Farnsworth38



Professor



Professor Reply #680 on: 08-22-2017 11:58 » 08-22-2017 11:58 » Glad you got a good view and enjoyed the experience. Well done for getting a shot that you can keep as a reminder. I've only seen a partial and three transits: my chances of seeing a total are now diminishing. You had more luck than I did with the meteors, as the forecast changed and the clouds persisted until it started to get light.

Tachyon



DOOP Secretary



DOOP Secretary Reply #681 on: 08-22-2017 16:17 » 08-22-2017 16:17 »

Thanks, totality itself was surreal. The photo will make a nice keepsake.





DannyJC13



DOOP Secretary



DOOP Secretary Reply #682 on: 08-23-2017 22:34 » 08-23-2017 22:34 »







Quote from: Elon Musk Already tested to double vacuum pressure. Was incredibly hard to balance esthetics and function. Easy to do either separately. Elon Musk revealed the fully-working SpaceX spacesuit:

Tachyon



DOOP Secretary



DOOP Secretary Reply #683 on: 08-23-2017 23:08 » 08-23-2017 23:08 »

That looks really great. I'm curious how those shoulder joints can be flexible in a full vacuum environment.





Smarty



Professor



Professor Reply #684 on: 08-24-2017 00:22 »

« Last Edit on: 08-24-2017 00:28 » 08-24-2017 00:22 »08-24-2017 00:28 » Tachy! I'm so jealous that you got to see the total eclipse. My boyfriend was also in the path of totality and also said it was amazing. Will have to make sure I get into the path of totality for 2024, since it'll be coming through northern New England (assuming I'm still here). If I didn't just start work I probably would have taken Monday off and traveled down south to see it for sure.



I unfortunately dropped the ball on getting eclipse glasses, but I made a pinhole projector out of a box and it worked well! It was definitely cool to look through. Also we did find some other people from another neighboring company who let us borrow their glasses for a quick peek at the eclipse. A few other people also made pinhole projectors, and there was this one guy who put two pairs of sunglasses and some other things in front of his face, and a few people stole a look at it with those. You'd think engineers would be a little more cautious? (however do have to admit though that I gave into the temptation and stole a very quick peek with the setup, but one guy looked like 20 times!). It was a bit cloudy where I was, unfortunately, but not cloudy enough that you couldn't see the sun.



Also on the SpaceX suits: very interested to see a reveal video, or the suits in action. Interested to see people move in them. Hopefully Commercial Crew actually stays on schedule and flies next summer.



edit: also as luck would have it, the path of totality goes right through Baxter State Park and Mount Katahdin in Maine in 2024...I guess in 7 years I can get over that most recent hiking fiasco in order to see it there.

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #685 on: 08-24-2017 01:11 » 08-24-2017 01:11 » I don't expect engineers to be cautious.



Some of the most ubiquitous discoveries by mankind were found by individuals of science while doing dangerous, absurd, and stupid things. The curious mind is not fearful, yet sometimes wisdom is forgotten briefly toward the advancement of learning.

Tachyon



DOOP Secretary



DOOP Secretary Reply #686 on: 08-24-2017 01:59 »

« Last Edit on: 08-24-2017 02:06 » 08-24-2017 01:59 »08-24-2017 02:06 »

You know, winna, you're absolutely right! We should know better, and we do know better, but... there's that driving curiosity thing As I mentioned in my long writeup on the previous page, I did steal 2-3 *very* brief glimpses of the "diamond rings". So brief that there was no notable afterimage. And it BLEW AWAY any photo of the phenomenon I've ever seen. By far.



Quote from: Smarty on 08-24-2017 00:22

Tachy! I'm so jealous that you got to see the total eclipse. My boyfriend was also in the path of totality and also said it was amazing.





Thanks, Smarty! And I'm so jealous that you're working in aerospace And also hugely happy for you, too!



Quote from: Smarty on 08-24-2017 00:22

Will have to make sure I get into the path of totality for 2024, since it'll be coming through northern New England (assuming I'm still here).





Given typical New England weather in early April, I wouldn't pin my hopes on seeing much. Perhaps you can join us in Texas in 2024! I'm prodding winna and Spacefan (who both live in TX) and any other interested Peelers to think seriously about committing to it. There's going to be FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES of totality! I can tell you that my two minutes and 0.5 seconds of it went by FAR too quickly.



Hell, we can call it PEELeclipse 2024



Texas is a very big place. If I am alive and mobile then (I'll be 138 years old ) my plan is to book two or three hotel rooms along the centreline of maximum duration, in areas with optimal combinations of historic weather patterns, road networks, distance to airports, amenities, forecast influx of travellers, etc.



And I may have posted it elsewhere, but Spacefan already created an event in her phone's calendar



Spoiler warning! Click to show/hide!









P.S. It turns out that my ex's house is smack-dab in the path of the 2024 eclipse, with about 3.5 minutes of totality. I tried to persuade her to drive the 3-odd hours north to see this one, but she looked at her forecast 98.5% totality and figured that it was good enough. My friends in Seattle who were wavering about heading down to Oregon were mildly entertained, but still disappointed. Totality or bust, people! Was it worth the hundreds of miles driven and hundreds of dollars spent and occasional bumper-to-bumper traffic? Oh, hell yes!



You know, winna, you're absolutely right! Weknow better, and weknow better, but... there's that driving curiosity thingAs I mentioned in my long writeup on the previous page, I did steal 2-3 *very* brief glimpses of the "diamond rings". So brief that there was no notable afterimage. And it BLEW AWAY any photo of the phenomenon I've ever seen. By far.Thanks, Smarty! And I'm so jealous that you're working in aerospaceAnd also hugely happy for you, too!Given typical New England weather in early April, I wouldn't pin my hopes on seeing much. Perhaps you can join us in Texas in 2024! I'm prodding winna and Spacefan (who both live in TX) and any other interested Peelers to think seriously about committing to it. There's going to be FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES of totality! I can tell you that my two minutes and 0.5 seconds of it went by FAR too quickly.Hell, we can call it PEELeclipse 2024Texas is a very big place. If I am alive and mobile then (I'll be 138 years old) my plan is to book two or three hotel rooms along the centreline of maximum duration, in areas with optimal combinations of historic weather patterns, road networks, distance to airports, amenities, forecast influx of travellers, etc.And I may have posted it elsewhere, but Spacefan already created an event in her phone's calendarP.S. It turns out that my ex's house is smack-dab in the path of the 2024 eclipse, with about 3.5 minutes of totality. I tried to persuade her to drive the 3-odd hours north to see this one, but she looked at her forecast 98.5% totality and figured that it was good enough. My friends in Seattle who were wavering about heading down to Oregon were mildly entertained, but still disappointed. Totality or bust, people! Was it worth the hundreds of miles driven and hundreds of dollars spent and occasional bumper-to-bumper traffic? Oh, hell yes!

totalnerd undercanada



DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #687 on: 08-25-2017 02:59 » 08-25-2017 02:59 » Half of the people at work were outside in the parking lot, passing around pairs of eclipse glasses. There was one person who made a pinhole projector. Truly, a nerd in a building full of nerds.



No, it wasn't me.



I spent about fifteen minutes outside, saw the eclipse through glasses, and then had to get back into the lab.

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #688 on: 08-25-2017 03:27 » 08-25-2017 03:27 » What did you do in the lab?

ShinyMetal***



Professor



Professor Reply #689 on: 08-25-2017 05:08 » 08-25-2017 05:08 » Im in the same boat Tnuk, I didn't get to watch much either :/

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #691 on: 08-26-2017 01:21 » 08-26-2017 01:21 » That's okay. Sometimes confidentiality is important. I appreciate the response.

Farnsworth38



Professor



Professor Reply #692 on: 09-08-2017 15:36 » 09-08-2017 15:36 » Following Wednesday's massive solar flare, a significant CME is due to reach Earth later today. It has been suggested that the Aurora Borealis may be visible as far south as the south coast of England tonight: the weather forecast is not good, but with a short clear spell predicted for just after midnight I might take a look to see if anything is visible above the light pollution.

Tachyon



DOOP Secretary



DOOP Secretary Reply #693 on: 09-08-2017 16:56 » 09-08-2017 16:56 »

Good luck seeing it! The geomagnetic forecast for the US shows a huge dip southward on the east coast, reaching down past the Mid-Atlantic states, iirc. Not so much on the west coast, though, probably not even dipping into northern Washington.





Scrappylive



Liquid Emperor



Liquid Emperor Reply #694 on: 10-22-2017 10:13 » 10-22-2017 10:13 »



I was very pleased to happen to see one of these on my walk home last night, even though I wasn't looking for it and I was in the middle of a city. I was very pleased to happen to see one of these on my walk home last night, even though I wasn't looking for it and I was in the middle of a city.

Tachyon



DOOP Secretary



DOOP Secretary Reply #695 on: 10-22-2017 16:51 » 10-22-2017 16:51 » Is there anything particularly distinguishing about Orionids that lets you easily tell one from a random meteor? Perseids, for example, are far faster than typical.





Scrappylive



Liquid Emperor



Liquid Emperor Reply #696 on: 10-23-2017 01:52 » 10-23-2017 01:52 » I hadn't bothered to research it, but this one seemed a lot brighter, faster, and even bluer then the few meteors I had seen in the past. The fact that it was so bright relative to other ones I've seen really stood out to me considering my location at the time; I have very rarely seen any meteors at all while in or near a city or suburb.



I'm fairly confident it was an Orionid, however, due to the fact that I saw this in the peak hours on one of the two peak days of the year.

Tachyon



DOOP Secretary



DOOP Secretary Reply #697 on: 10-23-2017 06:33 » 10-23-2017 06:33 »







Yeah, it was probably an Orionid. Over the years I've caught many random meteors, but aside from a couple of Leonids one year, the only meteors I've seen from named showers were Perseids. Seeing that I live north of Seattle, you can guess what the weather conditions were for the Orionids

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #698 on: 12-07-2017 12:18 »

« Last Edit on: 12-07-2017 12:21 » 12-07-2017 12:18 »12-07-2017 12:21 » Heavier things are slower.



Our eyes are made of many many small tiny things (cells, cell parts, atoms, sub-atomic particles), so many, that it takes a long time for them to communicate and come to a general consensus of observance.



The consensus is reached by a certain percentage of the sub-atomic particles reaching a "yes" or "no" state. Some parts of the observational capacity (say eyes, or sub-atomic particles in octic nerve) get weighted more heavily because whatever cluster they are with is advantageous toward other clusters at communicating their consensus.



This I am suggesting is a way to think across the microscopic world of quantum mechanics to the macroscopic world of relativity.



Heavy, bigger things are slower...



And the consensus in tiny particles is a guess, a reaction. Our observations can be fallible.



This is why you can sense the velocity of a truck and its position simultaneously. [Everybody who drives does this, though perhaps not true simultaneously, though if it didn't occur, we could only have on lane roads (can't switch lanes if you can't reliably guess velocity and position simultaneously)].



Now, we can't know the velocity and position of a tiny particles at the same time. Tiny particles are light, and they are fast. In order to catch one, we have to cut time into thinner and thinner slices, because they are so fast. Thus we get so thin that either, the whole particle is contained in one slice (position) or it is bisected between more than one slice (velocity...by percentage of shift from one slice to the next).









Non-related: Light has to be a particle and a wave.. it has to interact with matter, which means it is matter. Light tiny things move fast. Light travels so fast, it is difficult for us to now slice time thin enough to "capture" light as a particle. Light, whatever it is, may be the smallest unit of measure, both by physical dimension and by time.



At any given instant, the space light occupies is the smallest room in the universe, and that instant where it is in one spot may be the smallest measurement of time... How long light takes to jump from one tiny room to the next.





There may be smaller though. The aether. If the observable universe is a sea of something, rather than a vacuum of nothing... It would literally be the unit of physical dimension. Ie, if the vacuum is made of tiny things, then one of those things, as it were is the smallest unit of physical dimension. However, we may not be able to cut a slice thin enough to measure time with it.... When it communicates with its nearest neighbor (to say light stopped by for the evening), it may very well do so instantaneously, that is there is no capacity to measure the movement, because these particles would be so small, they literally inhabit all of space. Thus all of space would be a wave or field, while still retaining everything being particles. Everything interacts with its true nearest neighbor... But that consensus thing gets bigger, heavier, slower as you go up in scale and scope. It also explains why stars live much longer than humans.. they're slower as an organized whole because there's so much noise/collisions/data transfer going on.



My aether proposition also explains why we don't notice it. It is the instant, and it is too small for anything, perhaps even light to communicate with it.



I suspect it may be correct, as it answers the particle/wave proposition. The observable universe is a sea of particles, and the interactions of those particles is a wave.











I know this all sounds simple and dumb, but remember, science is observation and applied logic. Many of the laws of physics are simple... An object in motion wants to stay in motion? Yeah a something that something is something.



If this makes sense and seems unique, feel free to share or comment. I was just doing reality thought experiments again and I came up with those ideas. They seemed unique so I really wanted to jot them down. What if it is correct?

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #699 on: 12-07-2017 12:34 » 12-07-2017 12:34 » This would push everything into stats analysis and fluid dynamics.



If you have 10,000 people in a room vote for the president, you can easily get a different result when 30,000,000 people are set with the same task. However, the event of voting for the president takes more time, as it is bigger and slower because it affects much more.



The first group (10,000) may also be asked to vote for a governor, where as this event does not apply to the other 29,990,000 constituents.



Events common to locality happen faster and have more prominence.



These rules apply to the entire observable universe at every scope and scale. I don't know what to call it. Scopetisticology? The study of the most smallest either particles and how they communicate to form our reality?

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #700 on: 12-09-2017 05:43 » 12-09-2017 05:43 » After much thought, and some discussion with a friend on #fc, I'm going to keep going with these ideas, and perhaps tie them in with others.





Our observable universe is in a "vacuum". However, I'm going to suggest that also, our observable universe is in an aether. This seems counterintuitive, even contradictive. However, I'm going to describe that they both exist and perhaps suggest how.





The aether is comprised out of virtual particles. Virtual particles is already a phenomena that has been described. At any given "moment" of the universe, virtual particles come into, and disappear from out observable universe. These particles appear in the universe at every possible "position" in the observable universe... These virtual particles are the aether.





Another way to think of this might be describing it like computer graphics. The observable universe draws each "moment" or "frame" using a double buffer. For each frame or moment, these virtual particles appear, then disappear. Some of them... Remain in the universe. To replace the particles that existed in the previous frame. That is the method by which conservation and continuation is achieved.





I thought a lot about this after discussing electro magnetism with my friend in #fc. I stated that the universe is logical, that every scope and scale of that universe can be observed, quantified, explained, and understood. I then suggested, the reason metal wire heats up when an electric current is applied to it, is due to friction. A mechanical explanation, for what is most certainly a sub-atomic process. Indeed, we measure electricity, via resistance, as my friend pointed out. Resistance... Friction? Energy transfer?





My friend didn't pose the question that would tear this theory apart. . . Part of my theory being that the entire universe is comprised completely of "concrete" particles. However, that we discussed electricity, even the electro-magnetic spectrum, brought me to the question.



Why do some forces attract.... While others repel?





Most of what I've described are collisions... Tiny particles everywhere, colliding with one another, and that is the transfer of information.





Our observable universe... Is in a "vacuum". As the virtual particles disappear from existence with each "moment" or "frame", they create a vacuum, and that vacuum pulls certain particles to it (or even parts of particles).





This is a mechanical action which can describe gravity. Because there are more "real" particles together with a dense object, more virtual particles appear and disappear where matter or density occurs. The second frame in my double buffer animation example, literally draws particles to it. This explains why gravity is weak with low density and strong with super high density.





That's not all. It explains magnetic flow. The vacuum is stronger on one side of the magnet, and that is the pole that pulls, starting a current, which goes in a circular fashion, much like water flowing through a pipe circle with a pump on it.







Furthermore, I have a guess that light is not a thing. Rather, light as we perceive it, is the animation of a long series of collisions. There is still a mass portion as I alluded to earlier.



Mass.... Is information. That is, information is mass... Information describes the size and location of a thing, say a particle, that is its mass. Your phone, or iPod if you still have one, is actually heavier (by a mintue, but observable measure) when you have it full of songs, rather than a blank hard drive. Indeed... Since information is mass.





But I said light doesn't exist, even though earlier I said light must be a particle, right?



Light beams, are actually a series of collisions, which occur super frequently. However, what is being collided is the transference of information. Indeed, light can be in a certain place at any given moment... That is information, there is mass.



The collisions that light describes... Could be the virtual particles being collided with one another... And since they appear and disappear each moment.... We can't catch them, nor can we catch light.



Imagine you are looking at the wall in front of you. There is a line from you to that wall. The line is made up of an infinite amount of objects, which have a beginning and an end, but are two small for you to discern one from the other. You push on the end of the line closest to you... And, like a row of dominoes, each tiny objects collides with the one in front of it, thus next, almost immediately pushing on the wall in front of you. This line I described is a light beam... However, you only see it, as each tiny object collides with the one in front of you..... E.g. Imagine watching dominoes fall, and you are watching the falling process. That is light.



However, the mass is information: each "dominoe" in the series, records information with each collision, "where was I struck? And how much?". These collisions... Within 3d space, as opposed to our 2d "dominoes", this can explain phenomena like the square inverse law. Each of the "dominoes" in the actual observable universe doesn't strike just one domino in front of it... It strikes nine or more in front of it. #. The outliers, transfer less information with the collision, than the central ones.





These are mechanical ideas, we can comprehend, describing quantum physics. The dominoes, are the virtual particles. The virtual particles are the aether. Light is the transference of information.... Each of those collisions... is probably the smallest piece of information in our observable universe... And that... Is the speed limit, of our observable universe. How fast can we transfer information? How fast can information be baton passed between virtual particles? The speed of light.





These ideas of collision and vacuum, I think can explain every facet of our observable universe.



Passing more information, is slower. Super dense black holes get so slow... Time stops.







Now, if you're still reading, here's another fucked up idea. Remember the virtual particles that appear/disappear every frame of the universe?



Our observable universe is a sponge.



It is being squeezed and released. Remember double buffer? On the squeeze... Virtual particles disappear. On the release, they appear again.



Much like water to a sponge.













If any of these ideas turn out to be true, I'd like to thank these guys:







That video isn't safe for work, but I was on a 3 day binge of their videos, and I came to the conclusion that they're really beautiful people. Not because they're famous, rather because they were not famous for a long time and stuck it out.



At some point in the middle of the night on cs, listening to the techno rap family from South Africa, I got onto these ideas, and I knew I had to record them.



These ideas also connect faith, observance, and knowledge. When the virtual particles come and go, I think they stick... Mostly in the shapes of the previous frame... But there is a small change between frames. If you observe a thing.... You know it.... If you observe a thing... Even incorrectly... Information travels. If you observe via imagination, using faith, the future, you can cause.... Via very small amounts, virtual particles to stay in a certain way for the next frame. Over many frames, the next frame turns out the way you believed it would. Then you observe that frame... And you know it existed.



These ideas can be applied to mechanics, genetics, chemistry, particle physics, behavioral sciences, just about anything and everything I think.



If you want to take these ideas and run with them, go right ahead. I think information should be free. If you can write out some math shit and publish it in a journal of repute, congrats, you probably just won the Nobel science award of humanity, the universe, and every fucking thing in between. If you make a lot of money with it, you know bending reality and shit, send some my way, maybe 100k.



Take care Peel. -:4

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #701 on: 12-10-2017 03:23 »

« Last Edit on: 12-10-2017 04:54 » 12-10-2017 03:23 »12-10-2017 04:54 »



Imagine a cube. Now divide the cube into smaller cubes, three by three by three, nine per face. 3^3 like this # # #.



In the center of the first face resides, say an electron... Like this:

_| |_

_|o|_

| |



Now imagine that the particle (an electron in our example) has a mostly forward velocity. As it moves forward it collides with the next set of cubes...

# -> # #



When our electron has the collision, it doesn't hit just the central cube, but rather it hits all nine of them

_| |_ x|x|x

_|o|_ -> x|o|x

| | x|x|x



The central cube in the second set of nine cubes, gets most of the collision, transference of information, velocity and position. However, the eight cubes around the central cube in the second set receive "some" information, some small portion of collision...



Then by the third set of nine cubes, the collision continues, but even cubes outside the set of nine in the third set receive some information about the collision.



Ie the third set would look something like this:

# # -> #



.| .| .| .|.

.|x|x|x|.

.|x|o|x|.

.|x|x|x|.

.| .| .| .|.



This occurs with each "frame" or "moment" of the universe. Why do collisions get recorded in the cubes that don't have an electron inside of them?



Because each of the cubes is not empty. For every "frame" or "moment" of the universe, each of those cubes is full. Full of virtual particles... Which appear and disappear.





This is why heavier things are slower. The more "real" particles to virtual particles in a given region require more information to be transferred, because more collisions are "recorded" or "observed" for the next frame or moment.



The more information, the more time it takes for the information to be "processed".





This is why we cannot go into stars. They are too heavy by comparison, and are too chaotic for our bodies to process.





This is also why time seems to stop at the edge of a black hole. There is much too information of the collisions to be processed.





Smaller things are recorded and processed very fast. Fractions of a second to determine the explosion of an atom in a super collider, for example.





I'm not tied to the 3x3x3 cube. I don't know how many possible collisions can occur with each frame/moment. This was just the way that I imagined it, and I think it simply conveys the idea.



Edit: This post explains the first ideas in 3d dominoes:Imagine a cube. Now divide the cube into smaller cubes, three by three by three, nine per face. 3^3 like this # # #.In the center of the first face resides, say an electron... Like this:_| |__|o|_| |Now imagine that the particle (an electron in our example) has a mostly forward velocity. As it moves forward it collides with the next set of cubes...# -> # #When our electron has the collision, it doesn't hit just the central cube, but rather it hits all nine of them_| |_ x|x|x_|o|_ -> x|o|x| | x|x|xThe central cube in the second set of nine cubes, gets most of the collision, transference of information, velocity and position. However, the eight cubes around the central cube in the second set receive "some" information, some small portion of collision...Then by the third set of nine cubes, the collision continues, but even cubes outside the set of nine in the third set receive some information about the collision.Ie the third set would look something like this:# # -> #.| .| .| .|..|x|x|x|..|x|o|x|..|x|x|x|..| .| .| .|.This occurs with each "frame" or "moment" of the universe. Why do collisions get recorded in the cubes that don't have an electron inside of them?Because each of the cubes is not empty. For every "frame" or "moment" of the universe, each of those cubes is full. Full of virtual particles... Which appear and disappear.This is why heavier things are slower. The more "real" particles to virtual particles in a given region require more information to be transferred, because more collisions are "recorded" or "observed" for the next frame or moment.The more information, the more time it takes for the information to be "processed".This is why we cannot go into stars. They are too heavy by comparison, and are too chaotic for our bodies to process.This is also why time seems to stop at the edge of a black hole. There is much too information of the collisions to be processed.Smaller things are recorded and processed very fast. Fractions of a second to determine the explosion of an atom in a super collider, for example.I'm not tied to the 3x3x3 cube. I don't know how many possible collisions can occur with each frame/moment. This was just the way that I imagined it, and I think it simply conveys the idea.Edit: This post explains the first ideas in this post (the first in this series of five posts).

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #702 on: 12-10-2017 04:42 »

« Last Edit on: 12-10-2017 04:57 » 12-10-2017 04:42 »12-10-2017 04:57 »





As I suggested, a magnet may be arranged in such a way, that during each "frame" or "moment" of the universe, the vacuum pulls all of the particles into a circle motion through each pole, ie a current which flows from positive pole to negative pole around the magnet.





Sure, but why aren't things that aren't magnets doing magnetic things?





Magnets, and indeed many metals do have specific, rigid structures. Their atoms are typically arranged in parallel and perpendicular fashion.





Now, imagine water going down the drain of a sink. If you place your hand in the water, and move it around in a circular clockwise motion, the water follows. Not only this, but it flows more quickly. Not only this, but attempting to swirl your hand counterclockwise creates a disruption in the water.





I will now suggest the electrons in a magnet (and perhaps other particles), are moving clockwise around the nucleus of the atom. All of these atoms, many many many, arranged rigidly side by side within a small magnet, have electrons rotating clockwise.... To attempt to force them to go counter clockwise, would disrupt or even be "repelled".





The vacuum pulls on everything as virtual particles disappear from our observable universe. It pulls more effectively however, when many particles move in the same circular fashion.





This is a mechanical explanation for sub-atomic properties whose results are witnessed in macroscopic space. No more magic. No more imaginary, invisible field properties we need super vague terms to describe.





Edit: this post explains how magnets work from Why do magnets have an attract pole and a repel pole?As I suggested, a magnet may be arranged in such a way, that during each "frame" or "moment" of the universe, the vacuum pulls all of the particles into a circle motion through each pole, ie a current which flows from positive pole to negative pole around the magnet.Sure, but why aren't things that aren't magnets doing magnetic things?Magnets, and indeed many metals do have specific, rigid structures. Their atoms are typically arranged in parallel and perpendicular fashion.Now, imagine water going down the drain of a sink. If you place your hand in the water, and move it around in a circular clockwise motion, the water follows. Not only this, but it flows more quickly. Not only this, but attempting to swirl your hand counterclockwise creates a disruption in the water.I will now suggest the electrons in a magnet (and perhaps other particles), are moving clockwise around the nucleus of the atom. All of these atoms, many many many, arranged rigidly side by side within a small magnet, have electrons rotating clockwise.... To attempt to force them to go counter clockwise, would disrupt or even be "repelled".The vacuum pulls on everything as virtual particles disappear from our observable universe. It pulls more effectively however, when many particles move in the same circular fashion.This is a mechanical explanation for sub-atomic properties whose results are witnessed in macroscopic space. No more magic. No more imaginary, invisible field properties we need super vague terms to describe.Edit: this post explains how magnets work from this post (the 3rd post in this series of 5 posts).

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #703 on: 12-11-2017 19:18 » 12-11-2017 19:18 » The revolution of an electron about the nucleus of an atom is caused by rotation.



The particles which make up the electron have a net force vector which spins the electron and causes it to revolve around the nucleus.



This is the same with planets. They rotate about an axis, and they revolve around a central body.





The protons and neutrons of the nucleus have a net neutral vector force upon them, perhaps a result of forces which drive the particles toward one another.



Take water flowing counter clockwise, now drop in water flowing clockwise. This is an example of how protons and neutrons cluster together at the center of an atom. Combine this with the vacuum effect I described by virtual particles as they exit our "sponge" observable universe.





The "sponge" analogy may also explain why the universe is expanding in an accelerated fashion. Our sponge is drawing in more water each time. The water in this case is virtual particles. The virtual particles push clusters of matter further away with each "moment". This creates more space for virtual particles to enter in the next "moment".

Tachyon



DOOP Secretary



DOOP Secretary Reply #704 on: 12-12-2017 21:31 » 12-12-2017 21:31 » Quote

The consensus is reached by a certain percentage of the sub-atomic particles reaching a "yes" or "no" state. Some parts of the observational capacity (say eyes, or sub-atomic particles in octic nerve) get weighted more heavily because whatever cluster they are with is advantageous toward other clusters at communicating their consensus





This is very much how collections of neurons work, actually. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any similar communications taking place between collections of sub-atomic particles.



(more to follow. slowly)



This is very much how collections of neurons work, actually. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any similar communications taking place between collections of sub-atomic particles.(more to follow. slowly)

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #705 on: 12-12-2017 21:57 » 12-12-2017 21:57 » All of the bigger things do the same things the smaller things do.



The universe "breathes" like you do.



Fields are bullshit. They are not an object, they are an animation of objects colliding (dominoes or bowling pins). Fields look like objects because we can't slice time to its smallest unit yet.



Bigger thinks do the collection of their smallest components. Apple trees come from apples. Apples come from Apple trees.

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #707 on: 12-12-2017 22:12 » 12-12-2017 22:12 » I explained why you can't directly interact with smallest particles. Which means no direct observation.



The extrapolation of what I said is the evidence. It fits the observations better than field models.



It's correct.



You can tell because the things I said are logical. Field discussion isn't logical, that's why it can't be broken down to small logical components.



Any complex system can be broken down to its logical constituents. Field theory can't. Because it's wrong.



I'm right.

Tachyon



DOOP Secretary



DOOP Secretary Reply #708 on: 12-12-2017 22:24 » 12-12-2017 22:24 »



Unfortunately I cannot debate field theory with you, because I do not have the background and may not have the intellect necessary to understand it if I did.



Quote from: coffeeBot on 12-12-2017 22:04

... evidence though





Yes, or in its place, a comprehensive, self-consistent framework that other people can understand and use to make predictions which can be tested.



But in any case, my mind is definitely far too small to hold all of this in my working memory at the same time. So back to the beginning:



Quote

The consensus is reached by a certain percentage of the sub-atomic particles reaching a "yes" or "no" state. Some parts of the observational capacity (say eyes, or sub-atomic particles in optic nerve) get weighted more heavily because whatever cluster they are with is advantageous toward other clusters at communicating their consensus





What communications between particles are you talking about?



There are multiple self-consistent ways to look at some phenomena. e.g. in theory, everything has both particle-like and wave-like natures, but the wave-like nature of something becomes apparent only on smaller scales, as you drill down and approach the scale of molecules. A photon is a particle. A photon is a wave. A photon is an excitation in the electromagnetic field.Unfortunately I cannot debate field theory with you, because I do not have the background and may not have the intellect necessary to understand it if I did.Yes, or in its place, a comprehensive, self-consistent framework that other people can understand and use to make predictions which can be tested.But in any case, my mind is definitely far too small to hold all of this in my working memory at the same time. So back to the beginning:What communications between particles are you talking about?

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #709 on: 12-12-2017 23:56 » 12-12-2017 23:56 » Waves are bullshit.



Physical particles interact with physical particles physically.



Waves are saying I don't know. That's why people don't explain waves/fields in simple logical ways.

Tachyon



DOOP Secretary



DOOP Secretary Reply #710 on: 12-13-2017 01:53 » 12-13-2017 01:53 »



But it's not just light that behaves as both a wave and a particle. Other small particles such as electrons, and even atoms (in extreme cases) can be observed as both waves and particles.



I used to know how to set up a couple of screens (like window screens) to show the effects of diffraction, which can only happen if light behaves as a wave. If light wasn't a wave, binoculars couldn't function.



* Tachy looks around *





You can easily observe the wave nature of light yourself. You've used prisms, and lenses, right? Hell, you could even build your own interferometer and watch the actual fringes as light waves interfere with each other.But it's not just light that behaves as both a wave and a particle. Other small particles such as electrons, and even atoms (in extreme cases) can be observed as both waves and particles.I used to know how to set up a couple of screens (like window screens) to show the effects of diffraction, which can only happen if light behaves as a wave. If light wasn't a wave, binoculars couldn't function.

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #711 on: 12-13-2017 02:18 »

« Last Edit on: 12-13-2017 02:22 » 12-13-2017 02:18 »12-13-2017 02:22 » What's causes waves on the surface of water?



Waves aren't objects. Fields are bullshit.



The "duality" being observed is because we can't observe at the smallest increment of time yet. Waves are the interaction of particles over time.



I am correct.

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #713 on: 12-13-2017 04:18 » 12-13-2017 04:18 » You guys do realize if what I wrote is more correct than the standard model, you're the first people with a better way to look at the universe, right?



And it's not complicated. No magic. No double speak!

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #714 on: 12-13-2017 04:36 » 12-13-2017 04:36 » Quote from: Tachyon on 12-12-2017 22:24 What communications between particles are you talking about?



Communication is an exchange of information.



The communication I was discussing was collisions between particles.



The more particles, the bigger the collision, the more information exchanged/communication during the collision.



I think you are smart enough to understand what I wrote. I broke it down to the smallest observable (?) components, which are the simplest parts of the mechanisms of our universe.





The whole thing didn't come to me at once, it happened over a few days, hence the multiple posts. You were instrumental for parts of it, btw. Consider yourself a physicist.



Anything I wrote, I can explain in different ways, we've got time.



You understand ripples of water in a lake (particle collisions), this is the same thing which happens at the smallest scale. Communication is an exchange of information.The communication I was discussing was collisions between particles.The more particles, the bigger the collision, the more information exchanged/communication during the collision.I think you are smart enough to understand what I wrote. I broke it down to the smallest observable (?) components, which are the simplest parts of the mechanisms of our universe.The whole thing didn't come to me at once, it happened over a few days, hence the multiple posts. You were instrumental for parts of it, btw. Consider yourself a physicist.Anything I wrote, I can explain in different ways, we've got time.You understand ripples of water in a lake (particle collisions), this is the same thing which happens at the smallest scale.

winna



Avatar Czar

DOOP Ubersecretary



DOOP Ubersecretary Reply #715 on: 12-13-2017 06:21 »

« Last Edit on: 12-13-2017 06:56 » 12-13-2017 06:21 »12-13-2017 06:56 » E = mc2



Mass is information. That is, it defines a particle's dimension. Specifically, it probably defines the smallest particle's position, length, width, height.



The speed of light is the smallest piece of information (mass, smallest particle?) travelling the smallest distance of space in the smallest length of time.



Energy = mass * (speed of light)2



Energy = information (amount of) * (the smallest piece of information travelling the smallest distance of space in the smallest length of time)2





Edit: I think Energy is number of collisions. I think this can either be further simplified or manipulated to provide new possibilities