Did the term and the physics that is behind it actually originate with you or did you borrow it from someone else
Glad you liked it! The thing to remember is that electrons are not to be thought of as objects… they are waves, as he pointed out almost so quickly in the video that you may have missed it. So how does one define “touch” when discussing waves? The electrons only become particles when consciously observed.
When atoms are cooled far enough, they turn into waves as well. Fwd to 27:00 here:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxKFeQF6_zc[/youtube]
The fundamental nature of reality is wave-like, random, and truly unknowable. It is not substantive. So, we could say that nothing really exists except as information. Behind the curtain, there is no ‘there’ there. It’s like looking under the table for a word you lost. Things, like words, are representations of information and nothing is tangible.
I think that’s right, and that the reason the object in Void’s example has weight is relativity: in moving, say, your hand in order to move the object, the object will move relative to your hand and will thereby have weight relative to it.
I don’t think the part I snipped out is right, though:
The gram is simply the basic unit of weight in the metric system. Grams can be converted to pounds and vice versa.
I think objects in space have mass because they have weight relative to themselves, so to say (they consist of forces).
I think it is more accurate to say that electrons can display wave like or particle like behaviour but are not actually waves or particles as such
Now the famous double slit experiment of 1927 did show electrons displaying both behaviours but behaviour is not a thing but a characteristic
From what I’ve read and heard, it does seem that electrons and light etc. are actually waves, but waves of what? A wave in distilled water consists of water molecules, which in turn consist of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, which in turn etc. Hence “ether”: the medium in which light was supposed to be a wave motion. But the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics at any rate interprets light and the like as “probability waves”. Of course there’s always an ever so slight chance that light will actualize anywhere in space, so space is understood as the volume in which light may actualize (i.e., in which the probability wave may become a “particle”, a “photon”).
This video may be of interest in this context:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9x4oRQltDU[/youtube]
I think you’re about talking the resistance to change in velocity (acceleration). Force = mass x change in velocity. Weight is a unit of force when the acceleration is supplied by gravity. When the acceleration is supplied by a car, the force that forces you into your seat is not commonly referred to as gravity, but it’s essentially the same. If you’re inside a windowless box, there would be no way for you to tell if the box is accelerating or if the box is stationary and gravity is pulling you down.
No, grams is not a unit of weight; it is a unit of mass. “Slugs” are the unit of mass in the avoirdupois system and pounds is the unit of force. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass
Grams converted into pounds will be different on the earth and moon or mars because grams is mass while pounds is force and to compute force, you’d need to know the acceleration of gravity on the planet.
“Newtons” are the unit of weight in the international system. So, Newtons and pounds are weight while grams and slugs are mass.
Yes the double slit experiment concluded that conscious observation is required to make the waves collapse into particles. Without observation, they will be waves. That is THE most verified phenomenon in all of physics (according to Michio Kaku).
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]
So it’s like a video game where the room you’re in is loaded into memory but the room down the hall is not. Likewise, information is not certain unless there is a reason for that information to be known (ie a person is looking).
Right, that’s what I meant.
Well, maybe we should just use the international system, then. Newtons and grams. I’d never heard of a slug in that sense.
::
Yeah, well I don’t that’s correct. That is, the observation need not be conscious observation. I’ve discussed that with James before in this thread.
::
It turns out I especially meant the white paper version of the video:
“I define the word ‘constant’ in the two statements above as an unchanging ratio of space to time between samples at the sample rate of perception. The rate at which our minds sample reality is used as our internal clock. Intervals and extents that we sense are compared with remembered samples of ordered intervals and extents to form a perception of space and time around us.” (http://rosmappedcmmodel.com/public_html/Images/ROSMappedCMModel.pdf)
As I write this, though, I realize that this may refute my position in my discussion with James (which doesn’t mean it confirms his position: James rejects the notion that observation makes waves collapse into particles). Not having had time to think it through yet, I have an inkling that the “collapse” of waves into “particles” is nothing else than our mental reduction of the waves to our sample rate of perception.
That seems accurate to me and seems like an argument for an aether.
Light travels at the speed of causation hence its constant speed. Also, at the speed of light, the source and destination are the same place and there is no time. From the point of view of a photon, there is no space or time.
Light is analogous to sound and, like high frequency sounds do not pass through objects, gamma rays do not penetrate the atmosphere. Low frequency tones pass easily through walls the same as radio waves pass easily. So it would seem that neither light nor sound are tangible things, but things only in the context of their mediums by which they travel. LIght and sound are merely energy, not objects.
As far as I know, nobody understands what a photon is, so there is a lot of room for speculation.
Check this out:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s[/youtube]
That is only when electrons are being shared, which is what such bonds represent. I am not talking about that, I am talking about the outer electron clouds of the molecules at the edge of your body, or at the edge of the book you pick up.
When you pick up a book you are not sharing electrons between your hand and the book. There is no molecular bond there, rather there is resistive electromagnetic force as the molecules in your hand get as close as possible to the molecules in the book but, because they cannot share electrons and ‘connect’ like that, they end up reaching a point of minimum distance between each other before that negative force simply cannot be overcome. That is when you “feel” the book and “make contact” with it, thus able to move it around.
When you pick up a book, the atoms in the book cannot merge with or pass through the atoms in your hand.
In nuclear fusion you have high energy neutrons splitting atoms apart, which is not the same as atoms “merging with/through” each other.
Where?
Show me an example of where two matterobjects (‘physical’ things) pass through each other or merge together into one new object.
Mass is simply a count of the number of atoms, and of the size of those atoms. So basically it is the number of protons, electrons and neutrons all added together within a given volume, is what “mass” means.
Divide that total number of particles by the volume and you get density.
This is another stupidity of physics, thanks for reminding me. According to conventional physics, a force cannot exist unless there is “acceleration” (F=MA, if A=0 then F must also =0). This is obviously false since the magnets on my fridge are sticking there just fine and not accelerating at all, relative to the outside of the fridge, yet obviously the magnet must exert some degree of force against the fridge in order to resist the force of gravity.
You can have force taking place without any acceleration going on. Force is simply energy, the potential for or actuality of some change taking place. This can be movement but it can also be a resistance to movement. If I push on a boulder and it does not move, there was still a force located in the boulder that resisted my force of pushing against it. If this were not the case then I would have been able to move it.
That is what I just said. They are perpetually falling around the earth.
I put gravity in quotes for a reason.
My point was that physicists do not understand what gravity is or why it happens. You can verify this for yourself, just as a physicist, they will tell you that they don’t know.
Why is the force of gravity and the force of inertial mass the same? Because gravity is just a literal expression of the mass, in terms of how mass is raw minimal self-valuing in its own type-category, which is just “physical stuff” before any complex electromagnetics and structural/molecular or kinetic forces get involved. Gravity is like a baseline valuing that is always going on, as all matterobjects are self-valuing and the manifestation of this at the baseline level is that all matterobjects want to pull other matterobjects toward them, to ‘value’ them in so far as they are of the same self-valuing type as that matterobject itself. This is why what I said about mass is so important, with mass being nothing more than a total count of the number of atomic particles. Gravity is negligible at the level of an atom, because the atomic forces derived from the complex structural relations between the various atomic particles is much stronger, but once you aggregate enough atoms together in one spot and then put a different aggregate of atoms somewhere else, since the other atoms are sufficiently far away that the atomic structural forces are not able to pass the distance you are able to ‘see’ (detect, or feel) the strength of the raw minimal self-valuing that is going on.
Gravity is explained by logic, by philosophy. This is why physicists cannot explain it, because they want to say it is caused by some virtual particle or “spacetime fabric” or whatever. But in reality, physics simply cannot explain what gravity is and why it exists.
Force of gravity is predictable as a consequence of the mass of an object and the distance between objects; this is a perfect demonstration of how objects value each other (“pull on” each other) at the most rudimentary logical level based solely on how much of that object there is, and how far away the other objects are. Once the object gets close enough to the other object it successfully values it as part of itself, namely draws the other object to itself and they lock together gravitationally, if not also molecularly-chemically.
Gravity can be defined as the effect that objects of mass have on spacetime. The larger the object is the greater or more distorted the effect will
be. So there would appear to be a causal relationship between these two factors. And gravity is also supposed to be attractive but this may not be
entirely true if dark energy turns out to be repulsive gravity. But this is purely speculative right now since what dark actually is is not at all known
No it’s not shared, it’s ionic bonding which is like static cling. Covalent bonding is shared electrons. Of course picking up a book is not bonding, I was just saying it has more to do with the whole atom than just the electrons. The charge of the atom depends on how many protons and electrons it has. And then it gets more complicated from there because the strength of the charge differs in relation to the size of the atom (Called electronegativity). And then there is such a thing as “hydrated radius” where water molecules surround the atom and change the strength of its charge. I had to learn all that in studying plants because roots put out an H+ ion which floats around until it encounters a clay particle with a negative charge. It then bonds because the “electronegativity” of hydrogen is stronger than any other ion, so it bonds to the clay like static cling and causes another ion to come loose and float to the root. That’s how plants eat. Roots also put out an OH- ion that does the same process with the anion nutrients (PO4, SO4, etc).
No splitting atoms is fission. Fusion is fusing two atoms together. That’s how the sun works… it squishes two H atoms together to make helium.
The sun. Particle accelerators like Cern and the Hadron Collider. I didn’t mean to imply it was easy, but they can touch and fuse together and blow each other apart.
I guess so, but where does the mass of the particles come from? That’s where the Higgs field comes in.
The magnet doesn’t fall because of the friction between it and the fridge.
You can think about acceleration like this: You’re sitting in your room right now and you can’t tell if your room is accelerating upwards or if gravity is pulling you downward. So in that way gravity is said to be an acceleration. Gravity will accelerate you to a velocity of 32 ft/second for every second unless there is a force stopping it from doing so.
That is because the forces balance. The field of study is called Statics were forces are applied with no resulting motion. The next course is called Dynamics where forces result in motion. Either way force always has an acceleration component because the force would accelerate the object if there were no balancing forces to offset it.
I guess so, but “falling” makes it seem like they are falling back to earth.
Yes, I know they don’t. Some theorize that gravity “leaks” from another universe and that explains why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces. I don’t know if I believe that.
So why does an electron or proton have mass? And why does mass have gravity?
I tend to think that mass is displacing space and space is trying to refill the void. Of course, that depends on empty space being a thing and I lean towards believing that it is. Otherwise, the way light travels makes no sense to me. It would be the same as sound traveling in a vacuum. Light must have some medium to travel through because light is energy the same as sound.
Mass particles are entirely oblivious to the presents of other mass particles.
So then how do you explain the force of attraction that exists between them
First there is no “force between them”.
They merely behave as if there was a force. The mathematics can pretend that there is a force and predict reasonably accurately … until they get down to extremely close proximity. What mass particles actually do is migrate toward the more dense field, which happens to always be directly between them. They migrate like that for very understandable reasons:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yW00U4ZEQ4[/youtube]
“Effect objects have on spacetime” isn’t an explanation, unless you explain what “spacetime” is and explain why mass “effects” it.
Now that is interesting. Did you make those videos? I watched all on that channel, but I don’t understand what that cloud is. The infinite divisibility is something I can’t get my head around either.
I do like the idea though because I’ve often wondered if matter can “well-up” from seemingly nothing in space which gives the illusion of dark matter threads like a spider web of galaxies. I’m not fond of the big bang idea, although they claim it’s passed many tests. Fill me in on this idea. In the mean time I’m going to read your blog and search for more on this forum. Lots of stuff came up on google when I searched for Affectance Ontology.
No, an ionic bond is still sharing an electron.
“In simpler words, an ionic bond is the transfer of electrons from a metal to a non-metal in order to obtain a full valence shell for both atoms.” -wiki
When you pick up a book the molecules in your hand are not “clinging to” the molecules in the book due to an absence of an electron in molecules in either the book or your hand and the presence of an extra electron in the molecules of the other. It is entirely due to the resistive negative electromagnetic force between the outer ring of electrons in the molecules that make up both the book and your hand.
Yes you’re right, I was describing fission there. My mistake. But fusion is also not an explanation either, since while in very rare cases like in a sun you do have fusion going on, that isn’t how most matter relates at all. And even in fusion you don’t have two objects merging into/through each other, you have those two objects breaking down under immense pressure to become an entirely new object.
Again, that’s a rare case and also it isn’t “merging into or through”, it’s changing to become something different.
Mass is the resistive force caused by the fact that a particle creates a boundary around itself to define inside and outside; the very fact of there being such a boundary represents a “force” whereby the inside resists what is outside itself, in order to continue maintaining itself as itself (in order to self-value). This is “mass” simply because it now takes additional force to move the particle, because it is trying to resist being moved like that (because, again due to making that boundary as itself, it needs to resist and differentiate what is outside of itself).
Magnetism is a force, not a friction.
And when an object is pulling another object toward itself and cannot do that any further, because of the ground for example, that “force” of pull translates into weight, i.e. additional force needed to move it (to overcome the pull of gravity)
That only shows that it isn’t acceleration. If something isn’t moving then it isn’t “accelerating”, even if it would otherwise be moving if it weren’t being stopped by something else.
They are. But the rate of the fall is equal to the rate of their escaping that fall due to their own forward velocity.
Lol.
Such is the state of modern physics.
As I said above, particles have mass due to needing to establish a boundary between themselves and what is not themselves, and because having such a boundary logically presupposes a degree of force going into maintaining it.
Gravity is simply the fact that particles are logical self-valuing in the bare minimum, ‘unconscious’ sense and therefore value other particles that are exactly like themselves, for the very same logical reason that they value themselves. One proton sees another proton as also itself but from a distance, which is why its valuing (assimilating into/as itself, or “pulling toward itself”) of the other proton is divided out in intensity by the square of the distance. The distance is squared because the origins valuing (“pulling” of “gravity”) is of the particle in terms of itself; ‘in terms of itself’ is just another way of saying “squared” in math.
I can demonstrate that gravity is not a “force” simply because the strength of gravity does not divide itself out among however many objects it is attracting at a given moment. The sun does not pull less on a planet because another planet comes into its orbit. Thus the mass represents an “infinite” capacity to value which translates into pull on all objects regardless of the number or size of other objects. If gravity were a force somehow emitted from a mass then it would divide itself out by the number of objects it is gravitationally attracting, but that isn’t how gravity works.
Yes, there is an underlying medium, always. But you can’t say it is simply “spacetime” because that isn’t an explanation, it is just an empty word used to pretend to explain something that isn’t actually being explained.
His “explanation” is as nonsensical and obviously false as is his above statement. Obviously mass particles are not oblivious to other mass particles-- the very fact that they are not oblivious like that is what is called gravity.
Don’t be fooled by him.
Space is the three dimensional Universe within which all objects of mass exist and time is any measurement of change or distance within this. Because
they are so fundamentally connected they are regarded as being one rather than two separate entities. Hence spacetime. Spacetime tells matter how
to move while matter tells spacetime how to bend. And the bending of spacetime is general relativity that is simply gravity although on a cosmic scale