Thread: Mass: a tiny step for atoms, but a huge leap for us.

Hi everybody, here is a theory of mine about mass.

While trying to imagine how two identical atoms could perceive themselves and act from this perception, I fist had to assume #1 that they were continuously emitting light, #2 that they were both emitting their pulses at the same frequency, and #3 that they could compare those together, which meant for me #4 that they had to be synchronized at the origin, and #5 that they had to act to stay so since then.

Then, I took the place of one of the two atoms of a molecule, and I observed what would happen if the other atom would undergo a tiny push in my direction. While moving towards me, this atom would lose its synchronism because of the doppler effect, so that to recover it, it would not only have to resist to the push, but it would also stop moving as soon as the push would have ceased. When the light pulses from this push would catch me, they would look shortened because of the same doppler effect, and I would have to accelerate in the same direction than them to stretch them, thus while going away from the other atom, then stop moving as soon as there would be no more doppler effect, so as to stay synchronized with the pulses. So doing, my own pulses would stretch in the direction of the other atom, and when they would catch it, he too would have to accelerate to stay synchronized but this time, in an opposite direction from them, thus to stretch them while getting closer to me, and he should also end by stopping its pace when no doppler effect would show. Because of our interaction not being instantaneous, and to be able to stay synchronized, we would thus have to follow each other constantly while moving in the same direction as our original push. Observed from far away, we would appear to be in constant motion, but from closer and in slow motion, we would be moving step by step one after the other in a "measuring worm" way.

What struck me in this simple mass principle, is that it explains more than how a body resists to its acceleration: in the same token, but in an unexpected way, it also explains inertial motion. You like?

Here is a small animation of those tiny steps:
http://www.imabox.fr/a1/1330012244GUqjJs19.swf

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I fist had to assume #1 that they were continuously emitting light

But they aren't.

I won't go into the rest.

How Dy,
Poor atoms, I hope they are not afraid of darkness! Electrons that link two atoms of a molecule do not irradiate outside of the system either, but they should since they are necessarily in motion. I use light to facilitate the comprehension, but the doppler effect that I am talking about also applies to electrons since they interact with the nucleus's in a wave way. Think of it this way: if you push an electron towards the nucleus, will the nucleus obey to the push instantly? And if not, what really happens to the links between its atoms when we push a body away.

Here are a few numbers about the steps that I caculated, just for the fun of it, but be aware that precision is not my cup of tea.

First consideration: since they concern mass, those calculations concern resistance to acceleration and inertial motion.

- Concerning inertial motion.


When we walk, the frequency of our steps can remain constant while we change their length, permitting us to change our inertial speed without changing their frequency, which is how I suggest that the atoms proceed: the limit of that speed is then given by the length of our legs and by their strength.

In the same way, the length limit of the atom's steps is given by the length of their link, which varies from 100 to 500 picometers (10^-12 m), while the strength of that link varies from 100 to 800 kj/mol.

For the frequency of the steps, I will try first the average frequency of visible light, which is around 500 terahertz (10¹² steps/s).

At the frequency of 10¹² steps/s, for the atoms to travel 1 m/s, the steps will be 10^-12 meter long, and it will take 100 to 500 steps to travel the distance between two atoms, which is between 100 and 500 x 10^-12 meter.

But at that frequency, for a speed of 1 km/s, the steps would have to be 1,000 x 10^-12 meter long, longer than the distance between two atoms, so I conclude that their frequency must be grater than 10¹² steps/s.

If I use 10¹⁸ steps/s instead, for the atoms to travel 1m/s, the steps would be 10^-18 meter long, which is OK for a 1 km/s speed, but not for the speed of light, which is 3 x 10⁸ m/s, and which would give us steps 3 x 10^-10 meter long, much longer than the distance between two atoms.

If we want to account for the speed of light and still count lots of steps in the distance between two atoms, we have to use a gamma ray frequency for the steps, but since the steps themselves are not in inertial motion, since they accelerate and decelerate constantly, their speed at the end of an acceleration would be grater than the speed of the light, because it is light that produces them by means of the doppler effect, which is physically impossible. Relativity does not provide us with a physical mechanism to explain mass increase: here is thus a possible one.


- Concerning resistance to acceleration.


I have to calculate the energy needed to accelerate a step, to stretch it from zero to 10^-18 picometer long, which should be equal to its resistance to that particular acceleration, but without using the mass of that atom as a given.

To stretch its step, this atom has to break the synchronism of the link with the other atom for one second by steps of 10^-18 second, and that link is around 10^-21 kj/atom for a 600 kj/mole atom (1 mole is 6x10²³ atoms), but for the moment, I do not know how to calculate the energy needed to stretch or shrink such an atomic link by only 10^-18 picometer. Do you? If we had that number, we could compare it to the kinetic energy of an atom whose mass is around 10^-27 kg and speed around one m/s, which is .5 x 10^-27 kj.

I cannot find a way to calculate the energy of one step from the total link energy between two atoms, but I can calculate the kinetic energy of that step and see how it compares with the total link energy.


For an atom of mass 10^-27 kg and speed 10^-18m/10^-18s
the kinetic energy is .5 x 10^-27 kg.m².s^-2
which is 10^-27 j

or 10^-30 kj
and the total link energy is 10^-21 kj/atom
which means that, at the frequency of 10¹⁸ steps/s, the kinetic energy of any step between two atoms would have to be around 10⁹ times more energetic than 10^-27 kg.m².s^-2 to break their link.

Does it help anyone to understand what I am talking about?

Sorry for the doublet.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Hi everybody, here is a theory of mine about mass.

While trying to imagine how two identical atoms could perceive themselves and act from this perception, I fist had to assume #1 that they were continuously emitting light, #2 that they were both emitting their pulses at the same frequency, and #3 that they could compare those together, which meant for me #4 that they had to be synchronized at the origin, and #5 that they had to act to stay so since then.

Then, I took the place of one of the two atoms of a molecule, and I observed what would happen if the other atom would undergo a tiny push in my direction. While moving towards me, this atom would lose its synchronism because of the doppler effect, so that to recover it, it would not only have to resist to the push, but it would also stop moving as soon as the push would have ceased. When the light pulses from this push would catch me, they would look shortened because of the same doppler effect, and I would have to accelerate in the same direction than them to stretch them, thus while going away from the other atom, then stop moving as soon as there would be no more doppler effect, so as to stay synchronized with the pulses. So doing, my own pulses would stretch in the direction of the other atom, and when they would catch it, he too would have to accelerate to stay synchronized but this time, in an opposite direction from them, thus to stretch them while getting closer to me, and he should also end by stopping its pace when no doppler effect would show. Because of our interaction not being instantaneous, and to be able to stay synchronized, we would thus have to follow each other constantly while moving in the same direction as our original push. Observed from far away, we would appear to be in constant motion, but from closer and in slow motion, we would be moving step by step one after the other in a "measuring worm" way.

What struck me in this simple mass principle, is that it explains more than how a body resists to its acceleration: in the same token, but in an unexpected way, it also explains inertial motion. You like?

Here is a small animation of those tiny steps:
http://www.imabox.fr/a1/1330012244GUqjJs19.swf

This idea doesn't work. If atoms emitted light all the time they would lose energy continuously. Eventually they would run out.

Or do you have some new notion of light in which it carries no energy? If you do, there are a number of things you will have trouble explaining.

What you are forgetting is that an atom is not a classical system, but a quantum system. The only way for an atom to emit light would be if one of the electrons falls into a lower state of excitation; eventually though all electrons will reach their ground states in their respective orbitals, at which point no further emission is possible - it is forbidden by the laws of quantum mechanics.

but they should since they are necessarily in motion

Yes - that is why you cannot use the laws of classical mechanics to analyse this situation. You need to employ the tools of quantum mechanics, or else nothing meaningful will come off it; and when you do that you will find that there is no continuous emission of any kind here.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

What you are forgetting is that an atom is not a classical system, but a quantum system. The only way for an atom to emit light would be if one of the electrons falls into a lower state of excitation; eventually though all electrons will reach their ground states in their respective orbitals, at which point no further emission is possible - it is forbidden by the laws of quantum mechanics.

but they should since they are necessarily in motion

Yes - that is why you cannot use the laws of classical mechanics to analyse this situation. You need to employ the tools of quantum mechanics, or else nothing meaningful will come off it; and when you do that you will find that there is no continuous emission of any kind here.

Quite.

However, Markus, I'm assuming this person is trying to replace the whole QM theory of atomic structure with something else.

What can one say but Allez: bonne chance.

Thank you both for answering.

I know that electrons do not radiate light outside a molecule, but their nucleus have to exchange some kind of energy with them to stay linked, an energy which stays inside the system, and if this energy is quantized, doppler effect must affect it. If, for a two atom molecule, we push an atom towards the other one, whatever it is that is exchanged, the interaction cannot be instantaneous, and doppler effect must affect it if what they exchange is discrete. What I suggest is that their interaction is then synchronized, and that they resit to an acceleration because they then have to lose their synchronism and recover it later, but since they lost it and their interaction is not instantaneous, they go on moving endlessly step by step at each wave crest they perceive trying to stay synchronized with it. This principle does not only explain the resistance to an acceleration, but also the inertial motion that follows, because the characteristics of light does not only carry information about time and distances, it also informs us about the speed and the direction of motion. Why couldn't it entertain motion the way I suggest then?

Merci pour la chance et pour le français Exchemist!

No, for the moment, I do not want to change the world that much, I only want to test the logical part of an idea I had about mass.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Thank you both for answering.

I know that electrons do not radiate light outside a molecule, but their nucleus have to exchange some kind of energy with them to stay linked, an energy which stays inside the system, and if this energy is quantized, doppler effect must affect it. If, for a two atom molecule, we push an atom towards the other one, whatever it is that is exchanged, the interaction cannot be instantaneous, and doppler effect must affect it if what they exchange is discrete. What I suggest is that their interaction is then synchronized, and that they resit to an acceleration because they then have to lose their synchronism and recover it later, but since they lost it and their interaction is not instantaneous, they go on moving endlessly step by step at each wave crest they perceive trying to stay synchronized with it. This principle does not only explain the resistance to an acceleration, but also the inertial motion that follows, because the characteristics of light does not only carry information about time and distances, it also informs us about the speed and the direction of motion. Why couldn't it entertain motion then?

Don't you think that your time would be spent better by learning science than making up fringe theories?

Hi Howard,

We can walk and think both at a time, don't we? I can't force you to like what I think though!

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Hi Howard,

We can walk and think both at a time, don't we? I can't force you to like what I think though!

This is non-sequitur, how does your posting fringe stuff contribute to your leaning?

I have to learn to develop my ideas all by myself, and I do here just by answering questions and reading the answers to mine or to other topics, but I also hope to find people that already know better than me how to link the principle of the small steps to the data from the observations.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I have to learn to develop my ideas all by myself,

You do not need to lear all by yourself, you need to go to school and learn physics from people that can teach you. Making up fringe stuff is not a valid form of learning.

If you already developed new ideas, you probably know that you can get the knowledge while you progress. You seem to believe that the only way to learn is at school, but one can also learn by himself you know, and the web is a good tool for that. Here is an idea that I developed 35 years ago all by myself with only the basics of aerodynamics and materials involved, no computer, no engineering, just essay and error. I know the basics of physics, I had an idea about mass, and I am developing it. Why not?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

If you already developed new ideas, you probably know that you can get the knowledge while you progress. You seem to believe that the only way to learn is at school, but one can also learn by himself you know, and the web is a good tool for that.

I agree that you can learn by yourself. By the same token, posting fringe stuff is not a valid form of learning.

I had an idea about mass, and I am developing it. Why not?

Because mainstream physics (both theory and experiment) ALREADY prove your "idea" to be wrong. That is "why not".

To say that an idea is wrong does not prove that it is. A new idea does not have to cope with previous theories, it only has to cope with data, with observations, and I think that mine does, otherwise I would not have suggested it. Tell me how the small steps that I describe would produce different data than those that we already have about atoms.

Originally Posted by Howard

I agree that you can learn by yourself. By the same token, posting fringe stuff is not a valid form of learning.

If it does not contradict the data, it is not fringe stuff, on the other hand, solving real problems that affect you is a good way to learn.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

To say that an idea is wrong does not prove that it is. A new idea does not have to cope with previous theories, it only has to cope with data, with observations, and I think that mine does, otherwise I would not have suggested it. Tell me how the small steps that I describe would produce different data than those that we already have about atoms.

Existent experimental data disproves your crackpotery. This makes your theory DOA.

Originally Posted by Howard

I agree that you can learn by yourself. By the same token, posting fringe stuff is not a valid form of learning.

If it does not contradict the data, it is not fringe stuff, on the other hand, solving real problems that affect you is a good way to learn.

The thing is, you haven't solved anything, you are making up crackpot posts. Several people already debunked your nonsense, how many people do you need to disprove your claims?

It is not how many which is important, it is what they say, and up to now, nobody has said anything that convinces me, and you won't convince me either with what you say. If you know the physics of atoms, tell me why the small steps would not produce the same data that we already have.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

It is not how many which is important, it is what they say, and up to now, nobody has said anything that convinces me, and you won't convince me either with what you say.

I am sorry to say, but this is the classical crank attitude.

If you know the physics of atoms, tell me why the small steps would not produce the same data that we already have.

Because atoms (with the exception of the actinide group do NOT radiate em energy. This has been known for about 120 years. So, experiment renders your "theory" DOA.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

but their nucleus have to exchange some kind of energy with them to stay linked

No, there is no exchange of energy, it is stationary quantum state. Like I said, you are trying to analyse this quantum system in terms of classical mechanics, which quite simply does not work. Classical mechanics failing here was the very impetus that originally led to the development of quantum physics.

tell me why the small steps would not produce the same data that we already have

Precisely which data are you referring to here ?

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

but their nucleus have to exchange some kind of energy with them to stay linked

No, there is no exchange of energy, it is stationary quantum state. Like I said, you are trying to analyse this quantum system in terms of classical mechanics, which quite simply does not work. Classical mechanics failing here was the very impetus that originally led to the development of quantum physics.

At the origin, quantum physics was about electrons of a particular atom not producing the whole range of light frequencies, it was not about the links between the atoms. If the atoms were not exchanging energy to maintain their link, it would mean that they do not interact. Is that what you mean?

Originally Posted by Markus

tell me why the small steps would not produce the same data that we already have

Precisely which data are you referring to here ?

There are two very different data: those about mass, and those about light. On one hand, in the same token, the small steps explain the two properties of mass, resisting to acceleration and inertial motion, and we can calculate if they can give the same observed numbers. On the other hand, we have the numbers about light and we can also calculate if, when accelerated, thus when their synchronism is broken, the observed light frequencies could also escape from the small steps.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

There are two very different data: those about mass, and those about light. On one hand, in the same token, the small steps explain the two properties of mass, resisting to acceleration and inertial motion, and we can calculate if they can give the same observed numbers. On the other hand, we have the numbers about light and we can also calculate if, when accelerated, thus when their synchronism is broken, the observed light frequencies could also escape from the small steps.

This is the point where we can all have Ranch (or Italian) with the above.

So??

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

So??

So does this also explain gravity?

Hi Rob,

Yes it does, but in an unexpected way too. The small steps at the micro level justify the inertial motion at the macro level, but they also justify any motion, thus any acceleration. If, for instance, the steps that two linked atoms execute change their phase with time because of relativistic effects, it will not change their frequency, so it will not change the speed of that molecule, but if the information from these steps travels a long time in space, it will not be in phase with the information which is exchanged between any other set of atoms linked closely together, and it will affect their steps.

The information that I am talking about is the gravitational doppler effect that we observe from galaxies: as I see it, it accelerates constantly the steps between the atoms, and this acceleration increases with the increase in doppler effect, which as we know, increases with the distance, but decreases with the intensity, which decreases with the square of the distance, as with the laws of gravitation. With the small steps, all the atoms accelerate their steps towards all the other atoms at the same pace gravitation does, but they also execute constant length steps when they are linked, which justifies their constant motion, and for a given atom, all its steps are executed at the same frequency and at the same time, which means that, in one step, it integrates the information from all the atoms of the universe and moves towards each of them in that same step.

I am not sure that it is clear enough because I am a bit tired, so don't hesitate to question if it is not clear to you.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Hi Rob,

Yes it does, but in an unexpected way too. The small steps at the micro level justify the inertial motion at the macro level, but they also justify any motion, thus any acceleration. If, for instance, the steps that two linked atoms execute change their phase with time because of relativistic effects, it will not change their frequency, so it will not change the speed of that molecule, but if the information from these steps travels a long time in space, it will not be in phase with the information which is exchanged between any other set of atoms linked closely together, and it will affect their steps.

The information that I am talking about is the gravitational doppler effect that we observe from galaxies: as I see it, it accelerates constantly the steps between the atoms, and this acceleration increases with the increase in doppler effect, which as we know, increases with the distance, but decreases with the intensity, which decreases with the square of the distance, as with the laws of gravitation. With the small steps, all the atoms accelerate their steps towards all the other atoms at the same pace gravitation does, but they also execute constant length steps when they are linked, which justifies their constant motion, and for a given atom, all its steps are executed at the same frequency and at the same time, which means that, in one step, it integrates the information from all the atoms of the universe and moves towards each of them in that same step.

I am not sure that it is clear enough because I am a bit tired, so don't hesitate to question if it is not clear to you.

Definitely Ranch.

If, for you, "having Ranch with" means "doing something with", your two answers are ambiguous to me. What do you mean exactly?

"Having Ranch with" means having a side dressing (ranch) with your salad.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

If, for you, "having Ranch with" means "doing something with", your two answers are ambiguous to me. What do you mean exactly?

Ranch = sauce. Your post doesn't make a lot of sense, so they say it is salad and it needs ranch with it.

You definitely need to work on explaining better.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

If, for you, "having Ranch with" means "doing something with", your two answers are ambiguous to me. What do you mean exactly?

Ranch = sauce. Your post doesn't make a lot of sense, so they say it is salad and it needs ranch with it. You definitely need to work on explaining better.

I was far from the right definition, but close to what Howard really meant. It is easier to explain when people ask precise questions though. The fist reaction to something unknown is always rejection, it is natural instinct, and it takes time until it changes. I am here to invite people to participate to a process of discovery, like a work in progress in arts, not to impose my own view about it. My explanations are incomplete because my ideas are incomplete. Can you imagine the atoms making small steps to cover the distance that separates them? Do you realize what it would mean if they really did?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

... Can you imagine the atoms making small steps to cover the distance that separates them? Do you realize what it would mean if they really did?

No I can't actually. I think once something is in motion it is in motion, so it will continuously move. OK each increment in velocity might be a tiny step, so acceleration could be step-wise.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

The fist reaction to something unknown is always rejection,

What you posted is not "something unknown", it is something well KNOWN: fringe BS.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

The fist reaction to something unknown is always rejection,

What you posted is not "something unknown", it is something well KNOWN: fringe BS.

That is a bit harsh as it hasn't been explained adequately yet. It is like if you ever did have a new idea, you don't know how to describe it yet.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

At the origin, quantum physics was about electrons of a particular atom not producing the whole range of light frequencies, it was not about the links between the atoms.

Let's get the historical reasons for that progression expressed with more clarity. The simple reason that bonds between atoms weren't attacked first is that you have to understand the atoms first! That took time, of course, and the fact that it did doesn't mean that there were no aspirations to apply the theory someday to more than just the hydrogen atom. Eventually and gradually, it happened: A guy named Linus Pauling won a Nobel in chemistry for applying QM to the nature of the chemical bond.

Hi tk421, thank you for the history!

The full answer to Markus Hanke was:

"At the origin, quantum physics was about electrons of a particular atom not producing the whole range of light frequencies, it was not about the links between the atoms. If the atoms were not exchanging energy to maintain their link, it would mean that they do not interact. Is that what you mean?"

Do you have an historical answer to my question? Are the atoms holding together only because of electrons being in a stationary quantum state, or do they necessary have to exchange some kind of energy, or information? And if they do, is this energy or information necessarily quantized?

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

The fist reaction to something unknown is always rejection,

What you posted is not "something unknown", it is something well KNOWN: fringe BS.

You probably mean that what I posted is unknown, but that the mainstream explains it already. It is always the case in science, this is why we should always stick to data to decide if a new idea has to be examined or not. Instead of comparing the theories, tell me where the small steps cannot produce the same light and the same resistance to acceleration than the ones we observe.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

... Can you imagine the atoms making small steps to cover the distance that separates them? Do you realize what it would mean if they really did?

No I can't actually. I think once something is in motion it is in motion, so it will continuously move.

This is the actual thinking, which has been going on since the beginning of humanity. It is a bit old, and it has never been examined. Mass gives motion is the only explanation of motion we have. It is not a very elaborate one, don't you think?

OK each increment in velocity might be a tiny step, so acceleration could be step-wise.

Good! It is effectively easier to accept the small steps for acceleration since mass is measured as resistance to acceleration, but the steps explain the resistance more precisely: it is a resistance to a change in frequency of the steps, which means that a "no change in frequency" results in a constant motion of the bodies the atoms are part of. When we walk, we can see our steps going one after the other, but we also know that we are then going at a constant speed. To accelerate, we can increase their frequency, or we can make longer steps. What I suggest is that atoms cannot change the frequency of their steps, which is why they resist an acceleration, but that they can stretch them, as long as the light that they exchange permits them to do so, which means that there is going to be relativistic effects when their speed gets close to the speed of light. Do you understand better the principle?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

The fist reaction to something unknown is always rejection,

What you posted is not "something unknown", it is something well KNOWN: fringe BS.

You probably mean that what I posted is unknown,

No, it is known, it is known as crackpoterry.

Instead of comparing the theories, tell me where the small steps cannot produce the same light and the same resistance to acceleration than the ones we observe.

Except that you did not perform any experiment, you are simply pasting your crankeries all over the internet.

Hey, relax, hunting is not opened out here yet, you are not allowed to fire, just to observe and appreciate your future target.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Hey, relax, hunting is not opened out here yet, you are not allowed to fire, just to observe and appreciate your future target.

Not even for catching anti-relativity, anti-mainstream reptiles? I simply cage them. :-)

Didn't you read the sign, it says that I am an endangered specie. If you cage me, I wont be able to reproduce myself.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Hi tk421, thank you for the history!

The full answer to Markus Hanke was:

"At the origin, quantum physics was about electrons of a particular atom not producing the whole range of light frequencies, it was not about the links between the atoms. If the atoms were not exchanging energy to maintain their link, it would mean that they do not interact. Is that what you mean?"

Do you have an historical answer to my question? Are the atoms holding together only because of electrons being in a stationary quantum state, or do they necessary have to exchange some kind of energy, or information? And if they do, is this energy or information necessarily quantized?

No they do not exchange energy or information. It is electrostatic attraction that lies behind chemical bonding. The negatively charged electrons are confined by the double electrostatic potential well formed by the two positively charged nuclei and take up a standing wave pattern called a molecular orbital, rather than the single-well atomic orbitals they occupy in isolated atoms. As in atoms, a maximum of two electrons can occupy each orbital, and this requires them to have opposed directions of spin. As with atoms there is a family of allowed orbital states, each with a discrete energy level. Molecules in the ground state will have all the electrons occupying the lowest energy orbitals they can, subject to the constraint that only 2 can go into each one. No energy exchange between electrons, or between the electrons and the nuclei, is involved.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I wont be able to reproduce myself.

That would be a bonus for the society. Less polluters.

But less evolution too. Considering natural selection, who knows from what genes will emerge the future humanity?

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

...Are the atoms holding together only because of electrons being in a stationary quantum state, or do they necessary have to exchange some kind of energy, or information? And if they do, is this energy or information necessarily quantized?

No they do not exchange energy or information. It is electrostatic attraction that lies behind chemical bonding. The negatively charged electrons are confined by the double electrostatic potential well formed by the two positively charged nuclei and take up a standing wave pattern called a molecular orbital, rather than the single-well atomic orbitals they occupy in isolated atoms. As in atoms, a maximum of two electrons can occupy each orbital, and this requires them to have opposed directions of spin. As with atoms there is a family of allowed orbital states, each with a discrete energy level. Molecules in the ground state will have all the electrons occupying the lowest energy orbitals they can, subject to the constraint that only 2 can go into each one. No energy exchange between electrons, or between the electrons and the nuclei, is involved.

Thanks for the history too exchemist! But I knew about it. My question is about atoms being linked or not, because being linked means holding together even if something tries to separate you, which is the case for molecules in a gaseous form. Do you really think that such molecules can hold together without their atoms exchanging some sort of energy or information between them?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Do you really think that such molecules can hold together without their atoms exchanging some sort of energy or information between them?

The correct answer begins by not restricting the notion of forces to the "glue" that binds atoms together in molecules. In modern physics, forces are mediated by virtual particles (in electromagnetism, it's the photon, and it's electromagnetism that explains chemical bonding, as exchemist has pointed out). If you want to call that an exchange of energy, I suppose that would be ok, if not terribly useful. As to calling it an exchange of information, I don't see any quantitatively meaningful sense in which that terminology would be helpful.

All that said, this energy exchange applies to what causes magnets to attract and repel, what causes "static cling" in your laundry bits, as well as to what binds atoms together.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Hi tk421, thank you for the history!

The full answer to Markus Hanke was:

"At the origin, quantum physics was about electrons of a particular atom not producing the whole range of light frequencies, it was not about the links between the atoms. If the atoms were not exchanging energy to maintain their link, it would mean that they do not interact. Is that what you mean?"

Do you have an historical answer to my question? Are the atoms holding together only because of electrons being in a stationary quantum state, or do they necessary have to exchange some kind of energy, or information? And if they do, is this energy or information necessarily quantized?

No they do not exchange energy or information. It is electrostatic attraction that lies behind chemical bonding. The negatively charged electrons are confined by the double electrostatic potential well formed by the two positively charged nuclei and take up a standing wave pattern called a molecular orbital, rather than the single-well atomic orbitals they occupy in isolated atoms. As in atoms, a maximum of two electrons can occupy each orbital, and this requires them to have opposed directions of spin. As with atoms there is a family of allowed orbital states, each with a discrete energy level. Molecules in the ground state will have all the electrons occupying the lowest energy orbitals they can, subject to the constraint that only 2 can go into each one. No energy exchange between electrons, or between the electrons and the nuclei, is involved.

I think the understanding is that virtual photons are involved.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Do you really think that such molecules can hold together without their atoms exchanging some sort of energy or information between them?

The correct answer begins by not restricting the notion of forces to the "glue" that binds atoms together in molecules. In modern physics, forces are mediated by virtual particles (in electromagnetism, it's the photon, and it's electromagnetism that explains chemical bonding, as exchemist has pointed out). If you want to call that an exchange of energy, I suppose that would be ok, if not terribly useful. As to calling it an exchange of information, I don't see any quantitatively meaningful sense in which that terminology would be helpful.

All that said, this energy exchange applies to what causes magnets to attract and repel, what causes "static cling" in your laundry bits, as well as to what binds atoms together.

The virtual photons are of the right strength aren't they?

Tk421, I guess we are on the same wave length concerning the exchange of energy, lets see if we can dance.

Dancers need to stay synchronized with the frequency of the music if they want to whirl around the dance floor without stepping on each other's feet, and similarly, what I think is that the energy that atoms exchange must be transferred at a certain frequency for them to be able to stay linked when they move. Do you accept the possibility that the atoms are able to send and perceive a linking energy that has a stable frequency?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

But less evolution too.

Not E(volution). In(volution). What you "offer" is going backwards in science, not forward.

Evolution is about hazard being part of the process. What I offer is a completely new point of view on mass, and I had this idea by chance. Take a chance to analyze it, who knows?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

What I offer is a completely new point of view on mass, and I had this idea by chance. Take a chance to analyze it, who knows?

I analyzed it, it contradicts EXISTENT experimental evidence, making it DOA. What cranks don't know is that proposing a theory that is contradicted by existent experimental evidence renders the "theory" worthless.

It does not contradict the existence of mass, and it does not contradict either the existence of mediators between particles, so what does it contradict exactly?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

It does not contradict the existence of mass, and it does not contradict either the existence of mediators between particles, so what does it contradict exactly?

Same as here. But you feel compelled to post the same crankery on multiple forums, right?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Dancers need to stay synchronized with the frequency of the music if they want to whirl around the dance floor without stepping on each other's feet, and similarly, what I think is that the energy that atoms exchange must be transferred at a certain frequency for them to be able to stay linked when they move. Do you accept the possibility that the atoms are able to send and perceive a linking energy that has a stable frequency?

You are far too dependent on irrelevant metaphor -- it is misleading you to draw connexions where there are none.

First, although dancers often need to be synchronised, the force carriers need not be. The virtual photons that QED invokes for the Coulumb force, for example, pop into and out of existence more or less randomly. There's nothing with a constant "frequency" that you can identify with the "energy". There is no music. There is no spoon.

As one of my physics teachers, the great (and still living, at over 90 years) Anthony French once admonished, "Be wary of too deep an attachment to 'elegance'. Nature is as nature is."

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

It does not contradict the existence of mass, and it does not contradict either the existence of mediators between particles, so what does it contradict exactly?

Same as here. But you feel compelled to post the same crankery on multiple forums, right?

This link is about a mind experience of SR, not about mass, and I do not discuss SR there, I discuss the difference in doing a mind experience with light and a real experiment with light. Try to answer me: from your point of view, what does my proposition contradict exactly?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

It does not contradict the existence of mass, and it does not contradict either the existence of mediators between particles, so what does it contradict exactly?

Same as here. But you feel compelled to post the same crankery on multiple forums, right?

This link is about a mind experience of SR, not about mass, and I do not discuss SR there, I discuss the difference in doing a mind experience with light and a real experiment with light. Try to answer me: from your point of view, what does my proposition contradict exactly?

That's not true, u are posting the same exact nonsense about "atom synchronization", "atom frequencies", etc.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Dancers need to stay synchronized with the frequency of the music if they want to whirl around the dance floor without stepping on each other's feet, and similarly, what I think is that the energy that atoms exchange must be transferred at a certain frequency for them to be able to stay linked when they move. Do you accept the possibility that the atoms are able to send and perceive a linking energy that has a stable frequency?

You are far too dependent on irrelevant metaphor -- it is misleading you to draw connexions where there are none. First, although dancers often need to be synchronized, the force carriers need not be.

Of course it doesn't need to if it only serves as a static link, but it could if it serves as a motion inducer.

The virtual photons that QED invokes for the Coulumb force, for example, pop into and out of existence more or less randomly. There's nothing with a constant "frequency" that you can identify with the "energy".

There is nothing to identify at all you mean, which lets us imagine anything we want, so why not imagine a frequency, that we cannot yet identify, but that the atoms could, because they are concerned. Of course, if there is no frequency for them to respect, there is no doppler effect to observe, there are no steps to make, and no mass to develop. All my proposition relies on atoms exchanging quantifiable energy.

As one of my physics teachers, the great (and still living, at over 90 years) Anthony French once admonished, "Be wary of too deep an attachment to 'elegance'. Nature is as nature is."

I suppose you were discussing Relativity or Entanglement, were you?

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

It does not contradict the existence of mass, and it does not contradict either the existence of mediators between particles, so what does it contradict exactly?

Same as here. But you feel compelled to post the same crankery on multiple forums, right?

This link is about a mind experience of SR, not about mass, and I do not discuss SR there, I discuss the difference in doing a mind experience with light and a real experiment with light. Try to answer me: from your point of view, what does my proposition contradict exactly?

That's not true, u are posting the same exact nonsense about "atom synchronization", "atom frequencies", etc.

You are right, but it was only to show that I had a way to explain the contradictions of the mind experiments from SR, a way which I developed in another topic, as I do here. You want the french links where I defend my ideas since a couple of years? Maybe you want my telephone number and my address to investigate if I am not a child eater? I will facilitate your job: my name is close to crackPotvin, and my fist name close to Rayoflight. Good luck with your search!

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by tk421

First, although dancers often need to be synchronized, the force carriers need not be.

Of course it doesn't need to if it only serves as a static link, but it could if it serves as a motion inducer.

But here is where experiment unfortunately intrudes. We observe no single-frequency motions. Indeed, thermodynamics would fail rather seriously if, e.g., electron motions all had only the same set of discrete frequencies. Achieving equilibrium requires mode spreading, which is the opposite of the synchronised motion-inducing behaviour that you are positing.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by tk421

The virtual photons that QED invokes for the Coulumb force, for example, pop into and out of existence more or less randomly. There's nothing with a constant "frequency" that you can identify with the "energy".

There is nothing to identify at all you mean, which lets us imagine anything we want, so why not imagine a frequency, that we cannot yet identify, but that the atoms could, because they are concerned. Of course, if there is no frequency for them to respect, there is no doppler effect to observe, there are no steps to make, and no mass to develop. All my proposition relies on atoms exchanging quantifiable energy.

Of course one is free to imagine anything one pleases. However, if one is also claiming to do science, then that imagination has to conform to certain norms. One of these has to do with experimental evidence. Another has to do with logical self-consistency.

Your phrase "...no frequency for them to respect [implies that] there is no doppler effect to observe" is unclear in meaning. If by "frequency" you are still referring to your notion that atoms dance in synchrony with the force carriers that convey the Coulomb force, then your statement is simply wrong. One could, for example, change the rhythm of your putative dance by heating an acoustic reflector to high temperatures. Yet, we find that the doppler shift depends not at all on the temperature of this reflector. It depends only on the gross macroscopic motion of the reflector itself. There being no fixed relationship between the microscopic dance and this macroscopic motion, your theory fails.

Originally Posted by Le Rapteux

Originally Posted by tk421

As one of my physics teachers, the great (and still living, at over 90 years) Anthony French once admonished, "Be wary of too deep an attachment to 'elegance'. Nature is as nature is."

I suppose you were discussing Relativity or Entanglement, were you?

No -- we were in a philosophical discussion about what constitutes a good approach to developing new theories. Many of us repeatedly cited "elegance" or "beauty" as desirable qualities, but Prof. French properly reminded us that beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder. Thus, invoking "beauty" is really a way of attempting to impose one's personal aesthetics onto the problem. As he continued to note, our brains aren't necessarily wired to understand nature at these deep levels, so our aesthetics may mislead us. He was admonishing us to be skeptical of ourselves.

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

It does not contradict the existence of mass, and it does not contradict either the existence of mediators between particles, so what does it contradict exactly?

Same as here. But you feel compelled to post the same crankery on multiple forums, right?

This link is about a mind experience of SR, not about mass, and I do not discuss SR there, I discuss the difference in doing a mind experience with light and a real experiment with light. Try to answer me: from your point of view, what does my proposition contradict exactly?

That's not true, u are posting the same exact nonsense about "atom synchronization", "atom frequencies", etc.

You are right, but it was only to show that I had a way to explain the contradictions of the mind experiments from SR,

There aren't any "contradictions of the mind experiments from SR" (apart from your imagination).

You want the french links where I defend my ideas since a couple of years?

Why would I want your crackpotery in French? I already had enough of it in English.

Maybe you want my telephone number and my address to investigate if I am not a child eater? I will facilitate your job: my name is close to crackPotvin, and my fist name close to Rayoflight. Good luck with your search!

I am not interested in tracking down all the cranks I encounter on the internet.

I don't believe you. Almost each of your answers contain the word crackpot. Your are probably a crackpot addict. One crackpot a day keeps the doctor away. Smile, you're on candid camera.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I don't believe you. Almost each of your answers contain the word crackpot. Your are probably a crackpot addict. One crackpot a day keeps the doctor away. Smile, you're on candid camera.

Look where your threads keep landing. It is your mirror.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I don't believe you. Almost each of your answers contain the word crackpot. Your are probably a crackpot addict. One crackpot a day keeps the doctor away. Smile, you're on candid camera.

Look where your threads keep landing. It is your mirror.

Get back to the science please.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I don't believe you. Almost each of your answers contain the word crackpot. Your are probably a crackpot addict. One crackpot a day keeps the doctor away. Smile, you're on candid camera.

Look where your threads keep landing. It is your mirror.

Get back to the science please.

Neither you or your buddy are doing any science, so where does the request come from?

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I don't believe you. Almost each of your answers contain the word crackpot. Your are probably a crackpot addict. One crackpot a day keeps the doctor away. Smile, you're on candid camera.

Look where your threads keep landing. It is your mirror.

Get back to the science please.

Neither you or your buddy are doing any science, so where does the request come from?

What is science to you then?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Do you really think that such molecules can hold together without their atoms exchanging some sort of energy or information between them?

The correct answer begins by not restricting the notion of forces to the "glue" that binds atoms together in molecules. In modern physics, forces are mediated by virtual particles (in electromagnetism, it's the photon, and it's electromagnetism that explains chemical bonding, as exchemist has pointed out). If you want to call that an exchange of energy, I suppose that would be ok, if not terribly useful. As to calling it an exchange of information, I don't see any quantitatively meaningful sense in which that terminology would be helpful.

All that said, this energy exchange applies to what causes magnets to attract and repel, what causes "static cling" in your laundry bits, as well as to what binds atoms together.

tk421, I do not pretend to familiarity with how QED treats electrostatic attraction and repulsion, but do the virtual photons that mediate the force actually exchange energy between the charged bodies?

Originally Posted by tk421

If by "frequency" you are still referring to your notion that atoms dance in synchrony with the force carriers that convey the Coulomb force, then your statement is simply wrong. One could, for example, change the rhythm of your putative dance by heating an acoustic reflector to high temperatures. Yet, we find that the doppler shift depends not at all on the temperature of this reflector. It depends only on the gross macroscopic motion of the reflector itself. There being no fixed relationship between the microscopic dance and this macroscopic motion, your theory fails.

Heat is molecules vibration, and light escapes from their link because they accelerate while hitting each other back and forth. When measuring the doppler effect from a hot reflector, we would measure the average motion of billions of molecules, and their vibrations will be measured as noise. When we observe the light from the stars, there is also a lot of noise, but we still can measure the different frequencies with the appropriate instruments, and we can measure the doppler effect too. Vibration of molecules is a motion, and if I am right, that motion is justified by the small steps of their atoms. When they hit each other, they change direction and speed, and that change is recorded as a change in the direction and length of the small steps, thus a change in the doppler effect (and aberration) between them, which will stay the same until they hit again, because light is not instantaneous, goes in straight line and does not change its frequency once emitted.

I agree with prof French that beauty is totally subjective, and I add that it is for any of our ideas, including mines. This is why I was telling Howard to stick to the data to verify my ideas. He sticks to me too much: maybe he would love me if he new me better, on the grill I mean.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I don't believe you. Almost each of your answers contain the word crackpot. Your are probably a crackpot addict. One crackpot a day keeps the doctor away. Smile, you're on candid camera.

Look where your threads keep landing. It is your mirror.

Get back to the science please.

Neither you or your buddy are doing any science, so where does the request come from?

What is science to you then?

Not what you and Le Repteux are posting here.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by tk421

If by "frequency" you are still referring to your notion that atoms dance in synchrony with the force carriers that convey the Coulomb force, then your statement is simply wrong. One could, for example, change the rhythm of your putative dance by heating an acoustic reflector to high temperatures. Yet, we find that the doppler shift depends not at all on the temperature of this reflector. It depends only on the gross macroscopic motion of the reflector itself. There being no fixed relationship between the microscopic dance and this macroscopic motion, your theory fails.

Heat is molecules vibration, and light escapes from their link because they accelerate while hitting each other back and forth. When measuring the doppler effect from a hot reflector, we would measure the average motion of billions of molecules, and their vibrations will be measured as noise. When we observe the light from the stars, there is also a lot of noise, but we still can measure the different frequencies with the appropriate instruments, and we can measure the doppler effect too. Vibration of molecules is a motion, and if I am right, that motion is justified by the small steps of their atoms. When they hit each other, they change direction and speed, and that change is recorded as a change in the direction and length of the small steps, thus a change in the doppler effect (and aberration) between them, which will stay the same until they hit again, because light is not instantaneous, goes in straight line and does not change its frequency one emitted.

I agree with prof French that beauty is totally subjective, and I add that it is for any of our ideas, including mines. This is why I was telling Howard to stick to the data to verify my ideas. He sticks to me too much: maybe he would love me if he new me better, on the grill I mean.

More word salad from the master chef.

Here, have a glass of wine before appreciating the main dishes.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I don't believe you. Almost each of your answers contain the word crackpot. Your are probably a crackpot addict. One crackpot a day keeps the doctor away. Smile, you're on candid camera.

Look where your threads keep landing. It is your mirror.

Get back to the science please.

Neither you or your buddy are doing any science, so where does the request come from?

What is science to you then?

Not what you and Le Repteux are posting here.

So you know what it is NOT but not what it IS.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I don't believe you. Almost each of your answers contain the word crackpot. Your are probably a crackpot addict. One crackpot a day keeps the doctor away. Smile, you're on candid camera.

Look where your threads keep landing. It is your mirror.

Get back to the science please.

Neither you or your buddy are doing any science, so where does the request come from?

What is science to you then?

Not what you and Le Repteux are posting here.

So you know what it is NOT but not what it IS.

What I do is science, what you do is BS.

Very nice stacking of quotes: with mine in the centre, its perfect!

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I don't believe you. Almost each of your answers contain the word crackpot. Your are probably a crackpot addict. One crackpot a day keeps the doctor away. Smile, you're on candid camera.

Look where your threads keep landing. It is your mirror.

Get back to the science please.

Neither you or your buddy are doing any science, so where does the request come from?

What is science to you then?

Not what you and Le Repteux are posting here.

So you know what it is NOT but not what it IS.

What I do is science, what you do is BS.

Give me just one example of science you do please?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I don't believe you. Almost each of your answers contain the word crackpot. Your are probably a crackpot addict. One crackpot a day keeps the doctor away. Smile, you're on candid camera.

Look where your threads keep landing. It is your mirror.

Get back to the science please.

Neither you or your buddy are doing any science, so where does the request come from?

What is science to you then?

Not what you and Le Repteux are posting here.

So you know what it is NOT but not what it IS.

What I do is science, what you do is BS.

Give me just one example of science you do please?

Here, I tried to teach you, dan hunter and "physicist" about the difference between gravitational potential and gravitational potential energy. Not clear that I managed but that is not my problem.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

I don't believe you. Almost each of your answers contain the word crackpot. Your are probably a crackpot addict. One crackpot a day keeps the doctor away. Smile, you're on candid camera.

Look where your threads keep landing. It is your mirror.

Get back to the science please.

Neither you or your buddy are doing any science, so where does the request come from?

What is science to you then?

Not what you and Le Repteux are posting here.

So you know what it is NOT but not what it IS.

What I do is science, what you do is BS.

Give me just one example of science you do please?

Here, I tried to teach you, dan hunter and "physicist" about the difference between gravitational potential and gravitational potential energy. Not clear that I managed but that is not my problem.

A good teacher would not take that attitude.

Moderator Comment: Oh dear. Le Repteux, I see nothing of substance in your posts; I see no inclination to take on board the solid counterarguments you have been presented with; I see no evidence that you understand, or respect the scientific method.

Moved to pseudoscience. One step away from closure, Le Repeteux, if you fail to address at least one of the weaknesses I have identified.

Thank you, the appropriate forum, at last.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Moderator Comment: Oh dear. Le Repteux, I see nothing of substance in your posts; I see no inclination to take on board the solid counterarguments you have been presented with; I see no evidence that you understand, or respect the scientific method.

Moved to pseudoscience. One step away from closure, Le Repteux, if you fail to address at least one of the weaknesses I have identified.

John, I can't work with Damocles around, either you let me the liberty to expose my own ideas, or you close the subject. But if you do so, you should also close the whole "Personal theories and alternative ideas" forum, because it is misdirection to offer this possibility and not to accept different ideas. French scientific forums don't offer that possibility, and I was gladly surprised to see that english ones did, but I see now that I was misdirected. Too bad for me, and too bad for new ideas too. As I understand it now, the "new idea" forum only serves as a lure to prevent too many people from posting new ideas on scientific subjects, and as soon as they develop their ideas there, no matter the way they chose to present them, the subject is rapidly sent in "pseudo science" and from there rapidly closed. Is that it or is it because my ideas and the way I present them is a lot more unscientific than all the other alternative ideas that are presented here? After all, I do not present esoteric ideas, do I?

By the way, the scientific method that I use here is essay and error: I propose my ideas, and I use answers to improve them. I cannot improve anything when the answer is "you are a crank", and Howard doesn't stop answering that, which surely gives the impression that I am one to everybody. Take these answers off and the picture would probably not be that bad. If a method is unscientific here, it is that way of discussing. I always do my best to take every answer into consideration, and I also did for Howard's answers, and if he was not satisfied with it, he should have asked politely for more precisions, but he did not since he is persuaded that it is no use. Knowledge should not give him the feeling that everybody else is shit.

Do me a favor John, get me out of that trash "pseudoscience" forum, it smells bad and i'll get sick!

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

....I can't work with Damocles around, either you let me the liberty to expose my own ideas, or you close the subject. But if you do so, you should also close the whole "Personal theories and alternative ideas" forum, because it is false representation to offer this possibility and not to accept different ideas. French scientific forums don't offer that possibility, and I was gladly surprised to see that english ones did, but I see now that I was misdirected. Too bad for me, and too bad for new ideas too. As I understand it now, the new idea forum serves as a shield to prevent too many people from posting new ideas on scientific subjects, and as soon as they develop their ideas here, no matter the way they chose to present them, the subject is rapidly closed. Is that it?

I too would have liked to see you find some other scientific ideas that might support your idea. Not I didn't agree with you entirely but you needed to go through it step by step and really demonstrate the logic you have applied that even convinces yourself that it makes sense.
I find I get lost in your train of thought, so do it slowly step wise.

It is not easy to explain new ideas Rob, and it becomes a nightmare when somebody kicks you all the time in front of everybody and you can do nothing to avoid it. Howard is not interested in knowing about my ideas, he has always been convinced from the beginning that they were useless, and he has bad manners. I tried to put a smile on its face, but it did not work. If he was in front of me, I would probably punch him on the nose and he would stop ridiculing me. Lets get back to the small steps until John closes the subject.

Up to date, the main argument against them has been that atoms do not radiate light all the time, to what I answered that I am not talking about a radiation that is emitted outside a molecule, but an exchange of information that stays trapped inside a molecule. It would be a lot more efficient if people would take the steps as a possibility, and if they analyzed that possibility. For instance, if they would calculate their frequency to see if they could justify the speed of a molecule in a gas, or if they would calculate their resistance to a change in frequency to verify if it matches the mass of a molecule, as I tried to do earlier. Some could also try to find a way to experiment the steps, or to simulate them. This way of opposing actual theories is a loss of time, and it only serves to justify our own thinking. The only reliable way of verifying a new idea is to stick to the data, and we have lots of data from the atoms, so why not make the calculations and see if it appears to work or not? I would have gone further with them if I was good at it, but my maths are too far away for me to be able to catch up with time, and there are lots of people who can do them better than I would ever be able to. And it is the same for an eventual simulation: I simply cannot elaborate the software, and it needs to be elaborated because there is no software on the market able to simulate the steps. It is fun to develop new thing, much more fun than to reject them, so why not play that game instead of making war to a potential alien?

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

The only reliable way of verifying a new idea is to stick to the data, and we have lots of data from the atoms, so why not make the calculations and see if it appears to work or not?

The onus is on you. You proposed a "theory", you need to provide the formalism (none , to date) and the experimental data (none, to date).
This is why your theories land invariably in Trash., Personal Theories and Pseudo-science. You have nothing, just a string of words in a word salad.

And you seem to be an ill-mannered person Howard. You seem to love to throw stones on people. If I was John, I would seriously warn you.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

It is not easy to explain new ideas Rob, and it becomes a nightmare when somebody kicks you all the time in front of everybody and you can do nothing to avoid it. Howard is not interested in knowing about my ideas, he has always been convinced from the beginning that they were useless, and he has bad manners. I tried to put a smile on its face, but it did not work. If he was in front of me, I would probably punch him on the nose and he would stop ridiculing me. Lets get back to the small steps until John closes the subject.

Up to date, the main argument against them has been that atoms do not radiate light all the time, to what I answered that I am not talking about a radiation that is emitted outside a molecule, but an exchange of information that stays trapped inside a molecule. It would be a lot more efficient if people would take the steps as a possibility, and if they analyzed that possibility. For instance, if they would calculate their frequency to see if they could justify the speed of a molecule in a gas, or if they would calculate their resistance to a change in frequency to verify if it matches the mass of a molecule, as I tried to do earlier. Some could also try to find a way to experiment the steps, or to simulate them. This way of opposing actual theories is a loss of time, and it only serves to justify our own thinking. The only reliable way of verifying a new idea is to stick to the data, and we have lots of data from the atoms, so why not make the calculations and see if it appears to work or not? I would have gone further with them if I was good at it, but my maths are too far away for me to be able to catch up with time, and there are lots of people who can do them better than I would ever be able to. And it is the same for an eventual simulation: I simply cannot elaborate the software, and it needs to be elaborated because there is no software on the market able to simulate the steps. It is fun to develop new thing, much more fun than to reject them, so why not play that game instead of making war to a potential alien?

I'm afraid you do not understand how science works. That is why you are getting a rough ride. It is up to the person formulating a new theory to show what observations can be made that would corroborate it and also how it can either fit with pre-existing theories or else is able to supersede them without disadvantages.

Your ideas seem so fundamentally alien that they would, if accepted, consign the whole of physics to the dustbin. So you have a hell of a lot of work to do, to show why anyone should be willing to do that. The onus is on YOU as the person who would knock down and replace the whole of physics, not on the science community.

Furthermore, and fatally in my opinion, you do not suggest a single observation that your theory can explain but conventional physics cannot. Without that there is no advantage in your theory and no reason for anyone to spend time trying to understand it.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

And you seem to be an ill-mannered person Howard. You seem to love to throw stones on people. If I was John, I would seriously warn you.

I see nothing dishonest with what he said. Based on what I have read so far, it appears to be a wholly factual statement. Sometimes, truth hurts.

Exchemist, what you say is no reason to throw stones on people. At my place, you would do the same thing.

You posted a couple of arguments on something that you say would be a revolution, and you think that I had the time to explain it all? It is not consistent. I do not know if it would be a revolution, but I hope that it would help us understand the world better. There is knowledge, and there is people. The first is about facts, the second is about imagination. I imagined something about facts, Howard imagines something about me. Thats not fair, and that should not be accepted on a scientific forum.

Stop playing the victim card and make an attempt to adequately support your arguments.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

And you seem to be an ill-mannered person Howard. You seem to love to throw stones on people. If I was John, I would seriously warn you.

I see nothing dishonest with what he said. Based on what I have read so far, it appears to be a wholly factual statement. Sometimes, truth hurts.

Truth has no reason to hurt if you do not take your ideas as facts, but stones do.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Stop playing the victim card and make an attempt to adequately support your arguments.

Stop supporting an ill-mannered person and propose your own arguments about the small steps.

Le Repeteux, I think that you have worked outside the science community. I have been exposed to it only through my university years, by reading research papers and listening to anecdotes of working scientists. But that limited exposure has shown me that scientists do not throw stones - they drop large boulders from a great height. They will attack, vigorously, even an idea they suspect is correct. They will find the weakest point and attack it without any mercy whatsoever.

The ideas that can stand up to this barrage, in conversation and assessment by colleagues, might be submitted for publication. Then referees, often anonymous, may rip the piece to shreds. If it survives all this and makes it into print, scientists in opposing camps may respond with damning indictments against faulty assumptions, incoherent statistics, or poor methodology.

Here we offer a comparatively tranquil haven where you can present your ideas. However, if you present them - as you have done - as assertions, then we expect evidence, and mathematics, to back them up. You could have used, could still use a different approach. You take a small piece of your hypothesis and say "I wonder if X might be true. What in current physics would argue against this?" Then seek possible ways to account for the objections and present those in a similar, provisional way as possibilities.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

And you seem to be an ill-mannered person Howard. You seem to love to throw stones on people. If I was John, I would seriously warn you.

You have no mathematical formalism.
You have no experimental data.
Therefore, you have no theory, all you have is your standard word salad. Face the reality.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Exchemist, what you say is no reason to throw stones on people. At my place, you would do the same thing.

You posted a couple of arguments on something that you say would be a revolution, and you think that I had the time to explain it all? It is not consistent. I do not know if it would be a revolution, but I hope that it would help us understand the world better. There is knowledge, and there is people. The first is about facts, the second is about imagination. I imagined something about facts, Howard imagines something about me. Thats not fair, and that should not be accepted on a scientific forum.

OK, then, what observation in physics can your ideas explain that normal physics cannot? Answer that convincingly and I will pay more attention.

Because, you see, I think Howard and I both know, objectively, something about you, from observation. And that is, as I have pointed out, that you do do not know how science works. If you do not learn this, it is my opinion that you will be wasting your time trying to air your ideas on a science forum. I'll be happy if you can prove me wrong by answering the question above.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Stop playing the victim card and make an attempt to adequately support your arguments.

Stop supporting an ill-mannered person and propose your own arguments about the small steps.

I don't have an argument. You propose something which is not in keeping with accepted science and you have thus far failed to support it adequately. Instead you are painting yourself under attack. This is just normal scrutiny any scientist should expect (demand, even).

Originally Posted by John Galt

But that limited exposure has shown me that scientists do not throw stones - they drop large boulders from a great height.

:-) This pretty much sums it up. Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann had an (in)famous seminar at Caltech, we took turns presenting. Woe on the presenter who could not back up his/her presentation. Gell-Mann was not so bad but Feynman dropped planets on you.

They will attack, vigorously, even an idea they suspect is correct. They will find the weakest point and attack it without any mercy whatsoever.

True. By the same token, if you have something that is really good, they will side with you very quickly, they are quick in grasping the good stuff.

The ideas that can stand up to this barrage, in conversation and assessment by colleagues, might be submitted for publication. Then referees, often anonymous, may rip the piece to shreds.

I have very mixed experience with this. Overwhelmingly, the referees I encountered start from the premise"this is all wrong" and proceed from there to prove their point. They persist, even when they are patently wrong. I have battled referees for many years, only twice did I encounter ones that admitted that they have been wrong all along.

If it survives all this and makes it into print, scientists in opposing camps may respond with damning indictments against faulty assumptions, incoherent statistics, or poor methodology.

Had this happen only one time out of 40+ odd papers. I responded to the responder and I never heard from him again.

Here we offer a comparatively tranquil haven where you can present your ideas. However, if you present them - as you have done - as assertions, then we expect evidence, and mathematics, to back them up. You could have used, could still use a different approach. You take a small piece of your hypothesis and say "I wonder if X might be true. What in current physics would argue against this?" Then seek possible ways to account for the objections and present those in a similar, provisional way as possibilities.

Very true. This has been explained to Le Repteaux on other forums. Instead of fixing his stuff, he takes it to another forum, in the hope that people will be more accepting. He does not fix his theory, he just shops it elsewhere. I saw this as a referee myself, scientists with rejected papers don't fix them, they keep shopping them around in search for a venue that will accept their stuff. Doesn't change the fact that the paper is worthless to begin with.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Very true. This has been explained to Le Repteux on other forums. Instead of fixing his stuff, he takes it to another forum, in the hope that people will be more accepting. He does not fix his theory, he just shops it elsewhere. I saw this as a referee myself, scientists with rejected papers don't fix them, they keep shopping them around in search for a venue that will accept their stuff. Doesn't change the fact that the paper is worthless to begin with.

If I participate to more than one forum, it is to increase my chances to be understood, increase my chances to improve my ideas, and increase my chances to have more than two answers a day. I take it as a job, I do it all day long. Inventing new things is what I did all my life, what interests me most, and where I succeed most. Before doing sciences I was in the sport business, but I am too old for sports now. I might be too old for sciences too, but only the future will tell. You were persuaded that my idea had no substance from the beginning because it does not look like what you are used to. If you were less aggressive, you would not have reacted the way you did, you would not have denigrated me, treated me as a crank, this is not part of the scientific game, at least it should not. It is always the same since the beginning of times, there is always somebody to raise an outcry on somebody else just because he seems to be different!

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I don't have an argument. You propose something which is not in keeping with accepted science and you have thus far failed to support it adequately. Instead you are painting yourself under attack. This is just normal scrutiny any scientist should expect (demand, even).

No, repeating "you are a crank" endlessly is not normal argumentation, and it does not lead to normal argumentation either.

Originally Posted by Le Repteux

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Very true. This has been explained to Le Repteux on other forums. Instead of fixing his stuff, he takes it to another forum, in the hope that people will be more accepting. He does not fix his theory, he just shops it elsewhere. I saw this as a referee myself, scientists with rejected papers don't fix them, they keep shopping them around in search for a venue that will accept their stuff. Doesn't change the fact that the paper is worthless to begin with.

If I participate to more than one forum, it is to increase my chances to be understood, increase my chances to improve my ideas, and increase my chances to have more than two answers a day.

But you are learning nothing, you are totally opaque to the criticisms that you receive on all forums.

Inventing new things is what I did all my life, what interests me most, and where I succeed most.

You are failing on this one. Miserably. Because you are ignorant on the subject and you wouldn't listen to the people who are explaining to you why you are wrong, why you really do not have anything in terms of science, why you should be learning instead of posting word salads.

I might be too old for sciences too, but only the future will tell. You were persuaded that my idea had no substance from the beginning because it does not look like what you are used to.

No, the reason I KNOW it is worthless is because your writings:

1. lack any mathematical formalism
2. lack any experimental data

If you were less aggressive, you would not have reacted the way you did, you would not have denigrated me, treated me as a crank, this is not part of the scientific game, at least it should not. It is always the same since the beginning of times, there is always somebody to raise an outcry on somebody else just because he seems to be different!

Stop playing the victim card, your theories land in the Trash and Speculations because of you, not because of anyone else. They are intrinsicly trash.