+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: Any physics/engineering types wish to tackle this question?

  1. #16
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    28,358

    Re: Any physics/engineering types wish to tackle this question?

    Einstein sent you a message:

    The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein

  2. #17
    Champ Champ967 has a reputation beyond reputeChamp967 has a reputation beyond reputeChamp967 has a reputation beyond reputeChamp967 has a reputation beyond reputeChamp967 has a reputation beyond reputeChamp967 has a reputation beyond reputeChamp967 has a reputation beyond reputeChamp967 has a reputation beyond reputeChamp967 has a reputation beyond reputeChamp967 has a reputation beyond reputeChamp967 has a reputation beyond repute Champ967's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dogtown, AR
    Posts
    12,007

    Re: Any physics/engineering types wish to tackle this question?

    ^^^ anger issues ^^^

  3. #18
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    28,358

    Re: Any physics/engineering types wish to tackle this question?

    Nah, I don't think so. At least I've not read anything about Einstein having anger issues.

  4. #19
    Champ Houston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant future
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    4,144

    Re: Any physics/engineering types wish to tackle this question?

    I still find the increas in mass as expounded in Einstein's theory a little tough to swallow. Where does the mass come from? He may explain it clearly. It's just that I have never seen it.

    Actually think of the gravity field as a smooth continuum. Any object just by being in the field disturbs the field and creates gravity. If it moves through the field the disturbance is greater. You can have translational motion and/or rotational motion. Think of a submerged object moving through water. You can see the effect of the movement. The gravity field is affected in much the same way.I believe that gravity increases with speed which is almost the same thing as mass increasing. At some point gravity increases so much that a black hole is created in the gravity field around the moving mass allowing the mass to leave this time/space continuum and get to the other side (to what?). The size of the black hole will depend on the mass. Now getting back is still unresolved in my scenario. The speed necessary may not be the speed of light.

    Of course there are all these particle physicists that insist everything is a particle including light. If that is so then Einstein's theory is disproved per se because light travels at the speed of light (captain obvious). Einstein must have been in the "light is a wave" group.

  5. #20
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    28,358

    Re: Any physics/engineering types wish to tackle this question?

    A black hole is a "black hole" because not even light can escape it. Is light particles, or a wave, or both? Einstein proposed it was composed of particles, photons. If light cannot escape from an intense gravitational force, like a black hole, it follows that it is composed of particles that must have some mass, such that gravity will affect it. But it also functions as a wave would. So, light must be particles that move in a wave.

    Why is it impossible for particles to travel at the speed of light if it's the particles (photons) that compose light?

    How fast do electrons travel? Basically 220,000 km/s, which is just 1% of the speed of light.

  6. #21
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    20,552

    Re: Any physics/engineering types wish to tackle this question?

    Quote Originally Posted by dawg80 View Post
    A black hole is a "black hole" because not even light can escape it. Is light particles, or a wave, or both? Einstein proposed it was composed of particles, photons. If light cannot escape from an intense gravitational force, like a black hole, it follows that it is composed of particles that must have some mass, such that gravity will affect it. But it also functions as a wave would. So, light must be particles that move in a wave.

    Why is it impossible for particles to travel at the speed of light if it's the particles (photons) that compose light?

    How fast do electrons travel?
    In “orbit” or in a circuit? In either event, much slower than the speed of light.

  7. #22
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    20,552

    Re: Any physics/engineering types wish to tackle this question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Houston Techsan View Post
    I still find the increas in mass as expounded in Einstein's theory a little tough to swallow. Where does the mass come from? He may explain it clearly. It's just that I have never seen it.

    Actually think of the gravity field as a smooth continuum. Any object just by being in the field disturbs the field and creates gravity. If it moves through the field the disturbance is greater. You can have translational motion and/or rotational motion. Think of a submerged object moving through water. You can see the effect of the movement. The gravity field is affected in much the same way.I believe that gravity increases with speed which is almost the same thing as mass increasing. At some point gravity increases so much that a black hole is created in the gravity field around the moving mass allowing the mass to leave this time/space continuum and get to the other side (to what?). The size of the black hole will depend on the mass. Now getting back is still unresolved in my scenario. The speed necessary may not be the speed of light.

    Of course there are all these particle physicists that insist everything is a particle including light. If that is so then Einstein's theory is disproved per se because light travels at the speed of light (captain obvious). Einstein must have been in the "light is a wave" group.
    My father-in-law posed a theory of everything based on a geometric model in which the universe is composed of two types of fundamental spherical, massless particles moving through space - one much bigger than the other. Once he solved the sizes of the two types of particles, he was able to back out many fundamental physical constants to a higher degree of precision than science had measured - over time, scientific precision has confirmed his analytically determined values in some cases.

    Gravity, in the physical model he proposed, is caused by the increasing density of the larger particles which shield each other from collisions of the smaller particles on the faces of the spheres normal to each other. He proposed that the actual fundamental laws are: (1) conservation of the number of the particles of each type and (2) the kinematic velocity would be conserved (I.e., elastically transmitted between the particles upon collision). Thus collisions of the small particles on the large particles pushed them together because of the reduced probability of collisions on the face blocked by the closest other large particles. This would explain the gravitational force that varies as a function of mass of the two bodies and the distance between them.

  8. #23
    Hunter Lee's Hero HogDawg has a reputation beyond reputeHogDawg has a reputation beyond reputeHogDawg has a reputation beyond reputeHogDawg has a reputation beyond reputeHogDawg has a reputation beyond reputeHogDawg has a reputation beyond reputeHogDawg has a reputation beyond reputeHogDawg has a reputation beyond reputeHogDawg has a reputation beyond reputeHogDawg has a reputation beyond reputeHogDawg has a reputation beyond repute HogDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    McKinney, TX & Franklin, TN
    Posts
    29,883

    Re: Any physics/engineering types wish to tackle this question?

    Like I said......the answer is, YES.

  9. #24
    Champ Houston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant futureHouston Techsan has a brilliant future
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    4,144

    Re: Any physics/engineering types wish to tackle this question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    My father-in-law posed a theory of everything based on a geometric model in which the universe is composed of two types of fundamental spherical, massless particles moving through space - one much bigger than the other. Once he solved the sizes of the two types of particles, he was able to back out many fundamental physical constants to a higher degree of precision than science had measured - over time, scientific precision has confirmed his analytically determined values in some cases.

    Gravity, in the physical model he proposed, is caused by the increasing density of the larger particles which shield each other from collisions of the smaller particles on the faces of the spheres normal to each other. He proposed that the actual fundamental laws are: (1) conservation of the number of the particles of each type and (2) the kinematic velocity would be conserved (I.e., elastically transmitted between the particles upon collision). Thus collisions of the small particles on the large particles pushed them together because of the reduced probability of collisions on the face blocked by the closest other large particles. This would explain the gravitational force that varies as a function of mass of the two bodies and the distance between them.
    As good as any other theory.

  10. #25
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    20,552

    Re: Any physics/engineering types wish to tackle this question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Houston Techsan View Post
    As good as any other theory.
    Here is his work:

    http://www.genecallens.net

    He derived Planck’s constant, gravitational constant, fine structure constant and other fundamental constants with equal or greater precision using his model (the first linked paper).

    But he claimed the model worked at quantum and large scales.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts