Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+20
Vann7
The-thing-next-door
starman
Regular
magnumcromagnon
dino00
Aristide
Walther von Oldenburg
flamming_python
GarryB
GunshipDemocracy
LMFS
Viktor
nomadski
jhelb
George1
Morpheus Eberhardt
victor1985
Werewolf
kvs
24 posters

    Physics General Subjects Thread

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Fri Mar 25, 2022 2:12 pm



    Cosmology is a quack "science". It never crossed their minds that the Earth could emit microwaves from an apparent 3 Kelvin
    temperature source. Clown ignorance and assumptions are not knowledge. Ego tripping clowns who ram their ignorant
    BS down everyone's throats are some of the worst human garbage out there.

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Mon May 30, 2022 4:51 am

    Recall the overhyped "image" of the M87 "black hole". Well, it turns out to be image processing garbage.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.04623.pdf

    The above article shows what is involved with image processing of the actual data. The "black hole" ring is
    an artifact of sloppy image processing.

    Science by press release and media hype is not science. But it is effective at establishing dogma.

    nomadski and LMFS like this post

    nomadski
    nomadski


    Posts : 2167
    Points : 2177
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  nomadski Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:24 am

    https://www.futilitycloset.com/2011/08/22/the-arrow-paradox/



    This movement can be explained ? By quantum mechanics ? Time divisible to a point , where an object exists in two places at the same time . Here and there . Now and later ? Does this mean , space/ time is particulate , with discrete points of being and not - being , where an object exists at two points , temporarily ? Means , jump from point to point takes no time , movement takes place in the past and future and present .
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:03 pm

    nomadski wrote:https://www.futilitycloset.com/2011/08/22/the-arrow-paradox/



    This movement can be explained ? By quantum mechanics ? Time divisible to a point , where an object exists in two places at the same time . Here and there . Now and later ? Does this mean , space/ time is particulate , with discrete points of being and not - being , where an object exists at two points , temporarily ? Means , jump from point to point takes no time , movement takes place in the past and future and present .

    Aristotle loved to claim that philosophy can "reason out" the universe while the philosopher is sitting on some stone.    This is delusional nonsense.    Reality is
    more vast than any brain neuron pattern can generate and cannot be derived from a few postulates.   Even mathematics fails to achieve this simplicity.  

    An example of the BS tendency of humans to impose their bias on physics is GR and worldlines.  We are supposed to accept that all entities exist on some
    time dimension where all of their past and future instances exist at the same "time".    So time travel is just traipsing back and forth on this fancied time dimension.
    This, naturally, is ignorant desire in the guise of deep analysis.   Traipsing on a hypothetical time dimension automatically requires a 5th degree of freedom.   You
    started with three spatial dimensions and then because you thought you were real smart, your desire for a 4th dimension which you call time, you ended up with
    five dimensions.   Following your own peasant fantasy "logic", you will try to claim that the 5th degree of freedom is a 5th dimension, so then you are implicitly
    generating a 6th degree of freedom and so on to absurdity.  

    There is no time dimension.   The past and the future do not exist.   The only thing that exists is the "now".   It may be fuzzy in the quantum mechanical sense that
    multiple realizations of the "now" are possible with some probability weighting.   But there is no traipsing possible on some ad hoc time "dimension".   It is more
    physically justified to assert that motion is a more fundamental property than time.   Time is just a construct which emerges from motion and is nothing more than
    a label for it.   This applies to all processes including particle decay.   All physical entities are themselves composed of photons or photon type particles that move
    even if they are trapped in a locality.   The most fundamental clock is a photon bouncing between two ideal mirrors.  

    Time dilation inside a gravitational well is nothing more than the photon bouncing between the mirrors taking longer to do so.   An absolute universal time is well
    defined even if relativist subjectivists don't like it.   A real theory of gravity has to start from understanding of its particle level interactions.   Not from equivalence
    principles and other simplistic hypotheses.   GR is just a recast of the Newton's Theory of Gravity since it has nothing to say about the force law.   Even if the force
    is transmuted into geometry, it still requires an external formulation which GR does not provide.   The equivalence principle supplies no information of the form:

    GMm/r^2

    Einstein's GR does not provide us with G.   Is the exponent of the radius, r, 2 or some other number?   MOND says that on large scales it is not exactly 2 and MOND
    can resolve the galaxy rotation curve problem without appealing to magical dark matter.   Again, it makes more sense that photons (and thus all matter) interact with
    gravitons (something that does not exist in GR and GR cannot be quantized since there is no gravitational field but instead some space-time metric).    Gravity is thus
    a fundamentally nonlinear theory since gravitons must interact with themselves.  The MOND power law exponent deviation from 2 is precisely this nonlinearity.  

    The gravity tangent may seem a non sequitur from the original point about the existence of time, but it is BS such as worldlines that are spawned by SR and GR that
    generates nonsense about time and time travel.   The SR and GR formulations are formalisms and not fundamentals of reality.   You can take any dynamical system
    and pretend it has worldlines.   That does not mean that the past and the future coexist with the present.

    nomadski likes this post

    nomadski
    nomadski


    Posts : 2167
    Points : 2177
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  nomadski Sat Jun 04, 2022 8:54 pm

    I must attempt a reply as a lay person . I followed what you said , up to a point . The moving arrow paradox does I think include a time component . Time being a record of sequence of events . And to say there is no time , is to say there is no sequence . But we know that there are sequences . Some very slow , and some fast .

    Take the example of this particle , in order to move , it can move it's front portion and keep it's rear static . But this means , it has become soft and deformed , lost it's shape . Or if can move it's rear and keep it's front static . But then it becomes infinitely  hard and inelastic or compacted . In these two cases , then it's nature changes . Or if it can move all it's sides together , in unison , and keep looking good , like catwalk model !

    So movement must take place , out of the foot - print , of it's own shape . It must at once ( instantly ) , with all it's sides and geometry , be in new location . If this movement was not instant , it would be impossible . Since it would lead to particle , being in two places at the same time . Then the mass  of this particle will increase . And change it's  beautiful shape and nature . It's qualities .

    Therefore the particle ceases to exist in one location , and appears in new location instantly . Retaining all characteristics . Objects containing a mass of particles like Arrows or Atoms , or cat walk models , travel in this way . With each indivisible particle , doing a trick , appearing and disappearing along a path . Space being like a honeycomb , where each particle , comes to rest , before moving on , on it's travels .

    The speed of the particle in space , is independent of the speed with which particles themselves materialize and dematerialize between spatial pit stops , instantly  ! That is how the Arrow moves , where it is not !

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XjCW10-eRVI
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 35362
    Points : 35888
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  GarryB Sun Jun 05, 2022 9:08 am

    Makes my head hurt...

    But I would suspect part of the problem is our understanding using examples.

    Let me give you an example... once we realised space was expanding we described it as a fabric, but obviously it is no fabric... but part of the analogy has rubbed off so people talk about rips in the fabric of what we now call space time... but is that a feature of real space time or a feature of fabric we have mistakenly attributed to space time because of our fabric analogy?

    At the time of the big bang we are told the matter of the entire known and unknown universe... all the matter and energy we can and cannot see existed in the volume smaller than an electron... that alone explains why we call it spacetime... because if it was space alone it should have created the only black hole ever to exist and everything would have fallen into the singularity created.

    We assume the enormous compression of spacetime prevented the compression of matter within what constituted the universe at that time to form the pockets of gravity needed to form anything... planets, stars, gallaxys, or the more exotic objects like black holes, but that what it did do was create expansion.

    We are told the expansion is accelerating, which suggests it started slower, but most descriptions of the big bang I have read about it goes from the size of a subatomic particle to a rather large dark volume of mostly hydrogen and helium... presumably as the volume decompresses bubbles are formed like nitrogen bubbles in a divers blood... but they now seem to think it happens on multiple scales... the smaller scale to form stars... the first of which were enormous and very short lived but presumably pushed out gases and created new elements so early on the density of spacetime was too high for these super stars to collapse into black holes... but on a larger scale other bubbles formed... bubbles of enormous groups of stars which created multiple galaxy clusters in clumps with largely empty gaps between them... one would expect that when you expand a solid and internal cavities form the physical resistance to expansion would be physical, but in our example that empty space with no gravity would expand faster than space where enormous heavy objects like stars and groups of stars are located.

    Spacetime is not a fabric and we have no reason to believe its ability to expand is limited the gaps between galaxy clusters might expand forever leading to the situation where each galaxy cluster will suffer collision after collision until all the galaxies in each cluster form a single super galaxy in each pocket, but the space between galaxies continues to expand to the point where the dots in the night sky that are not stars in our galaxy but are actually distant galaxies will fade into indiscernable blobs and the sky will darken except for all the starts in our galaxy which has already consumed two other smaller galaxy and is about to merge with the Andromeda galaxy...

    As hydrogen and helium are consumed and dust clouds collapse the things that emit light in the galaxy will fade and everything will go dark as the expansion continues forever.
    nomadski
    nomadski


    Posts : 2167
    Points : 2177
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  nomadski Mon Jun 06, 2022 4:33 pm

    Now mathematicians , most of them believe in the existence of zero and infinity . But these may only be ideal concepts existing in our mind . Like pink Elephants . They have said that , they found the number of particles in the universe to be a finite number . Also the number of zero , can not refer to any actual object in reality . What has no dimension or mass , simply does not exist .

    If this indivisible particle ( original Atom , in Greek philosophy ) , traverses space , through an infinite ( many ) number of points , for an interval of zero time ( short time ) then to traverse between two points A and B , would take : many x short time = long time . And speed of particles would be fixed and limited . But we see that objects travel at various speeds .

    Also particles that exist at many points , because of their different orientation and relationships , would tend to have less stable qualities . Stable qualities are important to allow the existence of predictable interactions or laws . What is not stable at the smallest interval of time , or perceived to be of predictable qualities , leads to unstable  macro- structures . Universal or local laws , then do not exist .

    Therefore the particle that traverses from point A to B , does so in a few steps , by jumping at infinite ( very high ) speed between points . And at these spatial interstitial , points , it assumes lower speed or is  static . In fact I think , in order to be perceived by other particles , that it is static , with defined and fixed qualities . Like two cyclists that stop on the road to chat as friends and exchange information .

    You mentioned your head hurting , well mine too . I do not pretend to know , I only speculate . But I neither commit intellectual Hara-Giri and sink into the depths of depression , thinking what will become of my insignificant body inside a Black Hole , a billion years from now . Nor do I , like a physics Professor , shoot down every competing idea , in order to sell my own esoteric and confabulated idea to the highest bidder ( university ) to feed my Ducks in a pond in CERN .

    Therefore in my book , infinity x zero , is non-existent . Is a mathematical concept . However , there was even a mathematician once , that proved that an infinite series of zero sums , added to one or unity ! I do not remember his name .


    https://philforhumanity.com/Zero_Times_Infinity.html


    Edit : you mentioned the theory of " fabric of space " and there is " string theory " , now if there was cooperation , then these strings could be what this fabric is made of , and every fabric has holes like my theory !

    Edit : I reply here to Garry B , in the next post , to allow other posts prominence . Saying there are zero pink Elephants , is the same as saying there are zero kids in a car . We can replaces these mental objects without physical reality with " ( ) " . And say " there are zero ( ) ! This sentence is not capable of ever being true . The mathematics that we have today is an approximation ( very approximate ) to reality . Too many zeros and we loose the mass in the universe and say " dark matter " !


    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/7/5/17500782/zero-number-math-explained



    Last edited by nomadski on Tue Jun 07, 2022 11:28 am; edited 1 time in total
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 35362
    Points : 35888
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  GarryB Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:09 am

    Also the number of zero , can not refer to any actual object in reality . What has no dimension or mass , simply does not exist .

    Agree about the existence of infinity, but zero makes sense and is necessary... it refers most often to an absence rather than something that can be counted.

    If there are no children in your car then you can say there are zero children in your car... when you say there are zero children or whatever you are talking about in a specific place or even a general area... the point is that if there is no zero then you can't really explain not having any.

    How many times do you want your government to murder you today...

    Without zero you cannot have mathematics...

    Most of the time infinity is not relevant to any useful equations.

    nomadski likes this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:54 pm

    Time does not have to be fundamental. Motion automatically sets up a sequence and progression of "events". Movement of particles
    from one position in space to another implies a progression since we are not talking about teleportation. The treatment of "time" as
    a spatial-type coordinate is formalism and not substance. It all boils down to the nature of existence. Every particle exists as a
    single entity and not some continuum (or discretization of such). There are no versions of you as a baby and as a geriatric
    simultaneously occupying some "space-time" as your present instance. The only reality is the present. Records of the past and
    guesses about the future are not equivalent to realizations. People in history books are not alive.

    When it comes to space (forget about the Minkowskian construct called space-time), we have a real problem of accepting or understanding
    what it is. Physics treats it as merely a coordinate system abstraction. But it must be a material entity. It has volume and if we exist,
    then how can we exist in something that is an abstraction. So just as there are particles, there is a space in which they exist and that
    coexists with them. All indications are that particles emerge from the material entity that is space. Quantum mechanics strongly implies
    that the microscopic existence is discrete and noisy. The idea of a quantum foam "permeating all of space" is not so absurd. Given the
    discrete nature of the "foam", it is likely that coherent and persistent structures emerge from it. It may be noisy, but the noise is not
    from our realm of experience. What is the scale of these "solitons" emerging from the quantum foam and what is their physics is unknown.
    How particles emerge is unknown as well. What is an electron and what is a quark? They may be fundamental in some Standard Model,
    but it appears that everything in reality is "caused". Probably even the quantum foam originates from something. We are likely to never
    know.

    Photons seem like quantized sound waves in material media called phonons. So it makes sense to treat space as the EM medium on which
    quantized EM-waves propagate. Maxwell's equations point to space being an EM medium. Unfortunately, the subjectivist disease of the late
    1800s has corrupted physics with BS relativism. People looked for some ether fluid and since they could not prove its existence we had the
    triumph of inane relativism. Both are BS. Space does have to have properties of a fluid and there does not have to be some "ether flow"
    for space to be a material entity (that supports EM fields). We tend to project our experience onto things which do not have to conform to
    it. Space as a medium does not have to be just like solids and fluids in our everyday experience. That does not imply that there is no absolute
    space and that is all subjectively anchored on relative observers and is some sort of coordinate system abstraction.

    The relativists have not debunked the absolute interpretation of the Lorentz transform. They engage in a bait and switch by implicitly
    renormalizing the coordinates and then applying the same forward transformation when they should not. Moving "frames" (i.e. objects)
    are indeed distorted even if observers attached to them do not perceive the distortion. There is one absolute and undistorted frame and
    that is where all the photons live. The "space-time" distortion embodied by the Lorentz transform is all about the fact that photons are
    trapped in one absolute frame. So as you try to move to the speed of light, you cannot maintain your rest form. The photons that constitute
    the EM field that defines you and your atoms know only the absolute frame. They are not going to move relative to your moving frame. This
    is connected to the fact that photons are indeed quantized waves of an absolute material "medium". A flashlight moving at speed v does not emit
    photons moving at speed v+c. Photons are anchored on the one space that exists and that is why the speed of light is absolute. In fact, that
    there is a finite speed of light originates from the essence of photons as quantized waves on a material medium. Why the particular speed that
    we measure (or infer) and not another?

    Allowing the speed of light to evolve together with space helps to resolve the nonsense called hyperinflation in cosmology. It makes more sense
    to tie the physical properties of photons to space than to treat them as invariant abstractions. If you are going to accept that the universe
    can change geometry (Big Bang, etc.) then you have to accept that space is a material entity. In this regard GR is good since it advances the
    idea that space can deform. GR is not a relational theory like SR. It is supposed to be locally SR, but globally it is not relative. Einstein tried
    to compensate for this by asserting that no coordinate system is special, hence giving the Principle of General Covariance. But this has been
    abused and various clowns use transformations that do not conserve information to contrive all sorts of BS. No coordinate system may be special,
    but coordinate transforms must be diffeomorphisms and conserve information.

    nomadski likes this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Fri Jul 22, 2022 10:52 pm



    Prime evidence why Wikipedia is total revisionist garbage.

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Sun Aug 07, 2022 3:08 pm



    An example of how modern physics twists people's thinking into a tangle of nonsense.

    If photons do not move, then it is totally meaningless to talk about them being emitted and
    received after any amount of time.   Special Relativity reference frames cannot delete this
    universal fact.   It does not matter what some hypothetical (and fictional) observer riding
    a photon perceives.   What the rest of the universe perceives matters more.   In fact,
    they are not mutually exclusive.   The photon rider has his physical time (not absolute
    time) stopped since no process in his/hers/its/unicornkins/dragonkins structure can progress.
    The photons know all about absolute space, which has to exist for physical sanity.   Relative
    space is absurd since it means that any difference in vector of motion and speed between
    objects (observers) puts them in different realities.   Sorry, SR zealots, there is one fabric
    of space (there is no time dimension) and GR gives up the relative space concept and replaces
    it with non-uniqueness of coordinate systems.   GR is not a relational theory, it solves for a
    global space(-time).  But I don't need GR to point out that SR is logically contradictory and
    its lunatic aspects are subjectivist interpretations and not objectively established facts.  
    The Lorentz transform is perfectly consistent with the reality of an absolute space.   Do not
    let groupthink lemmings tell you otherwise.   Poincare and others had the right interpretation
    around 1905, but Einstein's loopy, subjectivist BS was pimped to the public.  

    There appears to have been a lot of sensationalist mass media hysteria around the turn of the
    last century.   We had science by media such as the "proof" of GR based on some BS eclipse
    measurements that were nowhere accurate enough back the claims.   There is nothing special
    about GR that it alone explains curvature of photon paths around massive objects and the precession
    of the perihelion of mercury.   A infinite number of other theories could have the same predictions.
    At the end of the day, the cult nature of physics and the dogmatic treatment of what are just
    theories is the main problem.   We are not at the level of flat-Earth discussions.   The physics
    of gravity is not explained by GR.   GR is just a geometrical formalism that rests on Newton's theory
    of gravity.   A metric still requires a physical process (e.g. field).   Just because you have some
    equations for a metric does not mean you have closed the field for further research.   This is why
    no quantization of GR exists (disregard attempts such as loop-quantum gravity since they are nowhere
    near achieving success).   GR has has nothing to say about particle level gravitational processes,
    for example about the coupling of photons and gravitons and the coupling of gravitons with each other.
    There are no gravitons in GR.   There is only a metric.  

    GR is rather absurd.   The stress-energy tensor that is the effective forcing term on the right hand side
    is matched to a geometric framework (operator on a metric) on the left hand side.    So a token constant
    is used to change from units of length to units of energy.   Sorry, but length =/= energy.   But you would
    never know from the cultists both in academia and mass media that there is anything incomplete about
    this "revealed truth".   This is not science.

    Another issue is revealed in the narration in the video. The supposed point nature of electrons and quarks.
    This is yet more BS that is treated as self-evident fact. All particles with mass have a deBroglie wavelength
    and the existence of such a wavelength is actually supported by laboratory measurements unlike speculation
    such as SR and GR. How can a point mass have a wavelength? In fact, a point particle violates the
    Heisenberg uncertainty principle which is nothing more than a statement that wave function solutions of
    the Schroedinger equation will always have a spatial extent or non-locality. What is being confused here
    is the collision cross section with actual spatial extent. So electrons behave as if they have no cross section.
    This does not imply that they have none. At the scale of electrons, the experience from our macro scale is
    irrelevant. Protons and neutrons are field extents maintained by quark "point particles" and thus exhibit a
    collision cross section. In some sense these nucleons are more like our macro scale structures which are based
    on atoms which are similar in being field extents. Nothing requires quarks and electrons to have finite collision
    cross sections. They are not analogues of structures such as atoms and collections of atoms. It rather implies
    that electrons and quarks are not composites of yet smaller particles.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Sat Aug 27, 2022 3:36 pm



    So 99% of the mass of a proton/neutron is from the binding energy in the gluons. The Higgs boson is a total side show.

    I think there is sufficient evidence that mass is a derivative feature and not fundamental. This is indirectly supported
    by the mind boggling weakness of gravity. The electric force between two electrons is 2.4 x 10^43 stronger than
    the "force" of gravity. The strong force becomes "unbounded" when quarks and gluons try to separate too far from
    each other so it is definitely not some tiny residual compared to the electromagnetic force between charges.

    So the force associated with gravity is a residual of other forces. We do not really have enough knowledge about the
    structure of electrons and quarks since particle experiments show a "zero" cross section which means nothing other
    than our "smash 'em up" science is failing to probe the fine structure at scales electrons and quarks. That we get
    any useful information from colliders can be considered almost an accident of nature.

    The electron probably has a strong force variation that we do not know about. The asymmetry with the quarks is
    just too dramatic. The mass of the electron would be a similar effect of the cloud of "electron-gluons". The symmetry
    breaking is in the size scale. It is interesting that a high energy electron-positron collision can spew forth quarks and thus
    gluons. Of course it is the "energy" that somehow gives birth to these particles. But that does not answer any physics
    questions. Particles are coherent structures and not amorphous clumps of "energy". What is turning "energy" into
    particles? No, the Standard Model does not answer this question. It is just an accounting book for the "particle zoo".


    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 35362
    Points : 35888
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  GarryB Sun Aug 28, 2022 5:15 am

    If the force of gravity was stronger the universe would not exist in its current form...

    Another question is... is gravity constant?

    At the start of the creation of the universe was it weaker so that all those early super giant star didn't collapse into black holes and just end everything there...

    Was spacetime so compressed that black holes were not possible?

    Or was it a time factor and as time continues the threshold to create a point of infinite gravity gets lower and lower to the point where any mass will collapse out of this universe and into the next.

    We know the universe is not infinite because it is expanding, but where is it expanding and is that infinite...

    Considering how short a human lifespan is in comparison to the current age of the universe why do we care so much... Twisted Evil it is not like the heat death of our sun is going to effect any of us.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Mon Aug 29, 2022 9:51 pm

    Variable G (gravitational "constant") cosmology eliminates the hyperinflation deus ex machina. It appears that both the speed of light and G varied from
    the "Big Bang" until today.

    I like Unzicker's idea that physical constants are crutches that compensate for lack of understanding.

    It is true that that a weak force of gravity allows our modern reality to exist. But that is not the issue, but rather why are there "fundamental" forces and
    particles. What is their governing dynamics? I would think the goal of physics is such understanding instead of dogmatic, revealed truth nonsense that
    we have today. All mass media coverage of astrophysics, particle physics and cosmology is pure narrative like in geopolitics. It is presented as the
    the best and only understanding of physics. No room is provided for genuine skeptics who make observations that cannot be dismissed by any of the
    high priests of the modern physics cult. Dissent is not really allowed in the "freedom of thought and freedom of expression" utopia.

    GarryB likes this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:30 pm

    BTW, variable G is fully consistent with gravity being nonlinear as contrasted to electro-magnetism but different from the strong force.   It is somewhat
    like the strong force in that separation gives a stronger coupling but the strong force is simply off the scale if the separation is beyond the diameter of
    a proton or neutron.    Gravity clearly does not explode as two masses are separated farther apart.    But it appears that G is a function of radius of
    separation.   So the gravity "field" acting on stars in the core of our galaxy is weaker than that acting on the stars in the galactic outer disk.   This
    explains the anomalous galaxy rotation curve and removes the need for a dark matter halo to explain some "missing" mass.  

    Since it is likely that gravity is some sort of field and not merely a geometrical feature as claimed by GR, there are such things as gravitons.  The
    nonlinearity arises from the gravitons being able to couple with each other.   By contrast, quanta (virtual photons) of the EM field do not couple
    with each other.    As one moves into an environment denser in gravitons, the effective force of gravity drops because the force carriers (exchange
    quanta) spend more time interacting with each other.   The cost in time is already enough to change G.  

    G evolving from the Big Bang going forward would be a predictable outcome of moving from a regime of extremely high graviton density to
    the current dispersed regime.    The question that arises is why was there no black hole from Big Bang singularity.   Aside from the fact that
    the physics evolved over time, it highlights the fact that black holes are nonsense.   I can invoke the so-called black hole solutions which are
    all mathematical BS.    The real singularity is at the event horizon.   There is no point mass singularity at r=0 (r does not even make sense
    as a radius since the curved space-time radius is R and is not the same as the reference map r).   What you see from the high priests of
    the modern pseudo-science cult is hand-waving BS such as some measure of curvature near r=0.    As if that curvature implies the existence
    of a point mass nearby.  

    Nope, the only legitimate solution approach is to specify a point mass (or stress-energy tensor) at "r=0" and proceed to solve the Einstein equations.
    Instead what you get is flailing around with homogeneous solutions where the boundary conditions are not clearly specified.    This may work for
    the linear EM equations (e.g. potential of point charge) but in the nonlinear covariant formalism of GR this flops.   The so-called inner solution
    for r < r_horizon does not mean what the black hole cult claims it means.    

    1) The inner solution is time reversed.    So geodesics track movement away from r=0.   This is fobbed off by claiming that r -> t and t -> r in the
    inner solution (that the space and time coordinates change roles).    This is full on BS.  The trace of a metric is not sacrosanct.   So changing the
    sign of the r term and the t term does not imply a change in their physical meaning.    It is merely information about the behaviour of the geodesics.

    2)  The horizon is an actual singularity.   This is manifestly so because it is invariant under information-conserving coordinate transforms.    The
    only way to "get rid" of this singularity is use unphysical information creating or destroying transforms to move it elsewhere in the domain.   This is
    exactly the case with the vaunted Kruskal-Szekeres transform.  

    3) (2) is consistent with (1).   If motion on geodesics in the outer solution (r > r_horizon) moves towards the horizon, then motion on geodesics in the
    interior solution is towards the horizon as well.   But this is violating the rabid desire for there to be a point mass at r=0 so we have scientific fraud
    to obfuscate this fact.  

    4) The general covariant formulation of GR means that there is a type of coordinate map degeneracy.   This is counter-intuitive to most high school
    level physics experience since once you choose a coordinate map (e.g. spherical coordinates) then you no longer have to worry about them changing
    on you as you solve the governing equations of some system you are analyzing.   But in GR you now have to worry about the meaning of your coordinate
    map and its dependence on your boundary conditions.    For example R(r) for any number of functions of r is a valid solution to the "point" mass problem
    in GR.    This brings us to what is exactly the inner solution?   It really looks like an inverse of the outer solution.    So r=infinity is mapped to r=0 and
    the horizon stays at the same radius.   In other words, the inner solution may be just a coordinate degenerate form of the outer solution.   And there
    is no solution for r < r_horizon at all!    The hyped extreme curvature near r=0 is the result of mapping an infinite volume into a small neigbourhood
    around a point.    

    The problem with GR is that it gives no information about the physics of gravity itself.   Yes, really.   It converts the Newtonian theory of gravity into
    a geometric formalism where the solution is not for a gravitational potential or field, but for a metric of the space-time.   There is no elucidation
    of quantum scale gravity and how the metric is produced by mass and energy.    The metric satisfies some equations and that is all you have.
    Equations are only as good as the physical meaning loaded into them.   But in GR the equations are some sort of revealed truth and don't ask
    any serious questions about them.   For example, what happens to gravity itself under extreme density of matter-energy?  GR assumes that
    gravity (and G) does not change and we have a burrowing of an extreme curvature hole.    Not only is the existence of such a hole dubious but
    we cannot assume that the Newtonian gravity remains valid in the strong field limit.  

    I think it is exciting that the universe is still full of mysteries but modern physics is rotten with dogma being passed off as science.

    GarryB likes this post

    nomadski
    nomadski


    Posts : 2167
    Points : 2177
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  nomadski Fri Sep 16, 2022 2:24 pm

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vAxgaTvYA7Y


    I think the mechanism for early galaxy formation must have been very different in early universe . In other words , the highly energetic early universe , could have developed structures similar , but not identical , to the much cooler and older universe . Therefore if we see spiral " galaxies " in the early universe , then they should not be confused and mistaken with older galaxies . We see this in nature also . Different causes , seemingly giving rise to identical effects . For example a dust devil and a fire devil ( arising out of forest fire ) or a whirl - wind , all look very similar , maybe identical . But they are very different . There are in nature , no identical causes and effects . But sea-shells do look like spiral galaxies . What do you think ?
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1118
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  The-thing-next-door Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:15 pm

    I am writing some science fiction, and would like to know about the way in which plasma weapons would release energy.

    My primary question is what would the effect of a 1 kiloton plasma cannon be?
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:56 pm

    Plasma is just ionized gas. Unless you have some chemistry involved which can release energy, all you have is the thermal
    energy that went into making the plasma. In order for a plasma beam to have any chance of retaining coherency, it must be
    electrically neutral. Otherwise the dominant charge will very rapidly dissipate. But having a neutral plasma is a challenge
    since the positive and negative particles will recombine quickly. This brings us to the problem of pushing some gas, high
    energy, ionized or not, through the air. A laser has the advantage that the photons transmit through the molecules of the
    air. They do not displace them but a plasma beam will have to displace the air and this will involve mixing and loss of kinetic
    energy of the beam constituents. Even if one could hope for the ionized plasma to ionize the air, it would still be an
    energy sink and would not remove the fundamental problem of displacement.

    I think plasma bolts in sci-fi are cool, but in reality they would have to be high energy laser bursts. The high energy would
    ionize some of the air and would produce an emitting beam (instead of bolt) effect.

    Really, it makes more sense to have rail gun launched projectiles than plasma beams. Lasers cannot be beat for "instant"
    delivery of energy to the target. A plasma beam will not travel anywhere near the speed of light even if you pumped it
    out a relativistic velocities. Frankly, the shock front from such a beam discharge would do a lot of damage at the firing
    point. Of course, if you are in space then the air resistance problem is not there.

    Current laser tech involves a step where the emitted photons are bounced back and forth between two effective mirrors
    with an aperture in one of them. This is what collimates a laser beam. What we need is a way to generate the coherent
    parallel photon flux and emit it directly at the target. That would be something.

    Werewolf and Sprut-B like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 35362
    Points : 35888
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  GarryB Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:48 am

    If we are talking about scifi weapons I would say a Gamma ray gun would be rather cool... a gamma ray burst from space is extraordinarily powerful and lethal to living things and should penetrate all different types of matter easily enough... just a question of concentrating it in a beam that can be directed at things. It is a wave like a radio wave or light wave...

    A ground based weapon could kill the human crew of an aircraft for instance while a space based weapon could be used against people on the ground or in the air or in vehicles and buildings.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:37 am

    GarryB wrote:If we are talking about scifi weapons I would say a Gamma ray gun would be rather cool... a gamma ray burst from space is extraordinarily powerful and lethal to living things and should penetrate all different types of matter easily enough... just a question of concentrating it in a beam that can be directed at things. It is a wave like a radio wave or light wave...

    A ground based weapon could kill the human crew of an aircraft for instance while a space based weapon could be used against people on the ground or in the air or in vehicles and buildings.

    Edward Teller proposed a X-ray/gamma ray laser from a single-use nuclear device in orbit. A nuke would be detonated with the right sort of
    characteristics to emit in this EM band and beam collimation would occur in a very short period before the device would disintegrate.

    Firing beam weapons from space would produce damage at the surface if they are sufficiently powerful. But this is not quite a sci-fi
    pew-pew from a "blaster".

    GarryB likes this post

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1118
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  The-thing-next-door Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:59 am

    GarryB wrote:If we are talking about scifi weapons I would say a Gamma ray gun would be rather cool... a gamma ray burst from space is extraordinarily powerful and lethal to living things and should penetrate all different types of matter easily enough... just a question of concentrating it in a beam that can be directed at things. It is a wave like a radio wave or light wave...

    A ground based weapon could kill the human crew of an aircraft for instance while a space based weapon could be used against people on the ground or in the air or in vehicles and buildings.

    I have thought about gamma weapons, but in my setting there is a quite ubiquitous device called a radiation reflector, essentially a form of shield generator that protects against radiation. Such devices would nullify the effects of gamma weapons, though gamma weapons are of course very interesting.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1118
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  The-thing-next-door Wed Sep 28, 2022 11:08 am

    kvs wrote:Plasma is just ionized gas.  Unless you have some chemistry involved which can release energy, all you have is the thermal
    energy that went into making the plasma.   In order for a plasma beam to have any chance of retaining coherency, it must be
    electrically neutral.   Otherwise the dominant charge will very rapidly dissipate.   But having a neutral plasma is a challenge
    since the positive and negative particles will recombine quickly.   This brings us to the problem of pushing some gas, high
    energy, ionized or not, through the air.   A laser has the advantage that the photons transmit through the molecules of the
    air.   They do not displace them but a plasma beam will have to displace the air and this will involve mixing and loss of kinetic
    energy of the beam constituents.   Even if one could hope for the ionized plasma to ionize the air, it would still be an
    energy sink and would not remove the fundamental problem of displacement.  

    I think plasma bolts in sci-fi are cool, but in reality they would have to be high energy laser bursts.   The high energy would
    ionize some of the air and would produce an emitting beam (instead of bolt) effect.  

    Really, it makes more sense to have rail gun launched projectiles than plasma beams.   Lasers cannot be beat for "instant"
    delivery of energy to the target.   A plasma beam will not travel anywhere near the speed of light even if you pumped it
    out a relativistic velocities.   Frankly, the shock front from such a beam discharge would do a lot of damage at the firing
    point.  Of course, if you are in space then the air resistance problem is not there.  

    Current laser tech involves a step where the emitted photons are bounced back and forth between two effective mirrors
    with an aperture in one of them.   This is what collimates a laser beam.  What we need is a way to generate the coherent
    parallel photon flux and emit it directly at the target.   That would be something.


    My setting takes place far enough in the future that we can assume they have discovered some things we have not forseen

    I would like to work with the assumption that plasma weapons are possible, but we still need to discover how.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13806
    Points : 13951
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  kvs Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:17 pm



    Trust authority...

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1118
    Points : 1172
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  The-thing-next-door Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:38 pm

    I was just thinking that plasma weapons might be practical if the plasma was contained in a solid projectile that had some more of magnetic containment field for the plasma.

    I still have not found out how to calculate the "blast radius" of plasma with thermal energy of 1kt.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 35362
    Points : 35888
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  GarryB Sat Oct 01, 2022 3:56 am

    I remember playing a book game called Space assassin... part of the Fighting Fantasy range, where they had a gravity bomb which was a microscopic singularity held in a stasis field. When activated an area of spacetime of several metres radius disappeared into the blackhole before it vapourised into hyperspace.

    There was no detail about gravity waves or spaghetification... a sphere of fixed dimensions around the bomb just disappeared.

    BTW shields are fine but shields are like armour and can be defeated with repeated hits one presumes or just defeated by making the beam more powerful.

    Gamma ray bursts are emitted from energetic objects in space sending beams of gamma rays powerful enough to eliminate all life on a planet.... being underground or on the other side might not save you depending on how many hundreds of light years you are away from the event.

    You should keep in mind that there are no technologies in attack or defence for which there are no countermeasures... it is a case of paper rock scissors... if one thing defeats everything else someone will come up with something to defeat it.

    kvs likes this post


    Sponsored content


    Physics General Subjects Thread - Page 6 Empty Re: Physics General Subjects Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:23 am