Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
How then, do you explain lightning bolts? "Exploding particles", maybe
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Newton - The Last Of The Magicians
- Thread starter Native
- Start date
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Im now setting this Topic on stand by and press the "Unwatch botton".
My initial comment was this:
Newton was a Natural Philosopher and he apparently had many different approaches to his ponderings over everything.
Throughout this topic, it seems that very few debaters here are paying the attention to the original Natural Philosopher approach in advance for the matemathical approach without thinking much of the philosopical ponderings over of how and especially WHY everything really works in micro- and microcosmos.
Well. thanks for now and "see you around"
My initial comment was this:
Newton was a Natural Philosopher and he apparently had many different approaches to his ponderings over everything.
Throughout this topic, it seems that very few debaters here are paying the attention to the original Natural Philosopher approach in advance for the matemathical approach without thinking much of the philosopical ponderings over of how and especially WHY everything really works in micro- and microcosmos.
Well. thanks for now and "see you around"
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
How then, do you explain lightning bolts? "Exploding particles", maybe
Lightning is an electrical discharge. This isn't difficult.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Of course it is
But the CHARGE and DISCHARGE of a lightning is build up via ionisation of atomic particles and molecules in weather systems. This isn´t difficult and it has nothing to do with any duality of ligth-particle.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Of course it is
This isn´t difficult and it has nothing to do with any duality of ligth-particle.
Emission or absorption of light by atoms (the characteristic spectra of elements) is a different thing to lightning. Atoms emit or absorb light in discrete quanta due to electrons moving from one allowed state to another and emitting or absorbing a photon corresponding to the difference in energy between the two states.
This is a phenomena that can only be explained by quantum mechanics. Electrons exist in discrete energy states because of the (wave-like) solutions to the Schrödinger equation relating to the atom.
As I said, the applications of QM have are extensive, not only in science, but engineering. For example, the same model of the atom is used to design semiconductors. You are trying to deny the science that allows the device you are typing on to work!
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
"You are trying to deny the science that allows the device you are typing on to work"???
On the other hand you could be that long long away from any natural realms, that you´ve disapeared into pure speculations
)Besides this you cannot compare natural electric ligthning with your technological currents and magnetic fields.
Well I really don´t mind since I´ve set this my topic on stand by.
Take care
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
On the other hand you could be that long long away from any natural realms, that you´ve disapeared into pure speculations
When a theory works, that is, it correctly predicts things in the real world, and especially when it does so, so reliably that it can be used as the basis for technology, it is utterly absurd to call it speculation.
I wasn't trying to, it was you who brought lightening into a discussion of atoms.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I just thought you would like some natural examples of what light is - or isn´t
joelr
Well-Known Member
No I don´t because there is no duality to understand
Particles are just localized quanta of energy there are too many proofs to even know where to begin? Experiments, equations and even visual evidence supports the idea. You'd would have to go way back and re-explain Compton scattering and brownian motion then explain why the model works so well in quantum mechanics and why can we create individual photons and so on?
The word "quantum" means a single piece, that's why it's "quantum" physics because there are individual packets of energy. Everything points to that.
In the old double slit experiment we fire photons through slits and they produce interference as waves do. Even single photons interfere with themselves
When we measure one side with a detector we collapse them into particles. They no longer interfere and act as a particle. No more wave behavior.
If we detect them but destroy the measurement the wave behavior comes back. So it's not about the detector but rather wave/particle duality. All small objects experience this. It has to do with the wave function of an object. Everything has a wave function, if an object is smaller than it's wave it will experience quantum behavior. Objects as large as hundreds of atoms have been shown to demonstrate wave/particle duality. Once you get to molecules the object extends far beyond the wave function and you do not see quantum behavior. Or you might if you wait long enough for the probability to make it happen but the larger the object the longer it takes.
For a human it would take far longer than the age of the universe.
I know. Scientists came up with a theory and then formulated equations to prove them correct. After they are verified then you say it's not the math it's the theory?
That makes no sense. In physics math TELLS YOU WHAT THE REALITY IS?
Neutrinos, came from missing mass in equations, antimatter, came from equations, the math is often how you know what to look for.
Your backwards issue with trying to take away the theory makes no sense?
There are no theories, just ideas and complaints. Nothing is backed up with a theory. But as I learn an idea I check in with some astrophysicists and see what's up. You can look around that one blog and debunk most EU ideas.
There are too many EU ideas to know who's who. But much of it is rooted in mythologies and people having a special place in the universe. Or at least the need to feel like you are part of a special group who know the truth that all the evil scientists are trying to keep from everyone.
It ends up being similar to creationism, a need to modify science to make one feel warm and fuzzy and special.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Uh, no it's explained in that link if you want to learn how EU is ignoring actual science.
Everything is explained, the math, the number of GPS, the forces acting in different ways. Your not even making any argument against anything?
You're just shielding your eyes and saying "nope".
What science on that page is missing the mark? How does not holding a position duplicate relativistic time dillations when triangulating 3 GPS.
What is the math that explains "not holding a position" and the source on satellites having position problems that duplicate exactly what a combination of special and general relativity would predict and then need error correction?
"The minimum number of satellites needed for a position determination is three (assuming your receiver has a reasonably accurate clock), so you can determine the receiver's three position components, x,y,z in cartesian ECEF coordinates (Wikipedia).
If you have a fourth GPS satellite, then the mathematics demonstrates that the position computation can be done without the signal time from the receiver.
Misconception: If four GPS satellites are available, so that you don't need to know the time at the receiver, then relativistic corrections are not necessary. This is evidence that relativitistic corrections are not really needed in the GPS system.
Why it is wrong: The relativistic corrections, as well as several other important corrections to the range computation, depend on the positions of the satellite(s) and the receiver. These correction terms are in the fundamental range computation equation. While you can use a fourth equation to eliminate the receiver time with an expression using the transmission time on the fourth satellite, the relativistic correction terms do not disappear, nor do they conveniently cancel.
Relativistic corrections remain important for accurate GPS position determination.
The GPS Solution for Three Satellites
Using the time of the signal departing the satellite, t_s, and the time when the signal is received, t_r, we define what is called the pseudo-range, R, between the receiver, r, and the satellite, s
This is simply the distance that a radio signal, traveling at the speed of light, can travel in the time between the two clocks. We call it a pseudo-range because it turns out that radio signal propagation between the satellite to the ground receiver is not that simple. To deal with this, we define the true range, which I will designate with the greek letter rho, which is needed to compute the actual position of the receiver
To obtain the true range from the pseudo-range between satellite s and receiver r, a number of corrections must be applied
- Time Measurments: Errors in clocks at satellite and receiver
- Ionosphere: A propagation delay due to the electron density in the ionosphere. This delay is dispersive (Wikipedia) and determined by transmitting the GPS signal on two frequencies.
- Troposphere: A non-dispersive propagation correction due to radio signal refraction (Wikipedia) in troposphere. The effect is influenced by the water content of the atmosphere.
- Tidal: A correction due to deformations of the Earth's surface due to tides (see International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service).
- Multipath: Timing differences created by reflection of the GPS signal from nearby objects
- Relativistic: Relativity corrections due to the motion and position of the GPS satellite as well as the motion and position of the receiver
- epsilon: General measurement errors
If we want to solve the system of equations for three GPS satellites, we have:
Knowing the time at the receiver, t_r, and the time of emission from each satellite, t_{s1}, t_{s2}, t_{s3}, we can solve this system of equations for the position of the receiver, \vec{r_r}, which has three components, (x,y,z), to give the position in 3-dimensional space.
The GPS solution for Four Satellites
Now suppose we have a fourth satellite which is visible to our GPS receiver. We have a similar pseudo-range equation for it.
Since we now have four equations and three unknowns, we have an overdetermined system. We can take advantage of this overdetermination to remove an input variable in the set of equations. Since the GPS receivers tend to have the least precise clocks, we can use the fourth equation to eliminate the time of the receiver's clock from the other equations. First, we manipulate the fourth satellite equation to give the receiver time:
Once we complete solving the system, we will use this equation to determine the receiver time. By this method, we can determine the time at the receiver to a precision higher than could be determined with the receiver clock alone. But to solve the system, we must first substitute this result into the first three equations, where the subscript si represents the other three satellites, with i=1,2,3.
Notice that all the corrections, delta, still must be included to solve the system. In this form, we see that the correction for the receiver and satellite 4 must be added, while the corrections for the other three satellites must be subtracted. All the corrections depend on the positions, and paths, between a given satellite and the receiver, and atop all this is a level of noise in the timing measurements.
For relativistic effects to have no impact in the four satellite configuration, the correction between the receiver and satellite 4 must exactly match the correction between the receiver and ALL of the other three satellites. Since all four satellites are at different positions relative to the observer (otherwise they would be colliding!), the chance that these corrections have identical numerical values is small, so relativistic corrections remain important.
Solving for x,y,z
Some might wonder how we can solve such a set of equations, where the unknown quantities are mixed in with the known quantities. We cannot reform the equations into a clean solution of the form where all the unknowns are on the left-hand side with all the knowns on the right-hand side, such as:
These interdependencies make the equations non-linear. However, they can still be solved by iterative techniques, usually a Kalman Filter (Wikipedia).
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I agree in this, but the actual question was the cosmological and natural particle/light one.
In the ordinary and natural realms It ISN´T the particles themselves which is lightning, but a discharge of energy FROM the particles which creates wave light. There is NO duality as such, it´s a cooperation.
It is generally the "gravitational particle science" of a particle = mass = energy = light which is getting the better of the "particle scientists".
Of course traditional astrophysicists "debunks" most EU models. they are mostly lost in the Newtonian particle gravity ideas and they are afraid of loosing fase and jobs - and they haven´t the gut in order to think for themselves and go against the doctrines.
For my part I´m NOT a member of any specific EU ideology. I just hold onto the strict sientific laws of electromangnetism.
But yes. I´m also working with the ancient knowledge of mythology and this gives me very much pleasure as it contains lots of cosmological informations from a time where Nature itself was the science.
As mentioned above, I´ve set this my topic on standby, so thanks for now.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Hi Again,
For those of you who like to be informed of the Plasma Cosmology and "other cosmological stuff", here´s an excellent video.
"Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state..." "It is estimated that as much as 99.9% of the universe is comprised of plasma." "Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state."
For those of you who like to be informed of the Plasma Cosmology and "other cosmological stuff", here´s an excellent video.
"Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state..." "It is estimated that as much as 99.9% of the universe is comprised of plasma." "Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state."
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
Recognized by whom?
That would be highly dependent upon how one limits the meaning of "observable".
Could you clarify?
Well, consider that all stars are plasma. Many nebula are primarily ionized, so are technically plasma.
The material that is *not* plasma tends to be things like planets or dust. By mass, these are a very small fraction of the observable universe.
Now, how relevant is this for a 'Plasma Universe'? Not at all.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
IMO they just think of what different types of telescopes can observe. (The TBP doesnt count on "dark this or that")
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
In Plasma Cosmology, even planets etc. are made from the plasma stages.
Even "telescope" has broadened to much of the EM spectrum, far beyond visible light.
And now we have a working gravitational wave "telescope"
Dark matter is observable in the sense that our technologies detect it.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Yes to the first sentense.
Second: I wouldn´t call these measurements "gravitational" as in the Newtonian sense.
Third: I think we have to differ between "low glowing/dark cosmic clouds" and the Standard Model of "dark matter" which was invented to hold onto the stars in galaxies.
But they're gravitational per general relativity.
You say invented.
I say discovered.
"Invention" should be applied to things mankind creates, eg,
hammers, computers, phones, monster trucks, religions.