Done I’ll bet my pornography collection against a case of single malt 20yr+ old Glenlivet.
Links broken for me by the by.
==================================================================================================
sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive … g01897.pdf
atheistnation.net/forums/ind … 116.0;wap2
physicsforums.com/archive/in … 54846.html
etc
The masses in the Universe are very few.
The distances between stars are very far.
About 99% of the matter in the Universe is unseen.
Nobody knows what it is.
But God using the > 99% Hidden mass of the Universe
controls of his < 1% Visible mass of the Universe.
He is a smart physicist. He sadly smiles when others say:
‘ The formulas are cleverer than men’.
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
Dark matter and Dark energy. Dark matter is matter that only interacts with the weak force and gravity not electromagnetic radiation (light, radio, X-rays etc) thus is not visible by ordinary detection means, like neutrinos for example. Also dark matter is sometimes known as (WIMPs) Weak Interacting Massive (with mass so subject to gravity) Particles. Although the WIMP theory is less well accepted these days.
The first evidence of this hypothesis, that made it a tentative theory was the collision of two galaxy clusters, where if the mass was only the visible mass (ie the stars and dust) then accordingly it should have formed in a certain way, it seems though that the collision caused some very large anomalies of gravitation that showed that there was something there we could not see, that also had mass, and made up a large part of the Nebulae. We also have indirect evidence form the motion of galaxies which can only be explained by introducing extra mass. Incidentally in bout 4 billion years we are due to collide with Andromeda.
sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 093947.htm
This explains also how we have a theory rather than a hypothesis although not a strong one atm.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Dark galaxies, places with enormous amounts of matter, where something stops it from forming visible stars.
newscientist.com/article/dn7056
Collision of two nebulae with “anomalous” gravitational effects.
en.citizendium.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Even if there wasn’t all this evidence, a God of the gaps theory that merely says if we do not know about something then God steps in, is lazy and basically a waste of time. 200 years ago no one knew how something as complicated as an eye could form, now we have a fairly airtight theory; back then they said this must be evidence God exists, as you can see they were premature. Assuming a theory is wrong because we don’t know something on evidence now, has been shown thousands of times to be a faulty conclusion; doesn’t mean it’s right but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s wrong either.
Nature doesn’t smile, it just does things according to natural laws. God is superfluous.
And there is no control, gravity is a force, it is blind and uncaring of what its effects are, this is not control it is an arbitrary force of nature.
My opinion about
how God using 99% Hidden matter
take control over 1% of the Visible matter.
THE GENESIS. (scheme.)
1.
In the beginning was Vacuum some kind of
Infinite/ Eternal Energy Space: T = 0K.
2.
According to Quantum Theory this Infinite Energy Space create
‘ virtual energetic particles – frozen light quanta’. They are in
‘rest’/ potential condition and have following physical parameters:
C/D=pi , E=Mc^2, R/N=k , h = 0 , i^2=-1 .
3.
Moving Quantum of Light is a Photon.
Planck: h =E/t h = 1, c=1.
Einstein: h =kb h =1, c =1.
4.
Working Quantum of Light/ Photon is an Electron.
Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck: h(bar) = h/2pi , c>1.
E = hf,
Sommerfeld: e^2 = hca (Electron).
The Lorentz transformations.
5.
Star formation:
e- → k → He II → He I → rotating He –> plasma reaction -
- → thermonuclear reaction: ( P. Kapitza , L. Landau,
E.L. Andronikashvili theories ),
( Theories of superconductivity and superfluidity.).
a) hf > kT
b) hf = kT
c) kT > hf
As result of Star formation Proton was created.
p ( Proton)
7.
Evolution of interaction between Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
8.
Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / law.
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ law.
9.
Testing:
a) Theory - Dualism of Consciousness
(consciousness / subconsciousness.)
b) Personal practice. – Parapsychology. (Meditation.)
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
socratus.com
worldnpa.org/php2/index.php? … ay&id=1372
========== . =========== .
I want to know how God created this world.
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
/Einstein/
I have a dozen theories none of them can or will start with the axiom God exists. What you want is not science and therefore cannot be answered by it; but just because you don’t know the answer you can’t claim God did it, that makes you no better than the space maroons who claimed they eye could not come about by natural selection.
In that case we’re done, you could of course accept that there have been 6 trillion big bangs since the start of time, and so obviously sooner or later the laws of nature will be as they are, given that time is potentially infinite even though from our perspective it started at about 14.7 billion years ago. You could say there are an infinite number of multiverses, you could say brains are colliding forming universes all the time. What you can’t say though is God exists because I’m an anthropic religious layman (who knows very little about physics, or even cares) with a humanocentric look at reality that is so ignorant that most aliens think fish are more highly evolved than us. Carry on praying towards mecca, God, or Jesus or whatever it is you people do these days and get over the idea of philosophising about things you know nothing about. Science doesn’t care about why, or issues of purpose, asking that is pointless, it’s like asking why fish chose to become amphibians.
Why not take up Kabbalah? That doesn’t require any relation to reality either? At least it relates God and astrology to man, which it seems is more your area.
This comment about your philosophical ramblings sums it up for me:
“I’m sorry socrates but if your adding god to ur massive amount of words it may be wise to put “I think” or “I believe” somewhere in there.”
Anonymous guest.
let me explain this simply: science needs evidence to create theories, God does not, therefore science cannot deal with something for which there is no empirical evidence, what you are asking for is a philosophy of religion, you are asking the wrong questions therefore.
Science and religion are like oil and water, mixing them is never going to provide a solution.
Me about 4 years ago. It’s as true then as it is now.
What you want is to couch a question in Theee great emulsifier: philosophy not in science.
Vacuum and virtual particles.
What is the basic substratum which can produce Energy
in the Universe ?
The simplest answer is:
According to Quantum Physics it is some kind of
Infinite/ Eternal Energy Space of Vacuum.
Where does the mass of the particle come from?
The simplest answer is:
According to Quantum Physics from virtual particles.
Einstein said,
/ . . . we have not proven that the Aether does not exist, we
have merely proven that we do not need it (for computations) /
It is correct 'that we do not need it (for computations) '.
But to understand behavior of elephant we must study savanna.
To understand behavior of whale we must study ocean.
And to study 'virtual energetic particles ’ in Vacuum we must
know the characteristics of Vacuum.
What are Vacuum’s characteristics ?
a)
The Universe as whole is Vacuum a Kingdom of Coldness.
Now the physicists think that this Kingdom of Coldness as
an Absolute Reference Frame in a state of T=2,7K
( after big bang ). But if somebody belief in big bang ,
he must take in calculation that T=2,7K expands and therefore
T=2,7K is temporary parameter and with time it will go to T= 0K.
b)
According to Quantum Physics the Vacuum (T= 0K) is some kind
of Homogeneous Space of the lowest ( the background ) level
of Energy: E= 0.
So, we have two parameters of Vacuum.
Is it enough to understand all parameters of virtual particles
in the Vacuum without to spend money on searching the
'Higgs boson ’ ?
( In 1964 Higgs had ‘one big idea’, which could hold a clue
to how matter in the universe got its mass in the billionth
of a second after the Big Bang.
At the European Centre for Nuclear Research
(CERN) in Switzerland the first Higgs boson
- nicknamed the ’ God particle ’ will actually observe . )
In my opinion these two parameters of Vacuum is enough
to understand the all parameters of virtual particles.
!!!
First .
If the Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space, so according
to the Quantum Theory it must contains only
the physical - quantum - energetic particles.
The virtual energetic particles is not a ’ pure philosophical
concept ’ that is never observed in practice.
The Quantum Theory says that :
’ Its effects can be observed in various phenomena
(such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the
van der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thought
to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe
on cosmological scales. ’
/ en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Vacuum_energy /.
Second.
The Vacuum is also the Homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
If the Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space with the
lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K, then all the
’ Laws of the Theory of Ideal Gas ’ we can apply to Vacuum.
’ The Theory of Ideal Gas is not abstract theory.
It is impossible from abstract ’ Theory of Ideal Gas’ to create real
’ Theory of Thermodynamics '.
Here is one of our ’ paradoxes ’ in Physics.
My conclusion.
According to Quantum Theory this Infinite/ Eternal
Energy Space create ¡® virtual energetic particles ¨C frozen light quanta¡¯.
They are in the rest/ potential condition and they have following
physical parameters:
Geometrical form : C/D = pi ,
Potential energy ( a dark energy, positron, . . .etc ): E= Mc^2,
Potential mass ( a mass-lees, dark mass , . . . .etc ): R/N=k ,
Inner impulse : h = 0 ,
Mathematical formula : i^2= -1 .
============ ====== . .
Electron has infinity energy after
interaction with Vacuum.
Why?
Maybe it is because the Electron only changed its visual
parameters on the unseen parameters and therefore
we call him ’ virtual ’ . . . ?
What does ’ The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass ’ mean according to one single electron ?
What does ‘The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass’ mean according to ’ the natural
virtual energetic particle’ ?.
Without Aether/ Vacuum physics makes no sense.
========== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
What do you know about field theory. Because in that theory everything is linked to everything else by the forces in the universe which obviously are never 0. To put it simply this is where the energy for vacuum fluctuations comes from, or at least where it is borrowed from. Aether needs more than just arm waving to resurrect it, it needs to be reflected in experiment. As the Michelson-Morley experiment showed though, there is no drag effect. I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than this if you want to challenge the mainstream. Getting a degree in physics would probably help.
To put it neatly though, Aether is a third wheel, without it everything makes sense, with it then the experimental evidence makes no sense.
======= .
1.
Now the physicists think that Vacuum as
an Absolute Reference Frame in a state of T=2,7K
( after big bang). But if somebody belief in “ big bang”,
he must take in calculation that T=2,7K expands and
therefore the T=2,7K is temporary parameter and with
time it will go to T= 0K.
2.
The ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ speculate with temperature parameter T=0K.
Question.
Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?
================== .
Comment.
alexandris nikos:
in my paper it seems that 2,73K is a temperature of thermodynamical
balance in a universe with limits and open .2,73K is the less
temperature if the universal constants are stable.
If the temperature of universe will be 0K the rest mass
of electron must be zero.
Sadovnik.
Is better to say:
If the temperature of universe will be 0K the potential energy
of electron must be E= Mc^2, and
the potential rest mass of electron must be R/N=k.
it means:
the condition of virtual electron/positron/frozen quantum
of light can be written also with formula : E= kc^2.
!!! ??? !!!
=================== . .
Best wishes.
S.
============ . .
That makes no sense, the average temperature of the universe is not 0K any more than the vacuum is at 0K on average. As you say it’s about 2.73K, this must be a language barrier as you’ve lost me now. In fact according to theory 0K is not a temperature that can be reached by any medium containing matter or energy anyway so what you’re talking about seems to be an impossible scenario. If your making extrapolations on what if there was 0K then there’s no point it’s not a scenario that appears to exist. Thus any idea based on such a scenario is beyond the laws of quantum mechanics, and even if it was possible would probably require a special case scenario, just as the photon does in special relativity.
The potential energy of a free electron is dependant on e=hf, that’s all you really need to derive the potential energy of an electron, see the Wilson-Sommerfield quantisation. Such a quantisation is not resolvable for the ground state though, the Schrödinger or Dirac equation is needed for that, but again such an equation would not work at OK because such a state is not achievable.
The potential energy of an electron in say a hydrogen atom is dependant not only on e=hf, but the energy of the atom as a whole. I’m not sure where the idea that an electron has 0 mass even comes in here it sounds like a flagrantly absurd posit. Can you explain how e=hf leads to the idea that an electron has no mass anyway…
Can ‘Theory of Ideal Gas’ be model of Vacuum ?
========== .
Comments.
Hi Sadovnik
The notion of a ideal gas is only to simplify it’s dynamics in order to frame it
in a mathematical model . When dealing with the real world a gas will never
be perfect but at least understanding and the the tools to predict it are in place .
I see no reason for a vacuum to be perfect unless it was at 0 K
The number zero is as demanding number similar to as infinity . Leaving this
aside I believe space can be modeled under ideal conditions . Making it a ideal
gas is another question . I say no but I am not adamant about it . It depends on
what a photon is . Information has to get from a to b in space . If a photon is a
particle then I see no problem with space being modeled after a ideal gas .
However you must take the bitter pill that goes with this . Energy expands
a gas which is in contradiction with relativity . The energy that goes into
expansion can not also increase it’s mass due to conservation of energy .
Only when a gas is inhibited from expanded will all the energy go into
more inertia . Even then there is a problem with heat radiation taking energy
out of the system . So you can see in the case of a ideal gas the bulk of the
energy went into expansion . You can not say it is a ideal gas then change
all the rules when relativity comes along . Some would not agree with this
but I see no way around it .
That was an interesting question .
/ John /
I think the ideal gas is a good analogy of the vacuum
except the ideal gas sub-particles all travel at the speed of light C.
/ jerrygg38 /
only in the most naive way: by defining a vacuum as a gas of density
zero. Of course this is outside the domain of validity for this theory.
/ Lars /
1). It’s Socrates, not Socratus.
2). You seem not to understand the meaning and use of theoretical
Terms (such as “ideal gas”) in scientific theories.
3). Your quotes are taken out of context, making it seem as
if the world’s leading physicists are admitting physics doesn’t
know anything. This is called “quote mining”. It is clearly not true,
and dishonest, to boot.
4). In any rate, even if modern physics were 100% wrong,
that would be no evidence of God’s existence, let alone for the truth
of any particular religion.
5). Just because we don’t know how something happened doesn’t
mean God did it. For thousands of years people didn’t know what
causes lightning, so they said it was God being angry and smiting sinners.
They were wrong. Today we don’t know what dark energy is, so some
people say it is something God created. But that doesn’t mean that’s true.
6). Physics WORKS. It allows us to make predictions and experiments
an engineering feats. If it were deeply wrong, your computer would
not work, for example. Religion doesn’t work. It cannot reliably predict,
it cannot be tested, it passes no experiments.
7). For this reason, it is very likely that physics is approximately true,
while religion is not.
Avital Pilpel
avitalpilpel.com/
=========== . .
I don’t see how God comes into any of this but then I fundamentally disagree with your theory or should I say hypothesis of an ether as well. God is just a belief not an actual part of physics. Still your welcome to believe whatever you like.
Conservation ??? Transformation ???
jerrygg38 wrote on 23/06/2009 :
The Heisenbery uncertainty principle shows that linear momentum
is not conserved. The reason is that at any interaction linear momentum
can transform into angular momentum. However my dot-waves also
oscillated from a radius to the Plank radius. The contraction and
expansion of the dot-wave either in a plane surface or a spherical
surface I call spherical momentum.
Therefore in order to conserve momentum and agree with the
Heisenbergy principle, it is clear that one solution is that the total sum
of all momentums is constant,
Therefore when two dot-waves interact or two particles interact,
we cannot tell what direction the particles will go within the uncertainty.
A photon can enter the electron, the energy of the photon becomes
part of the energy level of the electron.
However the momentum is not guaranteed.
My comment.
jerrygg38
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that linear momentum
is not conserved.
====.
S.
!!!
========== .
jerrygg38
The reason is that at any interaction linear momentum
can transform into angular momentum.
========== .
S.
And vice versa.
=============== .
jerrygg38
However my dot-waves also oscillated from a radius to the Plank radius.
========= .
S.
Is it possible to say what this process goes around the Plank radius ?
========== .
jerrygg38
The contraction and expansion of the dot-wave either in a plane
surface or a spherical surface I call spherical momentum.
======== .
S.
Is this process goes around the Plank radius (spherical surface ) ?
Is this spherical momentum connected with spherical surface ?
========= .
jerrygg38
Therefore in order to conserve momentum and agree with the
Heisenberg principle, it is clear that one solution is that the total
sum of all momentums is constant,
========== .
S.
Something here is wrong.
Why?
You say:
1.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that linear momentum
is not conserved.
2.
The reason is that at any interaction linear momentum
can transform into angular momentum.
It means that according to Heisenberg principle neither linear
momentum nor angular momentum are constant parameters.
But you try to conserve momentum.
Why?
Is it because from school we were studied about the law
of momentum’s conservation, energy conservation . . etc ?
And then you say: ‘it is clear that one solution is that the total
sum of all momentums is constant,’.
But the law is named :
" The law of conservation and transformation energy / mass"
And nobody in the school taught us : ‘What does the Law of
Transformation energy / mass means according to one single
quantum of light or to one single electron ?’
============= .
jerrygg38
Therefore when two dot-waves interact or two particles interact,
we cannot tell what direction the particles will go within the uncertainty.
===== .
S.
In my opinion the Heisenberg principle shows that particles
can have different momentums.
========= .
jerrygg38
A photon can enter the electron, the energy of the photon becomes part
of the energy level of the electron.
======= .
S.
Questions:
Can photon and electron be one and the same particle
in different conditions ?
Can the difference between photon and electron depends
only from frequency ?
Answer:
May 23, 2009.
I think not just frequency, but phasing and polarity will differ.
David M. Rountree, AES
Scientific Paranormal Investigative
Research Information and Technology
www.spinvestigations.org
So.
Not just frequency, phasing , polarity but momentum also
will be differ when electron ( or photon) changes its behavior.
=============================== . . .
jerrygg38
However the momentum is not guaranteed.
====== .
S.
However the conversation of momentum (as well as frequency,
phasing , polarity and charge ) is not guaranteed and is not
constant parameter .
========== .
From an email.
Since linear momentum and angular have different units,
I don’t understand how one can transform into the other.
/ R. . . . PhD /
=== . .
So: continuation.
jerrygg38 wrote:
Therefore in order to conserve momentum and agree with the
Heisenberg principle, it is clear that one solution is that the total
sum of all momentums is constant,
======= .
S.
We have two momentums:
linear momentum and angular momentum ( maybe more).
And jerrygg38 says:
‘ that the total sum of all momentums is constant,’.
How it was saying simply . . ‘ sum of all momentums ‘ !!!
Ones Sir Arthur Eddington said:
We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two,
because one and one are two. We are finding
that we must learn a great deal more about `and '.
In others words, when we have one linear momentum
and one angular momentum that we must learn a great
deal more about `sum’. Because ‘sum’ must be some Law,
which connected the ‘one’ and ‘ one’ to ‘sum’.
============ .
Regards.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
Socratus, I’ve read the thread, and I see flashes of truth, but it sounds as if you need my help. The quantum of quantum mechanics is extraordinarily simple once you understand it. Ideally you’d first appreciate the fundamentals of electromagnetism and pair production, but we can come back to that.
You’ll be aware that when it comes to photons, E=hf applies, where h is Planck’s constant of action. You’ll also be aware that action is energy multiplied by time, or conversely momentum multiplied by distance. OK, take a look at the picture below. It’s a depiction of the electromagnetic spectrum. The frequency is increasing towards the right.
Now, find a piece of paper, and draw a variety of sinusoidal waveforms corresponding to photons in say the gamma, visible, microwave, and radio range. Some waveforms are laterally-compressed versions of others, but otherwise they’re the same. Now just look at your waveforms. What attribute do they all share? It’s as obvious as the nose in front of your face, and it’s hidden in plain view. Those waveforms all share the same amplitude. What you don’t know is that this amplitude is actually a distance, that all photons exhibit a common extension of 3.86 x 10ˉ¹³m. This is the distance that underlies Planck’s constant of action, and is the quantum of quantum mechanics.
Don’t hesitate to ask for more, Socratus. Ask me anything.
Socratus is an example of classical crackpottery which comes from the misunderstanding of physics. The sort of damage that can be done with ideas like quantum teleportation, Schrödinger’s Cat, HUP, ether issues, Brownian motion (I’m not even going to begin to go into how complicated that is, but Einsteins 1905 paper should clear up any issues, or maybe this is where this comes from in the first place!) Anyway the damage they can do in the hands of the media (and its dumbing down of what are extremely complex issues) and then further the uneducated laymen who watches The Discovery Channel and then further the spiritualist are colossal. Me I think there should be a rule on any forum that vaguely involves physics, that you have to at least have a college education of some sort before you advance a theory, and at least a High school education (or A’ level in physics preferably) before you are allowed near the discussion at all. But then that’s a bit thought policey, and come to think of it crackpot theories are great fun. For example trying hard to explain at the moment why the wave functions measurement issues does not mean the strong anthropic principle is valid (ie that the consciousness creates reality and without it nothing exists). Trying and probably failing but ho hum. Yes as Einstein said if you stop looking at the moon it’s still there, honest! 
It isn’t a black and white world, Sidhe. Some of what Socratus has been saying is right. Not all, but some. And some of the material promoted by those with college degrees, and professorships, and celebrity status, is total garbage. Not all, but some.
The issue of a “thought police” is a serious one, and dangerous. Let me tell you now, painful as it might be: some of the material you have been taught to date, and some of the material that you are going to be taught in the next three years, is wrong. Some of it will even be garbage. Not all, just some. But you will not be able to discern which is which. And if you are then subject to an across-the-board censorship that brooks no challenge, you never ever will.
I’m all for free speech in science, and that has to mean there are some places where free open discussion is permitted. If we reach a point where ideas and discussion and offered evidence are censored because they’re not in accord with current teaching, then we’ve lost the checks and balances that prevent the mainstream descending into dogma. If you feel I’m being too alarmist here, just take a look at string theory and The Trouble with Physics.
=============
If you are right. . . . . What it means?
This is amplitude , this is ‘ actually a distance, that all photons
exhibit a common extension of 3.86 x 10ˉ¹³m. ‘
‘This is the distance that underlies Planck’s constant of action,
and is the quantum of quantum mechanics.’
If you are right. . . . . What it means?
It means that in every waveforms (Planck’s constant of action)
there is Photon/ Electron.
It means that in every act (electromagnetic spectrum )
there is Photon / Electron.
The Photon/ Electron is cause of the different electromagnetic waveforms.
The different frequencies of Photon/ Electron makes different
electromagnetic waveforms.
The different frequencies in different interactions comes as result of
Photon/ Electron evolution.
Frequency is the key to everything.
Frequency is the key of photon’s / electron’s evolution.
======== . .
Questions:
Can photon and electron be one and the same particle
in different conditions ?
Can the difference between photon and electron depends
only from frequency ?
============ . .
Answer.
May 23, 2009.
I think not just frequency, but phasing and polarity will differ.
David M. Rountree, AES
Scientific Paranormal Investigative
Research Information and Technology
spinvestigations.org
So, the frequency , phasing , polarity ,momentum and charge
of photon / electron is not guaranteed and is not constant parameter .
===========
Thank you.
S.
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken.
( Albert Einstein, 1954)
spaceandmotion.com/albert-ei … hysics.htm
======================
If it were just the science I’d probably agree, but the God stuff is pretty damning, there’s a lot of mysticism mixed in there also. Perhaps he should just stick to making claims about science…