnetic displacement and magnetic field strength.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: couple questions about light 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by medlakeguy
    as i understand it you cant accelerate an object past the speed of light because its mass increases as it approaches c, but light has no mass so why does it have a limit on its speed?
    Well, this is a somewhat simplistic view. It SEEMS that its mass increases to infinity. Really, it does not. In fact, you have to analyse the relativistic impulse or kinetic energy of a particle. Classically spoken, the impulse is the product of the mass and the velocity. With relativity, it is a bit different, because you need an additional factor including the speed of light.

    This factor is negligible for very low speeds giving again the classical expression. For velocities close to the speed of light, the impulse reaches infinity. Now, you can separate the relativistic equation in such a way that you only have the classical velocity and another factor containing the mass and the relativistic modification.

    In popular demonstrations, this often called the relativistic mass, but it is actually wrong. It is more or less just a mathematical trick. Still, the equation for the impulse tells you that no particle can reach the speed of light. If this was the case, it would contradict the basic physical principles of conservation of impulse and energy. You would need an infinite amount of energy in the universe.
    The speed of radio being faster then 186,000 miles a second, was dis proven during the Apollo missions. It was already dis proven long before. However there were no tests considered conclusive enough here on earth. To change Newtons idea of velocity of light. Things work without knowing what it is.

    And we were never given a voice to show off how we could easily prove that radio is faster then light. If only upon start up of the beam of light.

    Radio was shown to be instantaneous from a distance a few miles from the moon and back to earth.

    The astronauts that were under orders to follow the rules of communication aboard the space craft during live broadcasts, already knew this. They had to sign papers guarding the missions secrets. The Freedom of information act was just an act that came to late and had no real purpose.

    The astronauts had no way to show or prove the speed of radio. Until someone on the ground fifteen minutes after the astronauts left lunar orbit, got a hold of the ground microphone during a live broadcast. From an armed guard at Houston control.

    The two guys who new each other, first joked about how he got the microphone from the guard. And the fellow on the ground said, "That the big guy with gun said when fifteen or twenty minutes are up my duty is over" do what you want to do after that.

    They both laughed with joy, and during this conversation there was no annoying communication lag. They were just talking like on walkie talkies. One of the other astronauts said, you better watch the mandatory radio delay. He just laughed.

    The fellow on the ground said "you up to some fast radio turn around". And the fellow in the capsule said "you bet yea". They did four cycles of communication in under two seconds. Earth to the space capsule twice, and twice from the space capsule to earth.

    Things like this misunderstood by some, have lead people mis-educated by college to believe that the mission was a hoax and was actually being broadcast from earth.

    So believe what you have to believe to make it through the day. But if you ever want more it is all there. Ready to go.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    light does, in fact, have mass and takes up space.
    Light has no mass. Light is electrons, so when it is beamed through something it does excite the atoms to some extent. It cuts a path through air and thins the air.
    Whenever you slow natural ambient radiation down. The electrons will be in one spot longer then if they were going fast. This causes an effect.

    It is the only effect in the universe.

    Cutting a path is what takes some time. Once cut, light transmits instantaneously.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: couple questions about light 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Radio was shown to be instantaneous from a distance a few miles from the moon and back to earth.
    No Billy, it was not instantaneous.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    [
    Cutting a path is what takes some time. Once cut, light transmits instantaneously.
    Did light cut a path straight through beyond your retinas when you stared at the sun?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Light has no mass. Light is electrons,
    Contradiction of the century. Wait I'm pretty sure some religious person may have beaten you to it.

    Electrons have a mass of roughly 1/1850 of a nucleon. So you're saying that light has no mass? Also we know that a mass travelling at light speed (to the observer) has infinite mass. Oh no you blew something up again Will...

    Please either read a common science book or get out of the field. You're clearly not quite getting it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Here is the predicament, if light doesn't have mass, then how is it sucked into the gravity well of a black hole, the problem is billy thinks black holes are just planets.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    Ok I'll take a stab at explaining it. I haven't seen this written anywhere before so I'll tell you I'm making it all up right now but maybe it'll shed some light on it? :P

    If we utilise string theory that the absolute fundamental particle is infact a band of energy (string) which vibrates at different frequencies to produce quarks and other such building blocks, then we can closer understand the links with Wave Particle duality. It has been suggested (infact proved) that electromagnetic waves do, under various circumstances act as, particles.

    If string theory is correct then matter is energy, this we already know as matter can be converted to energy and , theoretically, energy to matter. Somewhere here they must share a common bond. The problem could well be the current definition of gravity or explanations that masses attract one another.

    If energy and matter are a'kin what is to say that gravity cannot exert itself on both? We already know that electromagnetic waves are manipulated by gravitational pull and that mass can be affected by magnetism (the floating ball experiment?).

    Any additions and criticisms are, as usual, completely welcome. Apart from Will's because I don't like the idea that Ambient radiation has to thin out the air for light to travel instantaneously between points (why does it take 8 minutes to get from the sun to earth then?) as he's obviously going to infect us with his crazy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: couple questions about light 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Radio was shown to be instantaneous from a distance a few miles from the moon and back to earth.
    It is getting funnier with every post. Hilarious! It might have been a very short delay, because the 384000km from the moon only take little more than a second. Did you know that the astronauts put a mirror on the moon that allows us to measure the exact distance of the moon with a laser? If the travelling speed would be infinite, the distance measured would be zero.

    All other space missions farther out (e.g. Mars) always have to take this time delay into account. Have you watched the landing of the first Mars rover? Then you might have learned that the signals take several minutes to get to earth. This is the reason, why it had to move automatically. Remote control just does not work.

    I will not comment on the ridiculous suggestion that the lag was just made up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Here is the predicament, if light doesn't have mass, then how is it sucked into the gravity well of a black hole, the problem is billy thinks black holes are just planets.
    Indeed, this is a problem that was solved by General Relativity. In this picture, mass does not produce a force, it just bends spacetime. Since photons without interaction with a medium (scattering, refraction, etc.) always travel on a straight line, they just follow the bent spacetime fabric. This has been shown with the positional shift of stars close to the line of sight towards the sun during solar eclipses or so-called Einstein rings due to gravitational lensing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    I have problems with string theory, I may just not understand it, but certain things don't sit well with me.

    Here is why:

    1. It is not falsifiable
    2. No experiments or observations
    3. too many approximations involved
    4. it is background-dependent

    I think a good explanation, using special relativity and the general theory of relativity, is that since gravity is not an attraction of mass (or energy!), but rather, the affect of large bodies of mass(or energy) on the fabric of space-time, gravity does not have to exert any force on a particle such as light. The curving of space-time as perceived from our point in the universe is what gives us the illusion of gravity affecting the light. From the light's perspective, it IS still traveling straight.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    If energy and matter are a'kin what is to say that gravity cannot exert itself on both? We already know that electromagnetic waves are manipulated by gravitational pull and that mass can be affected by magnetism (the floating ball experiment?).
    I would be a bit cautious at this point. I think the latter phenomenon you have mentioned is caused by induction of an electric current into a metal ball. Electric or magnetic forces are much stronger than gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Light has no mass. Light is electrons,
    Contradiction of the century. Wait I'm pretty sure some religious person may have beaten you to it.

    Electrons have a mass of roughly 1/1850 of a nucleon. So you're saying that light has no mass? Also we know that a mass travelling at light speed (to the observer) has infinite mass. Oh no you blew something up again Will...

    Please either read a common science book or get out of the field. You're clearly not quite getting it.
    You were taught that electrons have mass. We can show they do not have mass, and do not need to have mass.

    Mass is a creation of time, and the space between electrons in a proton, and space between atoms.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    Noted Dishmaster thanks.

    Show me that they don't have mass. Science is about observation I want to observe. Show me they don't have mass and I'll consider that you're right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Noted Dishmaster thanks.

    Show me that they don't have mass. Science is about observation I want to observe. Show me they don't have mass and I'll consider that you're right.
    Eh? What has no mass? The floating ball? The mass cannot be altered by magnetism, but you can counter balance the force of gravity pulling on a mass by magnetic force.

    Or do you mean the photons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: couple questions about light 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    the fellow on the ground said "you up to some fast radio turn around". And the fellow in the capsule said "you bet yea". They did four cycles of communication in under two seconds. Earth to the space capsule twice, and twice from the space capsule to earth.
    so uhh do i... do i just ignore him?

    anyways, im still kinda lost as to why a massless object like light is limited by c... and as for the other question, i wish i could draw it so you could see what im talking about... is there any way could upload a bitmap and post it? (not too internet savvy)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Noted Dishmaster thanks.

    Show me that they don't have mass. Science is about observation I want to observe. Show me they don't have mass and I'll consider that you're right.
    Eh? What has no mass? The floating ball? The mass cannot be altered by magnetism, but you can counter balance the force of gravity pulling on a mass by magnetic force.

    Or do you mean the photons?
    He means:
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You were taught that electrons have mass. We can show they do not have mass, and do not need to have mass.
    I have a question for him also, what evidence is there for this ambient radiation and what is it?

    And after reading what you he has been saying the thought 'You were taught wrong' comes to mind either that or he was taught but never kept up to date with the latest information.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Cutting a path is what takes some time. Once cut, light transmits instantaneously.
    So light travels between the Sun and the Earth instantiously, asa path must of been cut by now. If that is so why does it take 8 minutes?
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: couple questions about light 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by medlakeguy
    anyways, im still kinda lost as to why a massless object like light is limited by c... and as for the other question, i wish i could draw it so you could see what im talking about... is there any way could upload a bitmap and post it? (not too internet savvy)
    I don't think that anybody can really give a good for the value itself. But that there must be some kind of upper limit is - among others - a result of the fundamental law of conservation of energy. It is also related to properties of spacetime itself. A very simple example is:



    Here you see that the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum limit the speed of light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Noted Dishmaster thanks.

    Show me that they don't have mass. Science is about observation I want to observe. Show me they don't have mass and I'll consider that you're right.
    Eh? What has no mass? The floating ball? The mass cannot be altered by magnetism, but you can counter balance the force of gravity pulling on a mass by magnetic force.

    Or do you mean the photons?
    No I meant the electrons
    William McCormick wrote:
    You were taught that electrons have mass. We can show they do not have mass, and do not need to have mass.
    I just want him to explain. Or if, as he says, he can show it, then I want him to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: couple questions about light 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    I don't think that anybody can really give a good for the value itself. But that there must be some kind of upper limit is - among others - a result of the fundamental law of conservation of energy. It is also related to properties of spacetime itself. A very simple example is:



    Here you see that the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum limit the speed of light.
    could you put that in laymans terms? (have a little patience with me here)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: couple questions about light 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by medlakeguy
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    I don't think that anybody can really give a good for the value itself. But that there must be some kind of upper limit is - among others - a result of the fundamental law of conservation of energy. It is also related to properties of spacetime itself. A very simple example is:



    Here you see that the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum limit the speed of light.
    could you put that in laymans terms? (have a little patience with me here)
    Sorry. The two quantities determine - in simple words - how electric and magnetic fields are related to the distribution of their sources (charges, magnets) in an ideal vacuum. They are apparently a property of spacetime. For real matter, there are constants epsilon and mu without the naught that are properties of the material. They determine, e.g. how much charge a capacitor can store.

    This tells you that, if the light speed would be infinity, at least one of these two quantities must be zero for the vacuum (no electric or magnetic field lines). It is not much of a real explanation, but gives you the relation to electro-magnetism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    No I meant the electrons
    William McCormick wrote:
    You were taught that electrons have mass. We can show they do not have mass, and do not need to have mass.
    I just want him to explain. Or if, as he says, he can show it, then I want him to.
    Oh. Maybe this nice historic experiment helps together with Milikan's experiment?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Re: couple questions about light 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Sorry. The two quantities determine - in simple words - how electric and magnetic fields are related to the distribution of their sources (charges, magnets) in an ideal vacuum. They are apparently a property of spacetime. For real matter, there are constants epsilon and mu without the naught that are properties of the material. They determine, e.g. how much charge a capacitor can store.

    This tells you that, if the light speed would be infinity, at least one of these two quantities must be zero for the vacuum (no electric or magnetic field lines). It is not much of a real explanation, but gives you the relation to electro-magnetism.
    so... let me see if i got this right. if light were not to have a limit on its speed, then space would be altered in such a way as to not allow light to exist at all... am i getting this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Cutting a path is what takes some time. Once cut, light transmits instantaneously.
    So light travels between the Sun and the Earth instantiously, asa path must of been cut by now. If that is so why does it take 8 minutes?
    Once the path is cut. You can block a portion of the sun from the earth. And instantaneously you will see the blockage on earth.

    They Apollo astronauts fired a laser from the moon, to earth. With synchronized watches. And timed how long the laser took to get from the moon to earth. A total comedian who knew everything I knew, "Accidentally" put an object in front of the laser being test fired. On the ground they immediately alerted the moon, that there was some inconsistency in the laser. The astronaut asked quickly and abruptly "exactly what time it occurred". Ground control immediately responded with the time. And the astronaut said that is the exact time the object passed in front of the laser.

    You had to love those Marines.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31 Re: couple questions about light 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by medlakeguy
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Sorry. The two quantities determine - in simple words - how electric and magnetic fields are related to the distribution of their sources (charges, magnets) in an ideal vacuum. They are apparently a property of spacetime. For real matter, there are constants epsilon and mu without the naught that are properties of the material. They determine, e.g. how much charge a capacitor can store.

    This tells you that, if the light speed would be infinity, at least one of these two quantities must be zero for the vacuum (no electric or magnetic field lines). It is not much of a real explanation, but gives you the relation to electro-magnetism.
    so... let me see if i got this right. if light were not to have a limit on its speed, then space would be altered in such a way as to not allow light to exist at all... am i getting this?
    Hmm, I never actually thought in that direction. It might. I have to think it over or ask a few of my colleagues what they think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    They Apollo astronauts fired a laser from the moon, to earth. With synchronized watches. And timed how long the laser took to get from the moon to earth. A total comedian who knew everything I knew, "Accidentally" put an object in front of the laser being test fired. On the ground they immediately alerted the moon, that there was some inconsistency in the laser. The astronaut asked quickly and abruptly "exactly what time it occurred". Ground control immediately responded with the time. And the astronaut said that is the exact time the object passed in front of the laser.
    Very funny. Where do you get all these stories from? The laser is used nowadays from earth, reflected on the moon with dedicated mirrors and sent back to earth. This does not work instantaneously. It is the most accurate measurement to prove that the moon is increasing its distance from earth by about 2 cm per year. That is only possible with a limited light speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Noted Dishmaster thanks.

    Show me that they don't have mass. Science is about observation I want to observe. Show me they don't have mass and I'll consider that you're right.
    There are two scenarios shown in both those links below. Both scenarios contain the same amount of matter.
    Both are given the same amount of energy. However there is a very different result, for the same energy applied.
    If you look at it you would almost think that something was changed or that it was a trick.

    So by this experiment we know that we can make things appear to weigh more, or seem more dense or have more mass. Without any extra mass or weight. By changing the structure.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Ball...sAndAtoms.html

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Ball...lsandTime.html

    From there you can imagine, as the sun has an infinite number of atoms. The proton or hydrogen atom has an infinite number of electrons in the proton.
    As you apply repulsive energy to a proton that is filled with electrons that can never touch one another. It is going to take some time to pass that repulsion energy/velocity from one electron to another, and another. This time causes the effect of mass.

    Gravity is just slowed ambient radiation, repulsive energy from above us pushing us to the earth.

    We are filthy bags of electric. In a sea of electricity, going so fast that it does not have time to leave much of a charge. Or cause a differential. Unless we set up a diode.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Noted Dishmaster thanks.

    Show me that they don't have mass. Science is about observation I want to observe. Show me they don't have mass and I'll consider that you're right.
    There are two scenarios shown in both those links below. Both scenarios contain the same amount of matter.
    Both are given the same amount of energy. However there is a very different result, for the same energy applied.
    If you look at it you would almost think that something was changed or that it was a trick.

    So by this experiment we know that we can make things appear to weigh more, or seem more dense or have more mass. Without any extra mass or weight. By changing the structure.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Ball...sAndAtoms.html

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Ball...lsandTime.html

    From there you can imagine, as the sun has an infinite number of atoms. The proton or hydrogen atom has an infinite number of electrons in the proton.
    As you apply repulsive energy to a proton that is filled with electrons that can never touch one another. It is going to take some time to pass that repulsion energy/velocity from one electron to another, and another. This time causes the effect of mass.

    Gravity is just slowed ambient radiation, repulsive energy from above us pushing us to the earth.

    We are filthy bags of electric. In a sea of electricity, going so fast that it does not have time to leave much of a charge. Or cause a differential. Unless we set up a diode.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    your trolling. gotta give you props because your good at it, but no ones that crazy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    From there you can imagine, as the sun has an infinite number of atoms. The proton or hydrogen atom has an infinite number of electrons in the proton.
    As you apply repulsive energy to a proton that is filled with electrons that can never touch one another. It is going to take some time to pass that repulsion energy/velocity from one electron to another, and another. This time causes the effect of mass.

    Gravity is just slowed ambient radiation, repulsive energy from above us pushing us to the earth.

    We are filthy bags of electric. In a sea of electricity, going so fast that it does not have time to leave much of a charge. Or cause a differential. Unless we set up a diode.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Isn't our sun running/run out of Hydrogren atoms at the moment and is beginning/doing the second stage of fusion, which is the reaction of helium atoms to make larger atoms?

    Also how do you get electrons in protons...

    Also what is repulsive energy, sounds like something which would've been taught a long time ago.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Gravity is just slowed ambient radiation, repulsive energy from above us pushing us to the earth.

    We are filthy bags of electric. In a sea of electricity, going so fast that it does not have time to leave much of a charge. Or cause a differential. Unless we set up a diode.
    Go spelunking, Billy. It's a zero-G world in a cave. Imagine floating around in a "non-ambient radiation, repulsive energy from above" environment.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by medlakeguy
    your trolling. gotta give you props because your good at it, but no ones that crazy
    That is either a very astute observation, or neither of us has been exposed to enough of humanity. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Isn't our sun running/run out of Hydrogren atoms at the moment and is beginning/doing the second stage of fusion, which is the reaction of helium atoms to make larger atoms?
    Fortunately, the sun hasn't reached this stage yet. And it won't for a while. When the sun begins to burn helium, it will expand to a red giant and incinerate the inner planets of the solar system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    But i thought our sun already emits the elements created by fusion of helium
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    From there you can imagine, as the sun has an infinite number of atoms. The proton or hydrogen atom has an infinite number of electrons in the proton.
    As you apply repulsive energy to a proton that is filled with electrons that can never touch one another. It is going to take some time to pass that repulsion energy/velocity from one electron to another, and another. This time causes the effect of mass.

    Gravity is just slowed ambient radiation, repulsive energy from above us pushing us to the earth.

    We are filthy bags of electric. In a sea of electricity, going so fast that it does not have time to leave much of a charge. Or cause a differential. Unless we set up a diode.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Isn't our sun running/run out of Hydrogren atoms at the moment and is beginning/doing the second stage of fusion, which is the reaction of helium atoms to make larger atoms?

    Also how do you get electrons in protons...

    Also what is repulsive energy, sounds like something which would've been taught a long time ago.
    Old Benjamin Franklin taught electricity repels itself. And can repel matter too.

    So its been around. It is not new. Benjamin Franklin was totally correct. That is why he was laughed out of England. And why we have mislabeled car batteries.

    It was only hypothesized by Universal Scientists, and by hydrogen found in deep space, that at the edges of the universe the singular electrons that make up ambient radiation. Enter a pool of almost dormant electrons.
    For reasons of least repulsion, they are grouped into a spherical shape. It was theorized that they rather soddenly become compressed into a proton. And are pushed back into the universe. Because the ambient radiation coming from the universe is moving faster then the electrons that are dormant around the universe. So that there is less repulsion from high speed ambient radiation coming from the Universe. Then in the dead poll.

    Of course I can only say, that, I had never even heard of any scientist at the time, discuss this. In fact at the time non-Universal Scientists were trying to ram neutrons into science as a particle. Rather then something in the ether as they were first introduced. This was actually just a misunderstanding, and a language barrier between German, American and English scientists.

    This same principle of ambient radiation creating an apparent attraction is actually just a shortage of repulsion. It is how gravity works. The planet is actually a shield from slower moving ambient radiation. The planet accelerates the slower ambient radiation, by allowing it to sling shot, around the dense atoms in the planet, as it races through the planet.
    The slower ambient radiation is going, the more chance you have of being repelled by it.
    The high speed ambient radiation that is coming from space is slowed by the earths atmosphere. This is what puts pressure upon you. As the ambient radiation is slowed, it spends more time repelling you to the earth.

    Back to the universe, when you do blow apart a proton or hydrogen atom, you get free electrons, that end up getting accelerated and end up on some edge of the Universe.
    Free Electrons are also repulsed back into the Universe, from the stagnant group of electrons at the edges of the universe as well.

    The Universe does communicate with every other part of the Universe almost instantly.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Edmund, do not listen to anything William McCormick has to say. I have no idea where he gets his wacky ideas from, but they are certainly not from any form of formal education or contemporary physics texts.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Even thought it may be incorrect or not taught, you must admit it is pretty interesting stuff.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Even thought it may be incorrect or not taught, you must admit it is pretty interesting stuff.
    Not at all :wink: I do not find spectacularly erroneous nonsense interesting, except maybe from a clinical psychology perspective. We have different sections on this forum for his nonsensical musings.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    But i thought our sun already emits the elements created by fusion of helium
    The sun emits photons, protons, neutrinos in a considerable amount. The only elements that are created by the sun right now are Helium, Carbon and Nitrogen with maybe a little bit of very light elements. Helium is the final product and sinks down to the solar core, because it is heavier than hydrogen. Carbon and Nitrogen are an intermediate by-product of the CNO cycle (aka. Bethe-Weizsacker cycle). There are more elements present in the sun and its atmosphere, but they have been there already during the formation of the sun and originate from previous stars that expelled their shells (planetary nebulae or supernovae). These elements are responsible for the many absorption lines in the solar spectrum that are generated in the solar atmosphere.

    The sun cannot use helium for fusion, because the core temperature is not high enough. This will only be possible, when the radiative pressure of the fusion process from hydrogen to helium stops and gravity increases on the core.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Edmund, do not listen to anything William McCormick has to say. I have no idea where he gets his wacky ideas from, but they are certainly not from any form of formal education or contemporary physics texts.
    Look I will accept you saying that you do not believe this information is from any formal education. You may say this information should not have been part of any formal education, if you wish to do so.

    However, since I am among a group proven ready to go to deep space, anytime we wish.

    I would really appreciate if you did not just bluntly lie and say, that was not my formal education, from public school. It is weird to have to listen to such nonsense from my point of view. It is like a threat from a crazy man.

    I received this education as an elite honor student. By the fifth grade I was receiving college materials. And they told us the other students would not receive the same education.

    Believe what you will but do not tell others lies.

    We can go to deep space without a giant rocket, or giant tank of hydrogen. We just need a small craft to go into space or the moon.

    If some tribal group built the Space Shuttle, in Zimbabwe, I would have laughed and said what a bunch of witch doctors. If they built it in a bamboo hanger, with mechanics tools. I would have said wow, they are stupid but they have determination.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    If you can go into deep space anytime you wish, spare us and please do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    But i thought our sun already emits the elements created by fusion of helium
    The sun emits photons, protons, neutrinos in a considerable amount. The only elements that are created by the sun right now are Helium, Carbon and Nitrogen with maybe a little bit of very light elements. Helium is the final product and sinks down to the solar core, because it is heavier than hydrogen. Carbon and Nitrogen are an intermediate by-product of the CNO cycle (aka. Bethe-Weizsacker cycle). There are more elements present in the sun and its atmosphere, but they have been there already during the formation of the sun and originate from previous stars that expelled their shells (planetary nebulae or supernovae). These elements are responsible for the many absorption lines in the solar spectrum that are generated in the solar atmosphere.

    The sun cannot use helium for fusion, because the core temperature is not high enough. This will only be possible, when the radiative pressure of the fusion process from hydrogen to helium stops and gravity increases on the core.
    Ah ok, i just did a Chemistry coursework and it said about how the sun throughout it's lifetime would depleted hydrogen then use the hydrogens to create elements such as Carbon Neon and Lithium. Was that entirely wrong or just not possible in our sun?
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Ah ok, i just did a Chemistry coursework and it said about how the sun throughout it's lifetime would depleted hydrogen then use the hydrogens to create elements such as Carbon Neon and Lithium. Was that entirely wrong or just not possible in our sun?
    No, not entirely. A soon as the hydrogen is so much depleted in the core (where the initial fusion process takes place) the hydrostatic equilibrium between the radiative pressure form the inside and gravity from the outside re-establishes itself. The pressure from gravity increases and the fusion process is shifted to a shell above the core, where the temperature is now high enough for that. The helium produced in this phase "rains" down on the core increasing its gravitational pressure and eventually starting the helium fusion creating higher elements like Beryllium, Carbon and Oxygen. The fusion in the stellar shell advances even more into higher layers during that phase. In the end, you get a sun with several layers of different fusion processes with elements of increasing atomic masses. But since these subsequent fusion processes provide less energy than the hydrogen burning. The sun will be a cool red giant and will loose a lot of its mass due to a strong wind with a high abundance of carbon. At some point, the whole fusion process stops, the interior of the sun collapses and expels a large amount of its shell into space containing relatively heavy elements like carbon and oxygen. Heavier elements can only be formed in stars with a higher mass than our sun. But the most heavy element that can be produced by fusion is iron. Even heavier elements can only be formed during supernovae of very massive stars (more than 8 times the solar mass). The rest of the sun's core is still very hot and will be able to be observed as a slowly cooling white dwarf.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Ah ok, i just did a Chemistry coursework and it said about how the sun throughout it's lifetime would depleted hydrogen then use the hydrogens to create elements such as Carbon Neon and Lithium. Was that entirely wrong or just not possible in our sun?
    No, not entirely. A soon as the hydrogen is so much depleted in the core (where the initial fusion process takes place) the hydrostatic equilibrium between the radiative pressure form the inside and gravity from the outside re-establishes itself. The pressure from gravity increases and the fusion process is shifted to a shell above the core, where the temperature is now high enough for that. The helium produced in this phase "rains" down on the core increasing its gravitational pressure and eventually starting the helium fusion creating higher elements like Beryllium, Carbon and Oxygen. The fusion in the stellar shell advances even more into higher layers during that phase. In the end, you get a sun with several layers of different fusion processes with elements of increasing atomic masses. But since these subsequent fusion processes provide less energy than the hydrogen burning. The sun will be a cool red giant and will loose a lot of its mass due to a strong wind with a high abundance of carbon. At some point, the whole fusion process stops, the interior of the sun collapses and expels a large amount of its shell into space containing relatively heavy elements like carbon and oxygen. Heavier elements can only be formed in stars with a higher mass than our sun. But the most heavy element that can be produced by fusion is iron. Even heavier elements can only be formed during supernovae of very massive stars (more than 8 times the solar mass). The rest of the sun's core is still very hot and will be able to be observed as a slowly cooling white dwarf.
    You can fusion elements up to any number possible. Even create elements that cannot exist in the earths atmosphere for any length of time. However these elements may only last a few seconds or less, when left in normal earth temperatures/radiatoin, or higher temperatures.

    There is no cap to fusion. That is how the scientists created the higher elements for research. Their only problem was that the purity could not be maintained. Because lower elements apparently formed through fission, and breakdown of the large radio active elements. Due to temperatures and radiation fields here on earth.

    That is why the elements above 86 were taboo, because you could not put them through the same rigourous testing the lower elements went through. The higher elements failed in purity tests.
    They thought that maybe out by Pluto, you could create them very purely. And then test them.

    Many a great German and American scientist died attempting to isolate these higher elements. Often they found that ores from different areas, containing impurities of less then 99.99 percent pure material, could totally alter the effect of the base element. Or cause a lethal reaction.

    I do not have enough information to say what the process is on the suns surface. I would say its a process that disintegrates hydrogen myself.

    However if two hydrogen atoms combine to form helium, the helium must be going somewhere, or it is going through a fission process to form hydrogen again. And more then likely a release of electrons, from the destruction of one hydrogen atom.

    I believe in high tech welding they uncovered this. They found hydrogen gas, formed where none existed using an atmosphere of very pure Helium. It appeared that hydrogen was forming in the plasma rays.

    If that is correct, then when the separate atoms of hydrogen bond to form the Siamese bond as it was called H2, then a tremendous amount of energy will be released.

    But to me even atomic hydrogen welding is misunderstood. The real culprit is that some hydrogen atoms are destroyed, when breaking away from other hydrogen atoms, releasing free electrons in the area. These free electrons block ambient radiation. And cause the effects of the sun or plasma ray.

    You just witness the release of energy along with the two atoms of hydrogen bonding to form the Siamese bond, during the actual blockage of ambient radiation. The energy is from the ambient radiation though. Not the bonding. It just coincides with the release.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Gravity is just slowed ambient radiation, repulsive energy from above us pushing us to the earth.

    We are filthy bags of electric. In a sea of electricity, going so fast that it does not have time to leave much of a charge. Or cause a differential. Unless we set up a diode.
    Go spelunking, Billy. It's a zero-G world in a cave. Imagine floating around in a "non-ambient radiation, repulsive energy from above" environment.
    The deeper you go the less the slowed ambient radiation from the surface will push you towards the center of the earth. When you get to the center. There would be no gravity in your cave at the core.

    I just wanted to add, that you would be the only thing attracting anything in the core. Ha-ha.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You can fusion elements up to any number possible. Even create elements that cannot exist in the earths atmosphere for any length of time. However these elements may only last a few seconds or less, when left in normal earth temperatures/radiatoin, or higher temperatures.
    True, in a lab. But it just does not work in stars, because you need more energy to create those atoms than you are gaining by the fusion. A natural reaction doing this would stop immediately.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I do not have enough information to say what the process is on the suns surface. I would say its a process that disintegrates hydrogen myself.
    Huh, the surface? It's just hot. The sun is a plasma of free nucleons and electrons bathing in a sea of photons (figuratively speaking).

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I believe in high tech welding they uncovered this. They found hydrogen gas, formed where none existed using an atmosphere of very pure Helium. It appeared that hydrogen was forming in the plasma rays.

    If that is correct, then when the separate atoms of hydrogen bond to form the Siamese bond as it was called H2, then a tremendous amount of energy will be released.
    Oh dear. There are three different phenomena mingled into one. Fusion is not hydrogen gas ionisation nor is it building an H2 molecule.

    1. Fusion means combining hydrogen isotopes to helium (2 protons, 2 neutrons).

    2. You cannot do this by welding. You need 15 Million degrees! What was probably observed was that the heat during welding dissociated water molecules in the air, i.e. the hydrogen atoms were stripped from the H2O.

    3. H2 gas is the molecular form of the hydrogen gas. It is easily dissociated into the atomic form. Most of the terrestrial hydrogen gas is atomic. Both species are electrically neutral.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You can fusion elements up to any number possible. Even create elements that cannot exist in the earths atmosphere for any length of time. However these elements may only last a few seconds or less, when left in normal earth temperatures/radiatoin, or higher temperatures.
    True, in a lab. But it just does not work in stars, because you need more energy to create those atoms than you are gaining by the fusion. A natural reaction doing this would stop immediately.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I do not have enough information to say what the process is on the suns surface. I would say its a process that disintegrates hydrogen myself.
    Huh, the surface? It's just hot. The sun is a plasma of free nucleons and electrons bathing in a sea of photons (figuratively speaking).

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I believe in high tech welding they uncovered this. They found hydrogen gas, formed where none existed using an atmosphere of very pure Helium. It appeared that hydrogen was forming in the plasma rays.

    If that is correct, then when the separate atoms of hydrogen bond to form the Siamese bond as it was called H2, then a tremendous amount of energy will be released.
    Oh dear. There are three different phenomena mingled into one. Fusion is not hydrogen gas ionisation nor is it building an H2 molecule.

    1. Fusion means combining hydrogen isotopes to helium (2 protons, 2 neutrons).

    2. You cannot do this by welding. You need 15 Million degrees! What was probably observed was that the heat during welding dissociated water molecules in the air, i.e. the hydrogen atoms were stripped from the H2O.

    3. H2 gas is the molecular form of the hydrogen gas. It is easily dissociated into the atomic form. Most of the terrestrial hydrogen gas is atomic. Both species are electrically neutral.


    There is one type of hydrogen. Anything else and you have contaminates. That is what the periodic table is about. That is rule one.

    Hydrogen may fusion up to helium, I have never done it, or am not aware I did it. So I would not know. Helium has two protons. A Siamese bond of helium would have four protons.

    There are no neutrons or were not until 1973, of course these same mind marbles that backed the neutron backed the Vietnam War.

    I was saying that hydrogen if in H2 form. Could split into its atomic form, some of the atomic hydrogen would breakdown fission away.

    Free electrons would cloud the area. Slowing ambient radiation creating heat rays. Then some of the hydrogen would recombine with other free atomic hydrogen if possible at those temperatures and start all over again.

    With a fresh supply of hydrogen coming from the edges of the universe.

    The sun may just disintegrate the atomic hydrogen. Most do not know to much about atomic hydrogen. Mostly they study H2. Not H1.

    H1 exists in a plasma or ARC. It has characteristics of element zero. A totally different element. That does not exist. Yet must have different principles then H2.

    Every element bonds with itself. Carbon in pure form is C2 it acts differently then carbon bonded to another element. One of the carbon atoms in a C2 bond, takes on some of the properties of the next lower element of the table. Often upon destruction you will get the next lower element from destroying a Siamese bond. C2 has some properties of boron.

    Some companies use these principles to make elements from other elements.

    O2 has properties of nitrogen. F2 has properties of oxygen. Pure nickle has some properties of copper. It has to do with how the exact bond of two identical atoms affects ambient radiation.

    You will probably just come back and tell me there are 11D2^27 boson quarks or something. Ha-ha.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Light has no mass. Light is electrons,
    Contradiction of the century. Wait I'm pretty sure some religious person may have beaten you to it.

    Electrons have a mass of roughly 1/1850 of a nucleon. So you're saying that light has no mass? Also we know that a mass travelling at light speed (to the observer) has infinite mass. Oh no you blew something up again Will...

    Please either read a common science book or get out of the field. You're clearly not quite getting it.
    Agree, light have mass
    Particle no mass can travel as wave?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisLee
    Agree, light have mass
    Particle no mass can travel as wave?
    No, light has no mass. Otherwise it could not have the speed of light. Photons can be described as massless particles. But in quantum mechanics, every particle can be described as a wave also. But they don't travel as fast as light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    The deeper you go the less the slowed ambient radiation from the surface will push you towards the center of the earth. When you get to the center. There would be no gravity in your cave at the core.
    So, ambient radiation is able to permeate thousands of miles of solid and molten rock, Billy? Tell us how that works?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    The deeper you go the less the slowed ambient radiation from the surface will push you towards the center of the earth. When you get to the center. There would be no gravity in your cave at the core.
    So, ambient radiation is able to permeate thousands of miles of solid and molten rock, Billy? Tell us how that works?
    Matter is 90 percent space. All ambient radiation races right through even tungsten and Uranium.
    What takes place at the surface is a bottle neck of electrons passing each other in all directions. These minor slow downs cause the effects of light, and make things visible.

    What you see coming from an object is not reflection, but rather the ambient radiation coming from behind the object slowing as it leaves. The atmosphere, glass, clear liquids, or partial vacuum, in combination with the object, produce, "the velocity electron that blasts your eye".

    Your eyes are electron sensors that detect the velocity and density of a certain color light. And that is converted to a picture of an object in our brain.

    Electrons are detected by the eye for their velocity. That is how I was taught anyhow.

    Ambient radiation is actually speeded up by solid matter. That is why matter does not move when you create a magnet. There is an equal and opposite reaction created in the magnet. That keeps it steady. Ambient radiation is deflected through a magnet. But that creates an equal force on the magnet in the opposite direction.

    Diodes tend not to move. However in some lithium battery accidents they have shown that they can under ARC conditions.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisLee
    Agree, light have mass
    Particle no mass can travel as wave?
    No, light has no mass. Otherwise it could not have the speed of light. Photons can be described as massless particles. But in quantum mechanics, every particle can be described as a wave also. But they don't travel as fast as light.

    Light is electrons, believe it or not. And electrons have no mass. they can never touch. There only charge, and the only charge in the universe is repel.
    Electricity is not effected by gravity. This was proven many times. But it puts a total damper on what science has claimed to do over the last 75 years.

    So it is just kind of tucked away.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    What you see coming from an object is not reflection, but rather the ambient radiation coming from behind the object slowing as it leaves
    .

    AND

    Ambient radiation is actually speeded up by solid matter.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    What you see coming from an object is not reflection, but rather the ambient radiation coming from behind the object slowing as it leaves
    .

    AND

    Ambient radiation is actually speeded up by solid matter.
    What am I missing? There was no error there.

    Within matter ambient radiation is speeded up. Ambient radiation flies pretty strait. In and out of matter.
    As it approaches a lighted surface it slows a bit. Then it is accelerated inside the dense matter. As it leaves the dense surface, if that surface is also lighted, it will slow to carry that information to the next surface.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    But we know electrons have mass, so that proves everything you are saying wrong does it not?
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And electrons have no mass.
    There are many experiments showing that they do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    as i understand it you cant accelerate an object past the speed of light because its mass increases as it approaches c, but light has no mass so why does it have a limit on its speed?
    Light speed is relative. Light travels at a percived velocity we see as 2.99792458x10^8m/sec/sec. Without that constant time dilation and relativistic effects would not occur. We'd be living in Newtons universe, (no offense there Newton). Light could for all we know travel much faster, light speed is a barrier to mass, and there are many experiments that always show inconsistencies with light, after all light allows for time dilation and length contraction etc, so that alone tells us that it is different from all matter.

    NEW THEORY:

    Everything with a Higgs Boson exchanging cannot go faster than light in Einsteinian space. (c) Stephen Victor Willmer May 20th 2008.

    Hehe, just in case it becomes something.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And electrons have no mass.
    There are many experiments showing that they do.
    Then electricity would be effected by gravity.

    And it is not. There were many experiments to this effect.

    It is only the structure of electrons in protons, and protons in larger atoms, that create diodes that can harness gravity.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    84
    Say, don't electrons move really fast? ( I think they do; someone correct me on this. ) If they move really fast, then wouldn't gravity have little, if any, affect on them?

    Just talking out of my ass here, don't mind me (I am curious about this though),
    My avatar looks like a vagina!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Electrons like any other observable manifestation of space-time is of course held in the thing we have very little understanding of, namely gravity.

    (stop using your ass).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And electrons have no mass.
    There are many experiments showing that they do.
    Then electricity would be effected by gravity.

    And it is not. There were many experiments to this effect.

    It is only the structure of electrons in protons, and protons in larger atoms, that create diodes that can harness gravity.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    But as gravity does not effect electricity then it just proves you are wrong...
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And electrons have no mass.
    There are many experiments showing that they do.
    Then electricity would be effected by gravity.

    And it is not. There were many experiments to this effect.

    It is only the structure of electrons in protons, and protons in larger atoms, that create diodes that can harness gravity.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    But as gravity does not effect electricity then it just proves you are wrong...

    What we don't understand fully may as well affect everything "improperly".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryon
    Say, don't electrons move really fast? ( I think they do; someone correct me on this. ) If they move really fast, then wouldn't gravity have little, if any, affect on them?
    First of all, electricity principally generates stronger forces than gravity. So, it is true that gravity has little effect, but it is not zero.

    All this is not related to the speed of electrons. The electrons CAN have large speeds, but the don't have them necessarily. Of course, the effects of any force depends on the duration of interaction, i.e. also the speed of electrons, because this determines, how long they are affected. But this applies equally to both the gravitational and electric forces.

    By the way: the propagation of electric energy in a cable or any electric circuit is not governed by the speed of the electrons but the speed of light that determines the propagation of the electromagnetic field produced by the moving electrons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Electrons, just as any energy wave/particle, is affected by gravity just as light is even though light has no mass. Electricity does not travel faster than light, so if light is affected by gravity, so to are electrons.

    Though neither are being affected by any "force" but rather the illusion of attraction is cause by an affect of space-time itself being curved and twisted by energy, mass and rotation.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And electrons have no mass.
    There are many experiments showing that they do.
    Where is one experiment showing that electricity is slowed by gravity?

    That would have to be tucked away somewhere until most that know better are dead.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And electrons have no mass.
    There are many experiments showing that they do.
    Then electricity would be effected by gravity.

    And it is not. There were many experiments to this effect.

    It is only the structure of electrons in protons, and protons in larger atoms, that create diodes that can harness gravity.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    But as gravity does not effect electricity then it just proves you are wrong...
    Not at all. Matter can effect ambient radiation. By charging matter with electrons. Matter can effect matter. However ambient radiation has a hard time effecting ambient radiation.

    Gravity, electricity, light are all ambient radiation at different velocities. All tend to place their influence on matter. Not on other ambient radiation.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryon
    Say, don't electrons move really fast? ( I think they do; someone correct me on this. ) If they move really fast, then wouldn't gravity have little, if any, affect on them?
    First of all, electricity principally generates stronger forces than gravity. So, it is true that gravity has little effect, but it is not zero.

    All this is not related to the speed of electrons. The electrons CAN have large speeds, but the don't have them necessarily. Of course, the effects of any force depends on the duration of interaction, i.e. also the speed of electrons, because this determines, how long they are affected. But this applies equally to both the gravitational and electric forces.

    By the way: the propagation of electric energy in a cable or any electric circuit is not governed by the speed of the electrons but the speed of light that determines the propagation of the electromagnetic field produced by the moving electrons.
    An oscilloscope can easily show the difference in speed/time of bringing electron pressure to an area further away, is different depending on whether the source is high or low voltage.

    High voltage brings high pressure sooner then low voltage, to the same spot on a conductor. And it also brings an equal voltage to the same place sooner. An oscilloscope easily proves this.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    An oscilloscope can easily show the difference in speed/time of bringing electron pressure to an area further away, is different depending on whether the source is high or low voltage.

    High voltage brings high pressure sooner then low voltage, to the same spot on a conductor. And it also brings an equal voltage to the same place sooner. An oscilloscope easily proves this.
    I have never denied that electrons can have different velocities. And of course it depends on the electric field i.e. the voltage applied to them. This is a result of the force created by the potential difference. Is this, what you wanted to say? This is already explained by the simple Ohm's law saying that the current (electric charge per time interval) is proportional to the voltage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And electrons have no mass.
    There are many experiments showing that they do.
    Where is one experiment showing that electricity is slowed by gravity?
    Already the last question is wrong. It cannot be answered, because the assumption behind it is faulty. Electricity is not identical to electrons. Electrons can cause electric fields, but their velocities are very different. Electricity is transmitted with the speed of light, while electrons can have much slower velocities. The electron velocity determines the electric current. But this is not identical to the interaction velocity of electric fields.

    In this sense, you can show that the velocity of electrons can be altered by gravity, but not the velocity of electric interaction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •