Some Possible Contributions to Science from Ted Huntington
These are some ideas identified by me, although, in particular because
of the neuron reading and writing and many other science secrets,
for many of these ideas, I am most certainly not the first to realize them,
and perhaps not even the first to state these publicly.
1) Photon is matter
-photon is not "massless"
2) All matter is made of photons
-This is seen any time a match is lit, any object "burns", and a fission chain reaction
3) Antimatter is actually matter
-or else antiproton and proton collisions would result in empty space, but instead photons/matter is conserved.
-and perhaps should be called "opposite" matter
See #28 for more
4) Photon probably moves in a straight line and not in a sine wave. Groups of photons form the "frequency" of a stream of photons. Individual photons, obviously have no frequency, because to have a frequency at least 2 photons are needed.
See #19 for updated opinion that photons travel in straight line, with no amplitude, frequency is number of photons.
-if photons do move in sine wave, photons/light actually travels at 4.71e8 m/s, not 3e8 m/s.
5) The word "energy" may not be a good label to describe a universe of matter and space.
One equation may be:
(Energy could just as easily = Number of photons x velocity of photons squared)
In a universe of particles that move at a constant velocity, location/density of particles may be of value.
6) The word "mass" may be replaced by the words "number of photons" (or "number of pieces of matter)"
7) photons may only influence the direction of each other, not the velocity.
-photons "bend" or change direction because of the influence of other photons, but do not change velocity like the equation from Newton (f=m1m2/d^2)
(04/25/07 this is still a theory but I currently side with photons changing velocity.)
8) Photons may travel in pairs, one photon moves in a sine wave in the x dimension (forming the electric part of light), while the other moves in the y dimension (forming the magnetic part of light)
9) I think that humans can only get photons from matter, there is no magical "energy" created in a fusion reaction, all extra photons released are from left over matter. Humans will get the most photons from separating matter already made of 10e30 photons.
10) Time viewed as a geometrical dimension, is the same as time viewed as a variable on a piece of paper.
11) The x^2+y^2+z^2-ct^2 = 0, this equation is never time-like (<0), or space-like (>0), only light-like (=0) in my view.
-because there are only photons, and any other particles are groups of "tangled" photons.
12) In the Schodinger cat example, the cat is definately either dead or not dead, some reality exists even if humans never see.
-the same is true for using probabilities to calculate the location of a particle, the particle takes some actual path and does not magically "appear" at some location, in the view I support.
-this still leaves the problem of how to see what actually happened to the cat. #13 is the best I can do for the idea of predicting the future location of matter.
13) The matter in space numbers in such a large amount (10e50 photons or more simply in the universe humans can detect), that to calulate the future movement of even one photon for 1 femto second would probably take 10e50 photons. So the view I have is that the matter in the universe has a set detemined course, but that this course is possibly impossible to calculate/predict because of the large number of photons in the universe (including living objects). Unless some other math, or interpretation of the universe is found. To calculate the future movement/location of matter, an integer only math may apply because there is only 1 photon, that occupies one space, never .5 of a photon that occupies .5 of a space. Although there is a problem when calulating the influence of one photon on a different photon, because that "force", or influence in changing direction may not be integer, I have to put this together still.
14) More periodic tables (first put together by Mendelev and other humans) can be made/expanded to include all possible combinations of protons, neutrons, electrons, including other particles, that I am describing as groups of photons.
a) including isomers (atoms that have same number of protons, neutrons and electrons but separate or decay at different rates)
b) including isotopes (atoms have same number of protons, different number of neutrons or electrons?)
Tables based on number of protons (normal periodic table), on number of neutrons, or number of electrons should be available to the public, and the work "element" should be replaced by "atom".
15) I read that this idea was thought of, but I independently concluded that a neutron is actually a proton, electron and antineutrino, and that electrons are in the so-called "nucleus" of every atom with a neutron.
a) The antineutrino may be the group of photons that holds together 2 proton electron pairs (or perhaps even only 2 protons). Humans would then call 2 protons + 2 electrons + 1 antineutrino = 1 proton, 1 neutron (proton+electron+antineutrino), 1 electron = deuterium.
16) In the view I support, time does not slow down, and particles of matter do not change size depending on the velocity of a piece of matter.
-General Relativity and Newton gravity are equivalent
-more velocity (energy) does not make more matter
-that particles decay more slowly near the speed of a photon may be because the photons rate of decay or rate of becoming "untangled" is less, because other photons have less influence on a faster moving group of photons
-the faster a group of photons moves, the less photons are tangled, and the more the group of matter separates in to individual photons.
17) The "force" or pull from a magnet can be used to make electricity for as much time as the metal is magnetized. (This is still a theory)
18) There is no entropy
-the idea of "order" is human made
19) Photons may not move in a sine wave
Light may not move in a sine wave. The frequency of a beam of photons may only be the number of photons detected/second. A beam of photons may have no amplitude or follow any wave pattern either as individual photons, or as photons moving in a straight line forming a wave shape. The idea that light moves in a sine wave is thought to be a bedrock of physics. There must be some experiment to prove (or not prove) that light does not travel in a sine wave. One thing that started this idea in me (and other humans may have reached the same conclusion without being heard or seen), is 1) the problem of 'how many photons" are in a wave of any frequency? Are there move than one photon in one wavelength? 2) the problem that if photons are attracted to each other by gravity (or space-time geometry - with time unbending/independent) then how to explain the large distance between photons in a frequency of radio wave (amplitude or 1 meter or more)? How could a photon stay in orbit of other photons (in the center of a beam) at such a distance, in particular with millions of other photons in between?
The only experiment I can think of is to prove that photons (perhaps directed thru a lens) in a radio frequency can not be detected in correct proportion, distributed in a wave pattern. The majority of photons are detected in the center, and almost none are detected 1 meter above or below.
In addition to the more simple and beautiful explanation that frequency is simply the number of photons/second (an idea I have never heard or read before...to my great displeasure), there is the idea that a radio oscillating circuit could possibly be more easy to understand as sending a group of photons in one direction and then in the opposite direction (in my opinion a much more simple explanation than any that have ever been offered for a typical crytsal, Colpitts or Hartley oscillating circuit).
Another test is simply measuring the number of photons around a radio source (transmitter), if the signal is detected in equal amounts in the shape of a sphere with quantity or strength related to inverse square the distance then there is no wave shape meters in size or other.
Amplitude modulation is actually quantity modulation.
Here I have an actual equation:
Nf=F (Number of Photons = Frequency)
20) Birds evolved from common warm blooded, "haired" ancestor with mammals
Possible that some dinosaurs were warm blooded and haired.
I think there should be 2 divisions called "cold blooded" and "warm blooded"
I think there should be a division called "haired" (that birds and mammals are a subset of, or in any event has as a trait.).
I think that mammals and birds share a common ancestor. I think that there are clear transistions that happened only once for life of planet earth:
cold blooded to hot blooded
no hair (follicle) to haired (follical)
a duck-billed platypus is warm blooded, a mammal (has milk gland [and nipples]), is haired, lays eggs
A bird is warm blooded, has no nipples, is haired, (and feathered), lays eggs
That birds have mammal-like (pink/tan) (as opposed to reptile green/brown thick skin) plus hair (like on the head of an eagle, or any bird) was the first hint to me.
I think that feathers evolved from hair.
I think that there was clearly one and only one body that was warm blooded (I suppose there could have been in betweens - I have to learn more of what warm blooded is molecularly- but basically warm blooded bodies heat the body, cold blooded do not. Cold blooded living objects depend on heat from outside and that is risky, and so is egg laying on the ground)
Dinosaurs that went extinct from meteor that caused hundreds (or thousands - look at soil samples) of years of cold temperatures could be cold blooded, others warm blooded.
some humans have countered that there is "hair" on stems of some plants, and I think that I am saying:
either there is one body that mammals and birds descended from that had hair, or birds evolved hair separately and hair evolving in birds was "convergence", or a third idea is that feathers doid not evolve from hair, but I think that is unlikely because most birds have hair that looks like undeveloped feathers.
The same idea is true for warm blooded (self + outside heated), and cold blooded (heated from outside only) bodies that is:
either mammals and birds have a common warm blooded ancestor or birds evolved warm blooded cells/biology/structures as convergence (independently for similar reasons)
There is also the idea that warm bloodedness did not evolve all together at one time.
One interesting question is why does the male mammal (at least in primates) have nipples?
I did not explain the most popular view that feathers evolved from "scutes" or scales of reptile skin. I do not rule this out, and perhaps will change to support the view that feathers did not evolve from hair with more evidence brought to the public in large scale (that may actually reach my eyes). I still think that people should accept that birds and mammals have always been warm-blooded (this view is rarely mentioned when explaining the evolution of birds from dinosaurs), I seriously doubt warm-blooded anatomy evolved twice independently of each other.
21) Hymenotomy should be option for female humans. Most humans would let a blunt penis break open the hymen (the skin that covers a vagina), why not a clean painless scapel cut with ethyl alcohol and/or novacaine instead of that blunt penis?
22) Globular clusters may be formed by some kind of life. In fact, globular clusters are probably an intermediate step on the way to life of a spiral galaxy changing the galaxy to an elliptical galaxy. Perhaps people secretly knew this, because I read somewhere the message from Arecibo was directed to a globular cluster.
23) A 1 sound for 1 letter phonetic alphabet should be used for all human languages. The letters should be the most popular, simple and easy to write, type, and use. This includes extra phonetic hand signs for deaf people.
24) DNA should be modeled with a computer program that imitates the copying and growing of DNA into a single cell, and then a multicellular organism. In other words, there should be a direct physical explanation and model of how DNA grows into cells, and living objects...
There needs to be more focus on combustion, fire, explosions, fission, fusion, etc... in terms of what is actually happening. First, my main contribution is that combustion and fision are basically the same process and idea. Atoms are being broken into their source (original) photons, the photons that were the atom are released. Hydrogen being burned is the same exact phenomenon as uranium being split (although not started with neutrons), all that is happening is that atoms are being destroyed into their source photons (that are released to move in a sphere of directions). What is required for combustion:
Are some initial photons always needed (a spark)?
Is Oxygen needed for combustion?
What is special about oxygen that allows atoms to be split more easily?
The only "energy" or photons gotten from matter in fusion is from destroying atoms (fission or combustion).
Radioactivity may be this:
When a volume of Uranium atoms divide or are destroyed separating into the original source photons, there are quadrillions (or more!) atoms in a tiny volume, so many photons are released so fast that the rate and quantity of the release means that the photons take the form of gamma frequencies.
Perhaps there are atoms that can by split or destroyed with opposite-(or anti)matter.
Do all atoms release photons in the Plank curve when fissioned/destroyed?
Perhaps there are atoms that release photons in the infrared and microwave (needed to heat H2O for a steam engine) but not with the more dangerous gamma frequency.
Perhaps the photons from Uranium fission can be absorbed into other atoms that will stop or contain photons leaving with gamma frequency. I think that forcing photons back into atoms may not be easy, but this is basically what I think is being done with massive lead and concrete walls/structures. The Lead or atoms in the concrete absorb the hexillions of photons exiting the once Uranium atoms, but do the photons exit the Lead atoms with that same gamma frequency? Basically the idea is making use of all those photons without losing any (in particular so many that the frequencies are dangerous to living objects).
I would vigourously be promoting experimenting with fission of every atom (as I am sure people did after 1940 - but nothing was announced to the public). For example Nitrogen, and other atoms have been fissioned/split/or combusted in a variety of methods, none that have been reported to the average public.
26) Rich vein of experiment: Building up atoms with neutrons. Can a less valued atoms be changed to more valued atoms in large quantities?
27) I reject the myth that the photon (light) is the carrier of electromagnetism. A (common - there could be positron "fields" too) magnetic field is made of electrons, not photons (although electrons are made of photons as is all matter in my opinion). Photons exhibit no electric or magnetic properties at all, they only exhibit the effects of gravitation (or the results of the bending of a space-time geometry by photons, the building blocks of matter).
28) I think that "antimatter" is only electrical opposite matter, and that there are no antineutrons, antiphotons, or anti any "particle" (photon group) without charge. Humans say that the photon and neutron are their own antiparticle, but a more logical conclusion is that antiparticles are simply particles with opposite charge and same size. So really, I guess now thinking of this, that the separating of matter (and people should look carefully at all the ways that matter can be separated into photons for more info on what is happening) using antimatter, is nothing more than what is happening in a typical battery connected to a LED (light bulb), negative and positive charged particles are meeting and separating into the original particles of light.
That photons exhibit an "opposite matter" property in groups, indicates to me that this "antimatter/opposite matter" property is a fundamental property of matter (photons) in the universe, similar to and as basic as elctromagnetism (being a collective effect, although perhaps gravity is collective too, but I doubt that). So here is my view of fundamental properties:
1) gravity (also can be viewed as bending of space-time, but space and time are never "dilated")
2) antimatter grouping (or opposite matter grouping), how photons move in an antielectron or antiproton (people should see if an antielectron separates an equal amount of photons from a proton, and the same for antiproton and electron). Whatever is happening with the photons that result in a matter or antimatter configuration is a mystery to me - does this depend on orientation?
3) electric (electromagnetic) grouping, basically the phenomenon seen in a very few groupings of photons, for example, electrons, protons, muons (bigger electrons). I think magnetism is nothing more than electricity, or in any event, that a magnetic field and an electric field both are made of electrons. Perhaps there are proton fields, there are positive and negative fields, obviously since, magnets are polarized. This may have to do with the direction the electrons are moving in.
I kind of doubt the existence of any "nuclear" force/phenomenon, (strong or weak), and think that an atom nucleus stays together because of gravity. Perhaps the electric phenomenon is not exhibited within an atom, or the tiny space between the electron and proton is enough to stop any collision. Perhaps the electric effect we observe at a large scale, relative to the size of an atom, is the result of a large number of particles. I guess, larger atoms (beyond Hydrogen that has no neutron) depend on neutrons, perhaps the added matter, like an extra planet or star, stops the protons and electrons from colliding. In terms of a weak force, or the reason atoms decay, this is a natural phenomenon of photons escaping orbit with a different photon(s) "inside" an atom.
I am unclear about what people are describing as "spin", and "strangeness", but perhaps these are distinct phenomenons like electric and antimatter groupings.
I doubt the existence of quarks, and gluons, but if they do exist, I think that they are made of photons. I am not clear as to if even an Z or X particle exists, but if they do, I also think that they are made of photons. I do not doubt that the photon is the basic unit of all matter, and is unchanged no matter what the density or velocity of matter.
29) Here is another thing I found to clear up the difference between what I support (all matter is photon [or light] theory) and General Relativity. Einstein thought that when a match was lit the atoms of the match and atoms of oxygen changed from matter to energy, that mass was equivalent to energy, but not the same particles, I think they are the same particles. Einstein and others thought (and still think) that there is some transformation that happens, and I think that there is no transformation. For me, the photons were in the match and oxygen the entire time, and simply are falling out of orbit of each other, not stuck in the atom, but now free to move in different directions.
30) big airbag for big and or small planes and helicopters like nasa mars lander
31) I think that humans should verify and explain experiments in as many ways as possible, keeping an open mind, and interested only in truth. For example, we should verify the size of protons and electrons as best as possible by a variety of different methods. How can we be sure that a proton is bigger than an electron? One thing that is clear is that electrons and protons have the same exact charge, and that all particles that have been measured in an isolated form have either 0, +1, or -1 charge, there are no particles that show more or less charge. I think that electromagnetism is not conveyed by photons (directly), but by electrons, positrons, protons, antiprotons, moun and tau particles, etc...and that electromagnetism is the result of groups of photons orbiting. I think that electromagnetism is a phenomenon that happens when groups of photons rotate in an orderly way (like the milky way as opposed to an elliptical galaxy, a neutron may be more like an elliptical galaxy with no clear rotation). I think this next theory is questionable, but we should be open to all interesting ideas, the idea that the size of electrons and protons are the same, and that electrons are identical to antiprotons, and positrons identical to protons. What evidence exists that the sizes are different? For me, size should be related to charge. How do all the charged particles appear in particle detector tracks? Mass is measure in GeV (or perhaps by velocity?), but I think is related to number of photons, but also to how the photons are orbiting "within" the space of the "particle". Perhaps there are various strengths of "charge" for various particles beside an integer +1 or -1. Perhaps what people are measuring as mass is really related to charge. The reason a particle does not bend as much, appearing to have less matter is really because of less matter making less electromagnetic effect. I think determining what part of a particle is matter and what part is charge in a particle collider image I would like explained to me.
Mass energy eV (is this number of photons or velocity?)
.000511 GeV Electron
.1066 GeV Muon
1.777 GeV Tau
How can humans be sure that the table is not more like this:
100 photons, -1 charge, Electron
1000 photons, -.5 charge, Muon
10000 photons, -.1 charge, Tau
.05 m/s (overall drift velocity) x 100 photons x .2 charge...
I think that the interpretation of electronmagnetic property relative to number of photons orbiting is more complex than most humans currently think.
In any event, that charge is the same for all of these particles is surprising to me, how is that measured? If true, then charge is not (or less) dependent on number of photons in a particle, but on some thing else. For example, maybe adding more photons to a rotating (electromagnetic) particle (photon group) does not change the "assist" to gravity that electromagnetism appears as (while still inverse distance squared like gravity, electromagnetism is stronger (makes matter move faster/amount of matter) and has attraction (as does gravity) but also repulsion (unlike gravity, but in some way 1 particle attracted to 100 particles and away from 3 particles would look like repulsion from the view of the 3 particles).
32) I think that quarks do not exist, and quark theory is inaccurate. I have thought this for some time, but only had the evidence that no quarks have ever been observed in an isolated form. I think that there is only 1 particle, and that particle is the photon. All other "particles" are combinations of photons. I think that there exist a large number of "particles" that are simply clusters/groups of photons held together by gravity or space-time geometry.
33) Particle traces in collider images are easier to think about when you realize that all particles are only made of various numbers of photons.
34) In a particle detector, as every where in the universe, there is no "empty space", photons from the atoms in the metal of the detector move (probably with infrared frequency) thru the detector space.
35) I doubt that there is a "graviton" that is responsible for gravitation.
36) I doubt the "big bang" theory of the universe. I am willing to except that red shift of photons is because of relative velocity between two objects, but I think that other galaxies could be moving to galaxies outside of the visible universe. According to the law of gravity and matter in space-time, matter moves to a place where there is more matter and that is what I think is happening. I think that humans like to make a start and end to the universe, to make the universe more understandable, but I think that the reality is that the universe is not expanding, that there may be an infinite amount of space, and a finite amount of matter in the form of photons only. I think that the universe had no start and will have no end, and that matter continues to move in empty space. Think of the number of galaxies that must exist that we have no way of ever seeing because they are too far away for particles of light from them to reach us. I think that there is much more matter in the universe than we see, the photons from those galaxies are not moving in this direction, because if there were 10e10 photons that left from a star in this direction, they would be going in 1 of 10e100 different directions if not absorbed by other photon groups. I think that quasars are simply the most distant galaxies. Photons from quasars have moved thru an enormous amount of distance. I question that there is a space in red shift between quasars and other galaxies, but if there is, I think that that a space may be due to some other phenomenon, perhaps the more distant, the number of photons that reach our location is exponentially less. That quasars are sending a larger number of photons than other stars should be looked closely at, because in one article this phenomenon is described as "extremely bright", well is that in the visible spectrum, or infrared, etc...? What is the photon count/hour, etc...? Yes, we are seeing photons from quasars in the very distant past, but that does not have to be the start of the universe, perhaps they are centers where photons are collected by other groups of photons we might call life, kind of cities of a state/providence, like galaxy clusters are.
In terms of the idea that larger atoms are made in stars, I think that this idea is possible, but I reject holding absolute certainty on this idea, until all the math is shown and explained in as simple a way as possible, and that is no where near being done. But also, I question this idea, because it is in-line with the big bang theory that I think is wrong. I think that larger atoms may be put together in stars, and stars may be the source of large atoms because photons are pressed together so closely (by all the other photons in a star) that atoms may be made, but I am keeping an open mind. Do we really need enough matter to build a star to make an atom of hydrogen from a proton and electron, or an atom of Beryllium from a few Hydrogen atoms, etc...? We have learned how to separate the photons very nicely, but how to put photons together into something as small as a proton or hydrogen atom is still a mystery, at least experiementally. Sadly, nobody but me will explain that, and then only with access to a handful of people.
12/15/05 update I probably already said this, but clearly there must be galaxies beyond those we can detect photons from and there is an interesting sphere around us that defines the most distant photons we can detect, any source farther than that, and they will not be going in our direction.
I can't believe this too. A few months ago I wondered if people could red shift light here on earth, as a piece of evidence, that red shifting light was possible and maybe that is the explanation for the red shift of the most distant galaxies. In 1930 a person named Venkata Raman won a nobel prize for just such an experiment. Raman found the "Raman Effect" following in the thinking of Arthur Compton in the "Compton effect" for photons in xray frequency. Raman found that visible light also is red shifted when reflecting off of the gases CO and N2O, ice, glycerine, many materials red shifted the frequency of beams of light. It was done in the 1920s! And I have to wonder if Raman's experiments were done because of his exploring of the red shift and the idea that it was because of an expanding universe, an idea formed around the same time I think but have to check. Compton made a formula that relates the angle of reflection to the change in frequency, and I wonder if that change in frequency is only due to the change in the direction of the reflected beam having a larger Y component when detected on a Y axis detector. If the detector is put perpendicular to the reflected beam, is there still the change in frequency? That is an experiment listed below. If yes, then the change in frequency is simply the result of the change in direction, but if no, then the change in frequency has nothing to do with the change in direction and is an internal delay, a delay that is a result of the atoms in the material. Raman found that only a tiny part of the beams were red shifted (and even found that in some materials beams were blue shifted...perhaps the direction had less Y than initially). I don't know but it is interesting.
A friend hinted to me another theory about why light is red shifted from distant galaxies, and here it is: the idea is similar to sound...when somebody is far away less of the sound reaches you as compared to when they are closer to you. The same principle applies to light from a galaxy or a star. I think most people can agree that the farther away from a star a person is the less light will reach them. The theory is that the farther a galaxy is from us, the less photons reach us...the loss of some photons in our direction lowers the frequency of photons received, although only slightly perhaps...when we observe a star we are seeing billions of photons at any given time in the x and y dimensions...because photons are very small...it is perhaps impossible to see a single stream of photons...to my knowledge. Even with lasers, we are seeing a very thick beam billions of photons in width and height. The less photons we see definitely lowers the total intensity of the light received from galaxies...no question about that, but does it also lower the frequency of the photon beams we can see. I want to model this in 3d. In theory photons with an original vector, for example (1,0,0) should always have that vector...they should always be moving in that direction, but what if tiny gravitational changes throw some of them off, for example a photon might be changed to (.99999,0.00001,0). Then that photon will fall out of the original beam and be headed a different direction...perhaps part of some other beam going in the direction (.99999,0.00001,0). The loss of a few photons will not affect the size of the beams we receive, which as I said are billions of photons wide and tall (and that may only amount to a nanometer...or micrometer detector). But as the number of missing photons adds up, if there are enough lost photons, the frequency of the original light going in the (1,0,0) direction could be measurably less. It is a simple model to model a spherical point source emitting points in every direction, and then moving the viewer to from a few points away to many more points away. For example, start the viewer at (0,0,-1) and move to (0,0,-100000), initially, many photon will collide with the viewer screen/detector, but as the viewer moves father back, less and less photons collide with the screen. But even at (0,0,-infinity), if the photons never changed direction, the viewer would still be receiving that 1 beam of photons with the vector (0,0,-1) that emitted from (0,0,10) (presuming a sphere of radius 10). But if anything at all changes the direction of those photons...and anything could do that...a proton, perhaps even other photons...then not all photons would be received...I guess I would add in a "random" potential change in direction (by +/-.00001 for all 3 dimensions for example)...if applied to 1 in 3...the beam would be both less intense and lower in frequency which for a single photon beam is the same thing...intensity and frequency are related...or perhaps for a single beam, intensity is 1, or has no meaning. For a larger beam, intensity is the number of beams. In fact, maybe intensity should be measured in beam count (in width and height of beam only), a green beam being exactly as intense as a red beam as long as the width and height are identical (even if the green beam has more photons).
37) I reject the idea of black holes and worms holes. I think that black holes are mathmatical constructs that are probably not accurate models of matter in the universe. I think that black holes are an example of where the perfection of math does not reflect the real structure of the universe. Perhaps the universe does not have infinities, but only discrete volumes of space. At some point photons fill every available space, and there is no infinity, only a completely filled volume of space.
38) I reject the idea that matter can be spontaneously made from empty space, by the separation of particle/anti-particle combinations, and black holes, etc...
39) I doubt that there is an X particle, or Z particle, and I doubt that there is a strong, weak or any nuclear force.
40) 10/16/05 I give you the 6-line music signature. The advantages are:
1) the notes on the left hand are read the same way as the right hand.
2) the lines now cover 2 entire octaves (4 when left hand is included), trying to quickly determine how many lines are under a note can be difficult.
I give you the "alternating key" keyboard. This keyboard has alternating white and black keys. There are no white keys next to each other, and the same is true for all the black keys. With this keyboard all scales are the same in any key (depending on which key is started on), as you can see from the image. All major scales are 4 white and 3 black or 3 black and 4 white, and so it is for all scales. This configuration is much more logical, and I wonder why this was not done before. The keyboard still is symmetrical with the C note landing on every 6th white key. Perhaps renaming the notes A thru L (or 1 thru 12) would remove confusion about the name "sharp or flat". It seems ridiculous and confusing to have both sharp and flat, why not just one label for one note? It seems to "demote" the note to have it labeled "flat" or "sharp", as if the note is not a specific valid frequency like it's non flatted or sharped neighbors. I don't know which came first flats or sharps, but one should be removed. I think it is much more logical simply to refer to those black notes (in the standard keyboard) as either flat or sharp and not both. So G flat would never be F sharp, in all notations, for example in the key of D major, the G note would be ..actually I can see that the sharp symbol is needed for the key of D. Even with the alternating keyboard with standard naming this sharp/flat problem exists. But when the keys are named A-L or 1-12, ... this is interesting...I just realized that with the alternating keyboard and numbering keys from 1-12 (for this I am using C as 1, but perhaps A should be 1) that the scales is more compressed (which is a plus) now. Key 2 (C5) now falls on the traditional "B" note. Now I think I want to go back to 5 lines. See the last image for this system. In addition with this keyboard, since each note looks the same, the C keys should be marked in some way. The alternating view helps to visualize the half-note whole-note relationship of chords and scales as they exist in air, when we hear frequencies of sound. Perhaps there could be an all white key or all black key or even thin key or wider key keyboards...all those are fine ofcourse, but I think the black notes being raised may make playing easier than if they were on the same level as the white notes. It is amazing, how much easier this alternating keyboard makes playing. Each major chord is the same 2 white notes and the black note, or two black notes and the white note...no matter which key! That is not like the current keyboard where C and F have 3 white notes, D, E and A have white 1 black and 1 white, etc.
with flat key notation
Here is what I think the final system looks like:
It's a beauty. There is only a need for either flats or sharps (I have used flats here, but perhaps sharps will be more popular). Here the key of D major will have the notes 3,5,7,8,10,12,2 (easy to figure out because of the 3w4b rule for major scales that start on a white key). All even notes are black notes and all odd numbers are white notes. Any unflatted note on the printed music is a white key, and ofcourse, any flatted note is a black key. So for D major, the key signature on the left of the two G-Clefts has 4 flats. D Major has flats on (from the bottom on both right and left hand) line 2, space 2. line 3, and space 3. It is tough to figure out, but I think it works. The sharp or flat, one or the other, had to be invented/used because of the "space" or "asymmetry" introduced by putting F next to E (two white notes) and B next to C, etc. So now, F major, which traditionally had the 1 B flat, will be 6,8,10,11,1,3,5 (again the simple rule 3b4w). This obviously has 3 flats, the 3 even numbers, so the key signature would have flats on space 1, line 2, space 2. Any note on space 1 (traditionally an F, but in this system would be 6 or 7, traditionally F and F#) would be flatted, which works because F# is not in the F Major scale, the same is true for line 2, notes 8 and 9 (traditionally G and G#) are flatted, again this works because G#, the unflatted note is not in the F Major scale. I could go through each scale, but I presume that it works, and no sharps are necessary.
42) 10/16/05 Fourth tuning on guitar. Where the current popular "flat 3rd on the second string" came from I don't know, but I don't doubt the history is well documented. I enjoy the 4th tuning. Scales are more logical, everything in the standard tuning is possible with the 4th tuning, very little changes. An all 4ths tuning is more logical, chords and in particular scales take on a much more symmetrical look. Violins have an all fifths tuning, and I think, for myself, changing my violing to an all-fourths tuning will allow me to translate more easily between guitar and violin. Learning to play violing from guitar should be straight forward, but instead with an all fifths tuning it is like learning a new instrument. Perhaps the guitar should be all fifths...it's a good debate. My song group "CFOAI" was recorded using a guitar with an all fourth tuning without any exception, while "SVTS" was recorded with the traditional "flat third" tuning.
43) This is in experiments, but I think this is an important idea. Perhaps the photoelectric effect can be used to find the ratio of photon to electron: Photon/Electron. The mass ratio, how many photons to how many electrons, in other words, how many photons are in 1 electron, or at least the equivalent in weight? The current interpretation of the photoelectric effect is that photons cause atoms in the metal to release electrons, but if that were true a simple experiment where a metal is insulated why an ultraviolent light shines on the metal and electrons are taken away from the metal, and then the circuit is opened would leave the metal positively charged, which I doubt happens, but in any event. If the metal is positively charged, then yes, the photons only cause the metal atoms to release the electrons, making them positively changed, but if the metal is still electrically neutral after some time of photoelectric current, then I think it shows that the photons are either 1) replacing the electron in the atom...yes pushing the electron out, but replacing it or 2) forming those electrons in the current themselves, and the electrons of the atoms are unchanged/not separated. So this is a great experiment, and either way, something is learned. And I think, what is probably learned is that the metal plate is not positively charged when the ciruit is opened. But in addition, as I said before, a relation can be made between how many photons of light per second which is Frequency*Intensity, where Intensity is width*height of the beam of light (which must be exactly only 1 frequency) is needed to create one electron, using that Number of Photons to relate to Number of electrons using the Coulomb equation: 1 Amp=1Coulomb/1second. This should show how many photons are needed to make one electron (although, there are potential inaccuracies, for example, how can we be sure that each photon of light is only going into 1 atom, and then many photons are reflected at the surface, they should be excluded in theory). It may give a good estimate of how many photons are in an electron. Perhaps the concept of Energy could be used to do a similar estimate. Using Plank's E=hf (in electronVolts), V=IR and then 1C=6.25e18 electrons.
44) maybe atoms are separated into photons simply from the pressure of the matter in the sun.
45) People still call them "x-ray photons", I have the opposite view of them as "photons in x-ray frequency". I think that the frequency is not an aspect of each photon, but an aspect of the distance between photons which are basically identical. It seems illogical to me to talk about photons have different "energies" since they are all the same, have no acceleration, and a constant velocity.
46) 12/22/05 Because of the simple conclusion that Hydrogen burning in oxygen is the complete separation (most call it the destruction or anhilation) or both Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms, it is clear that the photons received from such reactions would be not only from the electrons separated, but also from the protons and neutrons of both Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. Given that apparant truth, how do protons, neutrons and electrons emit photons? We recognize clearly the spectral signature of every atom, but the current theories of Bohr and Schrodinger describe this only as the changing of electrons to different orbits. How can this be, when the photons are coming from what was once not only the electrons (which again, even then are completely separated...not simply changing orbits), but also the protons and neutrons? Do protons and neutrons also have changing orbits? But then, we are talking about the complete separation, the spectrum lines are more about how photons exit particles, leaving nothing...how atoms disintingrate...not how electrons change orbits and absorb or emit photons. Perhaps ther are two phenomena here, one where current (electrons) are used to make matter luminesce, and a second where the matter is destroyed. Perhaps that is a possibility. But, the thing that angers me, is the question: "How long will the established people in science continue to ignore this truth, not only about hydrogen combustion being a nuclear reaction, but about photons emitted from Hydrogen combustion being not only from electrons but from the protons and neutrons of Hydrogen and Oxygen too, and publically ignoring the question of how photons exit protons and neutrons."
2/28/06 One thing I think should be openly recognized in combustion is that matter (mass) is being lost. And so where that matter is coming from should be clearly explained. This is where people appear to be failing in my opinion. Maybe the claim is that the matter is lost in the form of energy. It starts as energy and is lost as energy in the form of light and heat. But, I think that energy, for example rubbing two sticks together cannot be converted to matter, it can only separate particles from existing matter. When a person rubs two sticks together, the heat is coming, I think from photons being rubbed off of the stick, not photons being created, or atoms being created, for example. But beyond that I think that in simple combustion, for example 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O + light/heat, I will accept that much of the H2 and O2 is converted to H2O, but I think the lost matter we see in the form of light and heat, which are both simply photons, was in the original atoms of H2 and O2. So that would mean that either the neutrons, protons, or electrons is losing mass in the form of photons. If it is the neutrons or protons than simple combustion would be a nuclear reaction, if it is only the electrons losing photons than simple combustion is only a molecular, or perhaps electrical reaction. It seems to me like a large amount of light and heat originate from simple Hydrogen combustion, but then there are many atoms, 6e23 atoms in 1 gram of H gas (actually 6e23 molecules in 2 grams of H2 gas) in theory. Could all of the light and heat we see and feel from H2 combustion be simple electrons losing mass? I kind of doubt it, but it is possible. The entire concept of an electron losing mass is questionable because an electron is tiny to begin with. In addition photons and electrons are similar, photons colliding with any metal (as far as I know) produce electrons, so some might argue that electrons are photons, or groups of photons with the photoelectric effect as a primary piece of evidence. Then, if an electron losing mass, can it still maintain electrical charge? There are a variety of particles that show charge that are larger than electrons (a muon particle has 207x the mass of an electron and also has charge but decays very quickly, a tau particle is, but it doesn't last for long, a tau decays into a tau neutrino, and an electron or muon.). So, I think in the conversion from H2+O2 to H2O, it's possible that electrons shed photons in pulling closer to their nucleus, but I think it is more logical to have some number of entire H2 and/or O2 atoms being completely separated into photons. If only electrons lose photons, it leaves a question about protons and neutrons being made of photons too, which seems very logical. It seems very simple and logical that photons would serve as the base unit of matter for all matter, including protons, neutrons and so-called antimatter too, which may come to be called negative-matter, or some other name, or antimatter, but with the realization that antimatter is actually matter. That protons and antiprotons collide into photons, I think is probably one of the best pieces of evidence that even protons, and antiprotons are made of photons. It is simple, logical...I can't understand why people didn't reach that conclusion to begin with. Still, we should measure, as best as possible, what is converted to photons in simple hydrogen combustion, how many photons exit, how many atoms of H2O are made, how many atoms of H2 and O2 were used.
47) 2/16/06 Here is a pretty cool find: I think that sex, cellular fusion may have evolved through prokaryote conjugation. Some eukaryotes still reproduce by conjugation, ciliates and some algaes like the algae Spyrogyra. I am probably not the first to explain this idea, but I still have never heard it before. In addition, perhaps the first chromosomes happened as a result of a conjugation where the unwound plasmid (no longer in a circle) was simply not integrated into the receiving cell's DNA. Perhaps the receiving cell's DNA circle was split to add the new DNA received, but the sewing back into the cell's original DNA didn't happen leaving two strands of DNA. Perhaps those were the first two chromosomes. That much seems simple enough, but perhaps there is more, because not having the main cell DNA in a circle anymore probably affected the anatomy and life cycle of the cell, if this theory is true. It's tough but possibly, I think to explain how euglenozoa which are haploid, do not fuse, and are genetically more ancient than ciliates would follow ciliate evolution, but maybe discoid christae came after tubular christae mitochondria, or maybe euglenozoa lost the ability to conjugate.
48) 2/15/06 SCI: Multicellularity and colonialism in species are two different phenomena in my opinion. Colonialism is where individual cells from the same species work together and function as a single unit, and (metazoan) multicellularity is one zygote cell producing all the other cells in the organism, so they are different. It is the difference between "e pluribus unum" (from many one) and "e unum pluribus" (from one many). Perhaps this trait can be labeled as "monoadmulti" (one to many), "multiplicity", "deunumadmulti", "deunumadpoly", "deunumpluralism"...maybe you have some better names. An important part of evolution is "cell differentiation". One other important aspect of evolution is if the cells made from one cell stick together or swim freely. Perhaps there was a transition between a zygote that mitosed into cells that float apart versus a zygote that mitosed into cells that stayed together. How about "monomultiism"? (and then for the case of a multicellular organism that is completely formed from one cell).
48) SCI: 02/14/06 The first sex on earth was probably homosexual sex. The first two haploid cells that fused were most likely identical, in other words, the same gender or of no gender. Only later did two non-interchangable gender cells evolve and fuse.
49) SCI: 02/14/06 Our species was built around our twats and balls, since reproduction is the basis of life, the one thing every living species has in common, the oldest part in the design of our body. Reproduction is the oldest and most essential portion of the design of all living objects. The sperm and ovum are the oldest designs of all cells in our bodies. The path of cells from zygote to sperm or ovum is the root, most ancient and only necessary part of any species for continued existence. 2/28/06 In some way, fish, amphibs, reptiles, mammals, including we humans can be thought of as single celled ovum and sperm protists that grow all the extra cells/organs later. It is interesting to look at our bodies as a trillion single celled protists, just like the cells of a tree, for example, the cells are very similar to single celled protists. Beyond that, every mitochondrion in every cell of our body, or the bodies of trees is basically a bacterium.
50) 04/25/07 Time is the same everywhere in the universe. Whatever time it is here, is the same time anywhere else in the universe.
51) There is a mistaken belief that mass and velocity are interchangable. In my current view "energy" is a human-made conception that is a quantity/number that represents mass times velocity. In my opinion, this mass and velocity must always remain separate and can never exchange; for example mass can never change into velocity not velocity into matter. When two particles collide, velocity may be exchanged and mass may be exchanged, but the velocity will always remain as velocity and the mass as mass. No mass can be created from velocity.
A problem with the concepts of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy is that there is a belief that mass and velocity can be converted (interchanged) - mass into velocity and velocity into mass. But I doubt that this is possible. So I think , technically, and to be more accurate, humans should recognize that ultimately there is only conservation of mass and conservation of velocity.
In addition, it is interesting that the quantity of "energy" has been the main language of physics for the past two centuries (starting initially as "vis-viva"), when truly velocity and mass are a nice alternative set of quantities, but then people could choose a wide variety of quantities, such as massergy 1/2vm^2, or massmentum=m/v, 1/3mv^3, etc. any combinations of mass and velocity are always conserved, because mass and velocity are always conserved - but again, the point I make is that people should recognize that - although it may appear otherwise, it seems more logical and intuitive that mass and velocity cannot be converted into each other.
52) I doubt the hydrogen fusion in the center of a star as the main source of photons. People probably made the mistake of seeing spectral emission lines for hydrogen, but those photons are emitted from hydrogen molecules on the surface of stars. The inside of stars, like planets, may have heavier atoms. We see this in the remains of supernovas. The inside of stars may be very compacted photons, perhaps photons pressed together so closely that even protons as we understand them only form towards the outer layers. In this view, planets are like mini-stars, and stars like big-planets. Hydrogen fusion is not needed to explain why the center of the earth (at least as we experience from volcanos) is molten red-hot metals and other atoms, so why explain the photons emitted from a star differently? Matter condenses under gravity, and it is clear that planets condense in the same way stars do with the denser atoms towards the center. There is a mistaken belief that the physics of stars is different from that of planets. In other words a planet is a dead star that only emits a low amount of light mainly in the radio and infrared. I think the photons emitted from a planet or star comes from the release of matter into empty space. Matter is compacted in a planet or star, and so matter finds more space as it moves up towards the less dense layers and out to empty space. It is the pressure that is tied up in a planet and star that results in the constant emission of photons. In some way it's like opening a container under pressure, everything starts pouring out as the matter moves into less dense space.
53) Perhaps photons are spheres (or they could be rectoids, but most of what we see for matter is spherical; it's a natural maximizing of matter in space). If this is true, than there is an important effect on Newton's law F=Gm1m2/r^2 (A=Gm2/r^2) that I don't think Newton and others thought much about; the idea of what kind of limit there might be to the force of gravity at distance=0. It seems to me that the distance between two photons could never be 0 and could only be 1 (1 being an average diameter of a photon). If true, that r=1 when two photons collide (if photons do collide, which I think they do, see experiments), then there is a finite acceleration that can be imparted onto a photon of a=Gm2/(?m)^2 a=Gm2/?m^2 (gravitational constant*mass of other photons/?m^2. We don't know how many meters two photons that are touching are. And this is only for a universe of 2 photons which is unrealistic...other photons could only decrease this acceleration). Presuming a photon to be mass=1 photon, and the distance to = 1 photon, a new gravitational constant would need to be figured out and, a=G2(1)/(1)^2=G2 again a would simply equal some constant. For example, say the acceleration can only reach a maximum of 1000m/s^2, this puts a finite limit on the velocity any photon can ever have, although it is complex because a person would need to know the distance in photon lengths of when the acceleration between 2 photons is equal to 0. Practically speaking, there must be some distance between two photons where the acceleration is so small, the acceleration from other photons is probably equal or greater. Since gravity is exponential, the acceleration quickly becomes zero. For example as a photon moves 1,2,3,etc photon lengths away from a photon it just collided with, the acceleration is 1, 1/4, 1/9, 1/16, ... in other words 1, 0.25, 0.11, 0.06, 0.04, 0.02, 0.02, 0.01, at 8 photons away the acceleration is .01 (1/100th) of what it was when the two photons collided. So a photon may build up it's velocity very near other photons, but at any distance larger than 10 photons (which for the universe mostly dominated with empty space is probably the majority of photons) there is probably only a very small change in acceleration and therefore velocity. So photons would maintain their constant velocity as long as they never collide with or get very close to other photons. Within high densities of photons, I don't doubt that there are observable collisions...for example sending two dense light beams into each other should produce at least a few stray photons in other directions (see experiments...this is a classic experiment...probably it was confirmed secretly years ago). And also with high densities of photons I don't doubt that photons routinely change velocity, but these changes happen at such a small scale that they cannot be directly observed. For example, clearly an atom is filled with photons which may be colliding or in orbit of each other. The inside of planets and stars are places where photons are crunched together, and there too, there must be many photon-photon collisions. Another issue is what is actually happening when two photons collide, what makes them "exchange" velocity? Clearly they collide, touch, and change velocities, or else two objects would never bounce off each other. That may be one of those questions that is really unanswerable and may be for many millenia, along with, "how did the universe start?", and "how can there not be any end to the universe, nothing outside of it or around it?"...it shows the sort of beyond-human-understanding nature of the universe. My only answers to these are just that, "the universe had no start" which seems to defy our sense of everything having a finite starting point, and "The universe is simply everywhere, there is, for all we know, no boundary, it may be infinite in space as it may be infinite in age". Anyway we look at it, it seems illogical to put a border on space, but then it seems illogical that there would not be a border to space...to have an infinite space. I think we have to realize that the universe may not comply with our views of finite beginnings and endings and finite space.
54) I have found that in a diffraction grating, different frequencies of light come from different parts of the grating. Moving a finger along from left to right in front of the grating, a person can see that the different parts of a full spectrum of colors are blocked - first the violet, then the blue, the green, the yellow, then the red, etc. In addition, there is another spectrum in between node 0 and node 1 - which is reflected (in my view) to the far right and left - which can be seen easily by placing two mirror on the sides of a grating. It can be seen that when node 1 and this reflected spectrum (node 1/2 or true node 1) are seen together - that a finger can be used to determine that the reflected node comes from a different part of the (transparent) grating - closer to the position of the light source (node 0) than where the finger blocks the light for the traditional node 1. Much of these findings I have found based on the idea that diffraction is actually just reflection.
In addition, this observation, that different frequencies of light originate at different parts in the grating seems, to my thinking, to conflict with the traditional explanation of a mechanical sine wave theory of light using an aether as a medium or the currently popular electromagnetic sine wave theory of light later removed from requiring an aether. There have been few graphical model's or diagrams of light passing through diffraction gratings to my knowledge, although I need to search more. Thomas Young diagramed interference nodes as happening after passing through a single slot - which seems to be different from different parts of each node apparently depending on the angle of the source light as it passes through the slot in the grating. I have modeled this phenomenon in my videos. What really is happening, and how different colors are produced, I don't know for sure, but have a number of different ideas - all particle-based explanations (simply because I reject the wave theory as unlikely without an aether which Michelson-Morley's experiments have shown there is no evidence to support - just to say that other people may want to explore sine wave explanations). In my models, the various nodes are very clear - and created strictly by reflection, and I have described the math of each node in my paper on Grimaldi. However, what could explain the different frequencies within each node, I don't know for sure. One theory is that the angles of reflection are such that as the angle with the source light becomes larger, less and less beams are reflected - the result is that there is a higher density of particles reflected in angles at smaller angles than at larger angles. Clearly angle of grating with source light is important in determining color (frequency) of beam reflected. So these researches continue in the hope of putting all the puzzle pieces together to explain diffraction, interference, polarization, refraction, double-refraction, and every other optical phenomena with a light-as-a-particle explanation.
The same phenomenon is true for prisms too - that different parts of the resulting spectrum are blocked by blocking different parts of the source light.
55) a "pseudo" double refraction may be demonstrated by shining a laser light through a tilted glass slide. Some of the beams pass through and some are reflected creating two images - one (the reflected) which rotates with the glass slide - the other (transmitted) that does not.
56) Because of the Bragg equation n(lambda)=2Dsin(theta), the more distant a light source, the larger the angle of incidence of the light that will result for some particular frequency of light. Because for some wave-length (particle interval), for example, for a wave-length of 1 nm, for a crystal lattice with D=1 nm, the angle of incident light is required to be 30 degrees. So, this spectral line will change, shifting farther to the outside (from the perspective of the observer), as a light source gets more distant.
Here are more opinions:
1) Problem that 2 objects move at same velocity moving from above surface of earth to surface of earth, as explained by Galileo. This idea contradicts the inverse distance law (an equation I make more use of than other equations). F=g*m1*m2/d^2. (g=const, m1=m2=number of atoms in two pieces of matter, d=distance between two pieces of matter). The attraction between two groups of matter (combinations of atoms) depends on the amount of matter (or mass) of a group of matter (or object). There must be a measurable difference between two objects of different mass.
It is a rare occurance, but I may be wrong on this. ahaha. I am one of those few humans that does not mind being wrong, and is ready to accept truth no matter how embarassing. In doing more calculating, I see that velocity is independent of amount of matter (mass), and the same is true for acceleration. My mistake was thinking that force is related to (=) velocity. Here is where I am at now:
V=change in distance/time=at
I find the force of gravity using equation 1 (Newton's)
then use this Force (for each dimention x,y,z) then a=F/m to find the acceleration.
Add the acceleration to the current velocity of the point (or object).
Acceleration is dependent on distance between two objects. Force is dependent on amount of matter, but I guess acceleration and velocity are not. Still I am not entirely clear on this, and in addition, the new model of photons moving at a constant velocity, changing only direction is, in my opinion, the main activity of matter in the universe, the effects of groups of matter (acceleration, velocity, electromagnetism-I think a magnetic field is an electric field and doubt any 90 degree difference or sine wave theories) are a larger result of that basic photon direction changing.
2) I think there should be more explanation of variable stars. I am thinking that a variable star emits a pattern of more and less photons of light. For example the star puts out 1e20 photons/second one month, but 1e30 photons/second every other month. Is a variable star an unevenly shaped, photon emitting star? (09-29-2003 update: I read in my favorite Asimov book that variable stars are stars that are unstable because they are at the size limit for a star).
Are variable stars, rotating, and one part of the star emits more photons than the other?, or is the entire star pulsating - emitting a frequency of more than less photons in all directions?
3) I found the fastest times human will have to get to the earth moon and other planets. There is a limit on the acceleration a human body can take (perhaps of 20- 30 m/s^2 = 2g's. This acceleration limit, puts a time limit on how fast humans can move around the universe. Robots could go ahead, and accelerate faster, but humans in the current biological form would never get to the earth moon from planet earth faster than in 2 hours. Here are the times with an acceleration half way there and then deceleration the second half of the way to slow to a stop at the destination. This also assumes that using fission or atom separation, humans can accelerate a ship (even past the speed of a photon - this may not be possible, not because of relativity, but, in the view I support, because using photons, a particle that moves at 3e8m/s^2 to propel other matter(photons) in some direction, the other matter will never have a velocity > 3e8 the velocity of the photon that moved in the opposite direction to propel the ship. So these times may be even more.
Accel .5 up, .5 down
To stop at
T=3.44 hours, 2.4 h, 1.98 hours
Max velocity=62,000 m/s
Fastest plane=2,222 m/s
1.4 days-3.7d, 24.3h-2.6d,
8.0 [5.7]d-9.4d ,5.7d-6.7d
1 d-2.6d, 17h-1.8d,
D=[86400^2]*5=37.3e9 m [v]
I have been thinking about pulsars (neutron stars that emit photons in a regular pattern). For a spinning star to be emitting photons that are detected at regular intervals (like a metronome, a group of photons is received every 1 second, for example), there are two options I can think of that I have never really seen explained:
First the official explanation. This page:
explains that a pulsar is a star that has a magnetic field (made of electrons I must add), that is aligned in a different axis from the rotation axis of the star. They explain that, as the star rotates, electrons generated (I would say "guided") by the magnetic field cause radiation (I say "decay into their source photons"), and these photons follow the direction of the magnetic field which is off center with the axis of rotation, causing a periodic signal. I think that this explanation is interesting in that photons do not simply exit a star in all directions, but they follow the path of the magnetic field of a star, because electrons do, and the electrons decay into photons. I am not sure if this is what is happening inside and on the surface of the star, but I was under the impression that photons simply exit in all directions.
1) The pulsar is emiting photons from one tiny part of the star, the rest of the star does not emit photons as intense as the beam that is received at regular intervals on earth. According to the above explanation, I have the pole part correct, but the poles are on the magnetic field of a star, not the physical poles.
a) for this, I find it difficult to imagine a star with a part of one side emiting a stream of photons where the rest does not, I could see possibly a jet of photons being emitted from the poles, then any periodic signal would be the result of an imperfect rotation (or wobble) from a pole of a star facing this planet. Stars, certainly emit an unequal amount of photons in different directions, for example where star spots are. perhaps some process could be emiting photons at higher frequencies from a certain part of a star, while rotating.
b) I find it difficult to imagine that a star could be "half-lit", but still maintain a regular rotation. one half of the star is emiting a huge stream of matter (in the form of photons), coming from the center, or perhaps the other side, and the other side emits no photons, or a much smaller amount, but yet the rotation is as regular as an atomic clock.
2) An object is orbiting the star, the star is emiting the same amount of photons in equal directions, but a large unlit object is orbiting the star. The object would have to be very large, or perfectly aligned in between the star and the earth (and this general direction). Because some of the pulsar signals are very fast, any planet would possibly be rotating very fast. There could be double stars with an unlit star, like a jupiter sized planet blocking part of the other star.
3) Are there non regular pulsars? (pulsars that emit photon groups/signals at various patterns 1s, 2s, 1s, 2s, ... or even transendental signals (no recognizable pattern)?
4) From the distance of earth to the pulsar, we are getting a magnified signal (in other words the pulsar signal moves out in 360 degrees, we are so far that the sweep of the beam
5) we can possibly measure the direction of the pulsar signal as the photons arrive at the earth, and then the moon - we would know that either the pulsar is rotating from the direction of the earth to the direction of the moon (or mars, etc... or simply some other part of earth), or that the planet blocking the pulsar is moving in that direction.
Even after reading the above explanation, I am not satified that the photons are aligned with the magnetic field, because what about all the other photons from a star? Do we only see photons from a star in the direction of the magnetic field of that star? Photons are not effected by the magnetic field of a star, so why would photons from the surface follow the path of the magnetic field? Perhaps, people are saying that the bulk of the photons from a star (the solar wind) are produced in the shape of the magnetic field. I guess the explanation of non pulsar stars is that the magnetic pole does not cross the direction of the earth (whether the pole is aligned with the physical pole of the star of not), but then we certainly receive photons from star whose magnetic poles are not aligned with the earth.
has some interesting info on the main magnetic field of the sun and earth. The field flips poles from time to time, but does not appear to move (as far as I read) otherwise.
pulsars were first found by people looking in the radio frequency, but there are also pulsars emiting regular signals with gamma frequency.
This is kind of an interesting find. The idea that a photon group, or particle may need a certain amount of empty space around it for an atom to remain stable. Rutherford first modeled atoms with what was called the "pudding model", although I am not clear how much detail Rutherford and other humans explored the idea of where neutrons, protons and electrons would be located, but basically the particles were simply held together (presumably without moving), this idea lost to the "planet model" where the electrons orbitted the nucleus.
In any event, looking at the constant velocity particle physics models (available for free on this website), where groups of photons collapsed into single points (although the points consist of photons orbiting each other). These points would be balanced in geometrical shapes, for example as 4 point groups equally spaced. Thinking more of this, made me come up with the idea of an atom not being made of orbiting protons and neutrons but unmoving (relative to each other) groups of photons stuck together by balanced gravitiational influence. Perhaps looking at atoms with Scanning Tunneling Microscopes will show if protons and neutrons change locations within atoms.
In addition, I am thinking of why the inert gases do not mix with other atoms, while others do. Why the symmetry of 8 in the periodic table?
There must be reasons for these symmetries.
The interesting idea is that an atom is probably put together in the most stable way. For example a neutron may need a certain sized sphere of empty space to keep an atom stable.
I am modeling this (initially in 2D) by drawing a point (that represents a proton) and drawing a circle around that point (for example with a compass, or a nickel, etc...), then placing point 2 (perhaps another proton) on the radius of the circle, and drawing a circle with the same radius around point 2. In these two circles you can see a peanut or dumbell shape (this is extended into 3D). You can see that the 2 circles intersect at 2 points, these 2 points, are called local minima (I think, I have only intermediate math skills), and they represent the most stable points closest to the two points. Continuing these shapes results in interesting shapes. If particles with different size radiuses are drawn (for example the way a neutron may be larger than a proton), even more interesting shapes can be made. People model molecules like this, but not atoms (as far as I know), and I am saying that perhaps, atoms can be modeled in a similar way, even if only thought experiments. Bohr started and Schrodinger basically completed the currently theory of how an atom is put together (as far as I know), i.e., how the "shells" of an atom are described.
One thing I found, and is something to think about and not simply dismiss, is this: "Is H2 the same as He?", The "Diatomic" molecule, may actually be a stable formation of protons and neutrons. Currently, people in science argue, that no, H2 (2 atoms of Hydrogen) are not 1 atom of Helium. Helium is also "diatomic", but could Helium be viewed as an atom with 4 neutrons and protons? Has H or He ever been isolated in a non diatomic form? If yes, then why not call H2 a different atom? As Carl Sagan said in "Cosmos", "there is no difference between a Carbon nucleus and 3 He nuclei stuck together."
The basic idea is to put together a model that shows "most stable", or "minima" points that reflect the current set of atoms (and molecules). Particle locations that show the 2-8-8-10-10-30-30 shells.
When a group of photons enters an atom, it attracts other photon groups and may cause the atom to completely separate. But how to put an atom together? Perhaps knowing the precise location to send a neutron, proton or electron and when could possibly form a stable atom. If we can send a neutron into an atom of Nitrogen and completely separate that atom, this hints that we could possibly may atoms absorb neutrons and protons without destroying the atom, or even build an atom from protons and neutrons.
"Maps Keep Getting Bigger"
The most distant galaxies/quasars we see are not the end of the universe. In my opinion, they do not represent the early universe, or how the universe looked soon after the big bang. Humans may send cameras to a different star system. From a different star system (for example Alpha Centurai), our best telescopes/photon detectors could see a few more "most distant" galaxies from Centauri than here, because Centauri is 4 light years of distance from us, and so we could see 4 light years more in that direction. In this star system we would receive these new images of galaxies our instruments cannot detect from here and we would have to add them to our map of the known universe. But I have never seen any person that will ever admit this, or even contest it, because what is being called "science" on earth should take a different name, perhaps "nazi science", or "unchanging science", or "elite science", "science for the religious", something other than "science" because science involves allowing new popular theories to be heard, published, and critized etc...
The reason no photons can reach us from galaxies beyond a certain radius is because there are not enough to reach us. Most of the photons are intercepted in atoms in between here and there, and the rest are going in different directions. As a person moves away from a point, the number of possible spaces a particle leaving that point can go increases tremendously. At some point, no photons will be going in the direction of our tiny detectors. They will move by us with some other direction, so they may be around the milky way, those photons may pass us, but not into our detectors.
I think that 'elliptical galaxies' and golbular clusters of this galaxy are the best places to look for advanced life. I think that elliptical galaxies (like M87) are the result of advanced life organizing stars and spiral galaxies are early, unorganized galaxies that are in the process of forming an orderly sphere of stars. M87 even has a large jet that is probably used to move the star group around in the universe. The plan for living objects appears clear to me, and perhaps a few other humans, to lift our star out of the plane of the milky way, and to join a globular cluster, or form our own globular cluster. We are clearly very behind the life of the globular clusters, and millions and millions of years (as a star system and as a galaxy) behind life of elliptical/ellipsoid galaxies. Perhaps I am wrong and these galaxies form naturally, or an elliptical galaxy is the natural result of a spiral galaxy. How stirring, the idea is that M87 and other elliptical galaxies may be the highest form of life visible in this part of the universe, and that the globular clusters of our own galaxy that may represent advanced life from our own galaxy (or perhaps some other galaxy) that took the first steps on this inevitible, inescapable or simply most logical plan of matter in the universe. To me, it is an awesome idea. To think, we may be far down on the ladder of this process. Maybe the advanced living objects in globular clusters and elliptical galaxies are super positive and friendly, perhaps some are aggressive and violent, others maybe defensive and nonviolent. Perhaps they travel the universe looking for more matter (fuel) and to see and or join other advanced life. The stars of both globular clusters and elliptical galaxies are all long lived yellow stars, not blue or red (as far as I know and I really have limited knowledge in Astronomy). Most humans claim that these are older type 2 stars that formed of hydrogen and helium (not higher atoms like iron, silver and gold, ...) and they wandered out of the milky way. Elliptical galaxy are 10% of the part of the universe we can see. These stars go from 10e7 to 10e13 solar masses (according to google.com searches). That is 100 trillion sun-like stars. The ellipticals show a much larger range in sizes than spiral galaxies. M87 is a giant galaxy bigger than most spiral galaxies. They have far less dust than spirals (most of their dust has been cleaned up and is being used to maximum efficiency, perhaps). They are some times found in the center of clusters. Perhaps they serve as a teacher to the other galaxies, they are looking for more matter, ... One article claims that the stars of ellipticals are all older stars (simply equals that they are not blue). Andromeda (M31) has an elliptical galaxy near it (M32, how do we know that is not a big globular cluster?), perhaps evidence that the Milky is behind M31, I wouldn't doubt it, I know these people. The stars in ellipticals appear to have randon motions, unlike spiral galaxies. An article has text that the some stars in ellipitcals appear to have some kind of regular motion. We have little say in where we are moving as a star in the Milky Way. The challanges and nasty probabilities are clearly ahead of us, that we can get off of earth permanently, that we can sustain life in orbit independent of the earth, that we can grow onto planets of other stars, that we can lift our star systems out of the Milky Way, ... by then our chances would look a million times better. How interesting to think about the living objects of those globular clusters and elliptical galaxies. Are they sending other galaxies the "most important" instructions on how to turn your galaxy from a spiral into an elliptical? And all the little in between steps...how to take atoms apart, how to put them back together again... Or are they too matter conservative and secretive to share that "genetic code of the universe" with other potential rival and usurper living objects of the lowly and younger spiral galaxies? There is a question about star death in ellipticals. If they blow up in supernovi, where are the novis? Where is the dust? Where are the red giants? Has there ever been a supernova in an elliptical? Is there even 1 piece of evidence that a star in an elliptical has ever gone supernova, or even red giant? Some people would explain this all away by saying they are old stars, and that they simply turn black when they die, they can't go supernova because of their physical composition being only of Hydrogen and Helium.
I want to summarize my latest thoughts on criticism of the "big bang", "expanding universe", "microwave background radiation", "15 billion year old universe" theories, in addition to providing an alternate theory:
1) There must be galaxies that not one particle of light reach us, because they are too far away, or the light particles are moving in a different direction than our tiny detectors. These photons are not even detected in the tiny (compared to the universe) size of super cooled radio detectors. The "background" photons detected, probably come from all directions from many different stars. The size of the universe currently depends on how big our photon detectors are. If we had a bigger telescope, we would detect galaxies that we do not now, just as the Hubble found many more galaxies we never knew existed. At some point, galaxies reach a point where no particles of light can reach a 100 meter detector, and at some distance, there is probably no deteector that could be build big enough to receive the photons sent from very distant stars. The unverse is clearly much older than 15 billion years. We should be looking in the direction of the Great Attractor to find new galaxies, and in the opposite direction to see galaxies disappear into the distance, but foolish people are in command and not making this info public.
2) If photons are matter, which there is no doubt in my brain they are, then perhaps they are moving to where there is more matter when they exit a star. Photons do reflect and change direction because of matter, but I think their main direction is determined by the massive matter of the universe that we do not see. The example I give is of bowling balls on the outside of a trampoline with marbles in the center. All the marbles roll out to the bowling balls. The bowling balls represent what must be an infinite amount of matter outside of the visible universe. So here, as a result of thinking of photons as matter, an interesting idea was uncovered! Where is light going to when you turn on a flash light? To that other matter that must be massive. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think this is worth informing the public with, and pursuing in terms of models and new ideas. We see that the red shifts are 3 dimensional (they are currently viewed only in 1 dimension/variable, radially). Why are the x and y so small but the z so large?
One thing I was to state clearly, and for the first time that I have ever seen in print, is that I seriously doubt that the "particles convey force" theory is even remotely accurate. How could so many people affirm this hard to believe theory? I want people to go on record, please record the opinions of people that affirm the "particles convey force" theory for the record, because without doubt, I think that theory will fall, and that theory has formed a major building block to the current interpretation of the universe. This theory comes from the "particle accelerator" century and generation. The weak nuclear force (with I think does not exist) is supposedly "conveyed", created, by the W boson. I think a W boson if actually measured, which I think it probably was, is nothing more than yet another group of photons orbiting each other. The "gluon" is thought to be the carrier of the "strong nuclear force", again which I doubt exists, and nucleus stability (and the nucleus is not like a cell nucleus, there is no barrier between the particles in the nucleus and the electrons in my opinion, and in addition the nucleus and even electrons may form one static object, not necessarily touching, but perhaps also touching.) I am not even sure a gluon has ever been measured. They hypothize that a "graviton" exists, and for years I accepted that, now I feel strongly that there is no graviton, gravity, in my opinion, is not conveyed by particles, but is a natural phenomenon of the mixing of matter, space and time, and equivalently a phenomenon of a space, matter and time geometry. Finally, the electron (positron, proton, antiproton...any particles with charge?) are the conveyors of the electromagnetic force in this most popular "force is conveyed by particles" theory. Although it has not yet been proven, and I would like to see solid proof, not speculation accepted as solid fact, that magnetism is simply electricity, a magnetic field is made of electrons and is identical to an electric field, I highly doubt the 90 degree theory of magnetic and electric fields put forward by Michelson, and it has not been demonstrated experimentally to my satisfaction. But mainly, I think that electricity is only an accumulated effect of gravity, and I think that this theory is worth explaining and pursuing.
1) We should be showing models of particles of light going through prisms and double-slits, how they change direction. It is an interesting model to see in my mind at least; photons entering the prism and changing direction, so that the frequency of photons exiting from the prism increase from top to bottom.
2) If Doppler red shift of the most distant galaxies is at all due to distance than there may be a constant that should be used to determine true velocity of those galaxies relative to us. Photons may be "slowed" because of gravitation with other photons and atoms in between here and there, this happens when photons pass through water, photons are easily absorbed in atoms. So we should use other techniques to measure distance, for example using absolute magnitude (or some measure of number of photons received for the size of each object), variable stars, etc. to determine distance. To me, the exciting thing is that perhaps there are galaxies with the same absolute magnitude but different Doppler shifts, or the same Doppler shift but different absolute magnitudes, isn't that evidence that two galaxies with the same red shift may have different velocities, or two galaxies with different distances might have the same velocities? This constant, which I am tenatively calling "amount of photon slowing per distance", or "amount of photon delay [diversion, or distraction] per unit distance" may be a basic and simple principle of the universe that all living objects come to understand. Photon delay, "slowing" (although the velocity of the photons stays the same, only the direction changes), or delay is either happening or is not happening. But why not explore the example where it is happening?
3) One thing I have never heard is a theory where a star is formed as a terrestrial planet that accumulates Hydrogen and Helium gas. The current theory is that stars fuse Hydrogen to Helium in the center of the star, but we see clearly in Supernovas (and as measured by magnetic field), that the center of stars is molten iron, just like the center of the earth, Jupiter, and probably every planet. The center of every star is molten liquid iron (and silicon, lithium, and all the atoms under Iron, and I don't doubt some even heavier than iron atoms). So the theory that stars form in nebula (gas clouds), I think should take the form that the heaviest matter falls to the center of the spinning part of the nebula forming the star, and that the star is basically like a terrestrial planet that accumulates more matter. A star is just like earth, but with much more accumulated matter.
4) We, although it is rarely announced or explained to the public, undestand how to build up atoms from Hydrogen to Plutonium (and beyond), but as far as I understand, we do not yet know how to go from photons to atoms, we have not built one neutrino, electron, or proton from photons yet, and that is something that must happen in the universe some how. This building up of atoms by interaction with free moving neutrons and protons can explain the creation of larger atoms like Gold, Uranium, etc., but is rarely used to explain the creation of these atoms, instead the supernova is the only way these heavier atoms are made is invoked (or at least is in Cosmos, and I have never seen other videos or even web pages explaining any other theory to my memory).
I realize I have said this before, but I want to restate that lighting a butane loighter is doing nuclear reactions, because oxygen atoms and butane molecules are completely destroyed, reduced into photons, and that includes all the protons and neutrons. Interestingly, many chain reactions (which is what lighting a stream of gas is), are nuclear reactions. Are all light producing reactions nuclear? I am not sure, what about a flourescent light? The question is whether the atoms are ever destroyed. If you measure the amount of material (for example sodium in a sodium lamp) before and after running the lamp for some time and that amount is the same, then it is not a nuclear reaction (as far as I know), the electrons are simply converted to photons, the atoms are not destroyed. This is really an interesting truth brought to us by the photon is matter theory (or perhaps the "all matter is made of photons" theory). Why ignore or supress such a theory, and it's supporters?
lighting a match=nukes
lighting a butane lighter=nukes
flourescent light=probably not nukes
log in fireplace=nukes
sodium lamp=probably not nukes
lcd screen=probably not nukes
nuclear fission uranium bomb=nukes
uranium fission for electricity=nukes
incandescent bulb=mostly not nukes, but some nukes from filament
led=probably not nukes
Again, the importance is not whether it is nukes or not, the important thing is how many photons are released at any one time. For a variety of interesting and unknown (to me at least) reasons, most gas flames do not emit enough photons fast enough to be xray frequencies (although this is an experiment that should be verified).
It's interesting that that spark made by flint in a simple butane lighter causes a nuclear chain reaction. Photons from earlier separated (destroyed) atoms separate (destroy) the next atoms out of the lighter. It is interesting that no photons enter the lighter to explode the entire supply. The same is true for a rocket, or any gas vehicle, it must be a real tough battle to keep photons from starting a chain reaction in the fuel supply. It raises questions about what is the fastest way to propel a rocket. To me, splitting uranium is like a waste of matter, but yet, perhaps humans will find that no other separation of atomic nuclei will produce as many photons (or as much thrust) as splitting uranium. Because a rocket that splits uranium would have to carry the uranium (which is heavy for the amount of matter separated), and then, the two larger atoms Strongium and Boron (or something) remain, it seems like a waste of matter. A more efficient rocket would completely separate atoms, making total use of the fuel. Perhaps using a beam of antiprotons (I think "antimatter" is not as accurate because antiparticles are matter, perhaps "antiparticles" is how I will refer to them. Heteromatter (different matter) doesn't sound good, and exomatter means "outside", ... perhaps there needs to be matter (applied to all things photon), and then ..."matter a" and "matter b", like electricity, perhaps "positive matter" and "negative matter". I think that is logical.
1) There is a natural moving outward of spectral lines as a light source moves farther away from a grating. This is the natural result of Bragg's law because for two light sources to have the same angle of incidence, the intersection location on the grating must be different. For the more distant light source, this intersection point is farther outside the grating. The lines move in the outer (red) direction. This may explain the moving calcium absorption lines for more distant galaxies.
2) The N in the Bragg equation stands for "node", but (n-1)*2+1 also represents the "number of times reflected" the resulting spectrum is. Removing n indicates that the angle for the light to be 3 times reflected (second order) is twice the angle for the first order. Technically the second order is the third order, since the second order is reflected to an outer direction.
Experiments I want done
****1) Does radio appear to have amplitude when passed through a lens? I want to measure that, no photons with radio frequency (or any frequency), exhibit no amplitude when passing through a lens. This should be strong evidence that light hass no amplitude. Do photons with radio frequency appear to change direction through glass lens and prisms?
2) Measuring the apparent speed of photons with computers, through smpty space, air, glass, various substances.
3) Way of connecting eukaryote chromosomes into 1 DNA circle like prokaryotes and having simple protozoan organism still live?
4) Way to make a eukaryote that stops at some stage of devlopment and stays at that stage forever like a prokaryote?
5) Find simple ways of making photon transmitters and recivers, for example with only a 555-timer. Not even AM, FM, PCM, PWM, simply some simple single frequency.
6) Are there atoms or molecules that easily separate into photons, perhaps by using a neutron, but do not emit photons with gamma frequencies, or radioactive atoms? I think photons exit with gamma frequency any time a neutron or proton is separated into it's source photons, so there may be no atoms that can be separated without photons with gamma frequency, but these photons may be able to be captured by water, or some other material.
7) To make a Hydrogen combustion engine.
8) To make a portable helicopter, an electric battery helicopter, perhaps a helicopter like a wind-surfer or skate board that can be used on land with a seat or 1 board to stand on.
9) To make a walking robot. This also includes identifying, touching, grasping and releasing 3-d objects. Perhaps also forming opinions about ideas, people, objects in terms of how honest, how violent, how useful, how true, etc.
10) Prove that photons are distributed by frequency through a prism. Use lasers of various frequency to prove that the position of the beam of light is always directed in the direction for that frequency of photons.
11) Prove that photons are actually reflecting off of the sides of the double-slit experiment by using 2 different color beams of light, and other methods, such as changing the edge surface features, angles and materials.
12) Since gas combustion is nuclear; the nucelus, all neutrons and protons of the gas and some surrounding oxygen are completely separated into their original photons.
a) Do any gases (thin stream of lit gas) emit photons above visible frequency?
b) Does quantity matter (would a larger explosion emit photons at a higher frequency)?
It is interesting to think that, (perhaps Plank did this with black body radiation), a gas only separates photons in infrared, and visible frequencies. Why not uv, xray, gamma like uranium and other big atoms do with fission?
13) points of different mass randomly distributed and color coded, do they go to the middle?=yes
14) He2-neutrons=H2? if no, then there really is a clear difference between what is an atom and what is a molecule. I am not sure how to remove the neutrons...removing the protons or electrons is easily done with electric/magnetic difference [opposite]. Maybe adding neutrons to H2, would that given D2 or He (not sure how He is isolated), or even He2?
15) experiments with neutron/proton atom separation, always photons in gamma? can separate results of uranium fission? any atom separation that result in no atoms remaining?
16) red shift a light beam on earth
a) box with various gasses, H2, CO2, He2, CH4, etc.. send beam of sodium light thru, reflect with mirrors to lengthen the path of the photons...is there any detectible red shift when the photons exit the box/room? perhaps could be done outside: Is there red shift simply because of gasses in air? The idea is that, we all understand that photons are delayed by other atoms (for example water is the classic example), but is there some way to delay photons in a way that lowers their frequency? The amazing thing to me, is with all the brilliant people on earth, there is no person that can lower the frequency of light? (there are obvious ways, like the way visible light on a dark object, results in light released with frequencies in the infrared...clearly the black object has changed the frequency of the light). It is tough to understand how a beam of photons can be delayed and still maintain the same direction (although we see clearly that photon beams are changing direction as the result of galaxies, etc). How can photons rotate matter (perhaps other photons going other directions, protons, Hydrogen atoms, etc) and return to the same original direction?
17) 10-13-05: prisms with wider dimensions: is spectrum larger? if abc is a triangle lettered clockwise, bc would be being adjusted mainly: thicker=wider spectrum? thinner=thinner spectrum? if yes, perhaps photons are changing direction [being refracted] in each glass atom not just at the transitions between air and glass which would make the index of refraction much less, [ changing ab and ca could be experimented with too].
How far does infrared extend above visible on outside. The photons with red frequency toward the top must come from the top of the white light beam. Can the red be blocked (while the oygbiv continues)? 10/14/05 Does the spectrum go back to white light the other way through a prism? Is a prism also a light "compressor"?
18) 10-21-05: can tRNA assemble amino acids into polypeptides (even only 2) from strands of mRNA? If yes, then perhaps tRNA evolved before rRNA and polypeptides were assembled directly on rRNA, but the process was later moved onto newly created rRNA for some reason, perhaps to optimize or because protein production was improved to increase chance of survival.
19) positive or negative reply to negativity (or any belief/mistaken or truthful belief) more effective? Which is more effective? What will make a person less likely to insult, or more likely to change their opinion of a person? It would have to be a clear example that would leave no room for mistaken conclusions. "Can get more flies with honey..." actually true? maybe who gets more kisses/friendships from people that initially said something rude to them...I have to believe that is the positive person.
as effective: 1) when people say something nice, people are more likely to shed off/forget/let go previous anger and hear person out, 2) positive reply more likely to get considered, because negative may be instantly and strongly rejected....or evoke a friendly conciliatory reply/set of thoughts. 3) some people open up more to a person or perspective when they appear to submit or not be angry back
as ineffective: 1) too candy coated...believe that person is pussy...kind of fred rodger-ish, or a pushover...to barney..feel goodish 2)
as effective: 1) maybe negative statement, may be shocking enough to make a person address it, or change beliefs 2) negative replier is not backing down...a sense of respect for standing ground,
as ineffective: 1) people can strongly block any negative reply with accumulated anger, and considering the point that was made becomes less probable. 2)
20) 11-03-05 Does burning of gases ever result in the release of protons or neutrons? Since the nucleus is being destroyed...is the chain photon reaction perfectly destroying those atoms into only photons, or are some components (protons, neutrons) of atoms surviving.
21) 11-04-05 stripping atoms of their electrons and combining them...do they still form molecules? For example Hydrogen gas and oxygen gas stripped of their electrons, do they still form H2O? If no, then electrons are a required part of atom to atom bonding, and removing electrons is a way of making any atom inert from other atoms without electrons (although perhaps electrons are easily received from other places in the universe). I just find it hard to believe that nucleus structure has nothing to do with atomic bonding, and that only the electrons connect atoms.
22) In my nightly masturbations, which are right handed, at one point upon ejaculation I felt a sharp quick pain in my left testicle, perhaps in the vas deferens. So I looked in wikipedia and got a good lesson of anatomy on the human penis and testicles. I was not even aware that, yes, there are 2 separate tubes that carry sperm from the testicales to the urethra. So, I decided to start masturbating with my left hand, which was not nearly as easy as using my right hand, but I can succeed in ejaculating using only my left hand. This experience brings me to feel more strongly that some kind of experimenting should be done try and prove that masturbation takes place in the right or left side, that using right or left hand does or does not make a difference in which brain area is used and in particular that sperm is ejected in equal amounts from both vas deferens', or that sperm comes exclusively from one testicle, or more sperm comes from one testicle than the other. There is at least one experiment I can think of and that is to inject (only with consent ofcourse) dye into a person's testicles and measure the exact color of the sperm that is ejaculated using only right and left hands and comparing for different people. But because of the fervent antisexuality, the science and understanding surrounding sex and sexuality is back in the stone age. Perhaps this relates to why one testicle hangs lower than the other for some people, but maybe not.
23) 12-07-05 try to isolate DNA/proteins in radiodurans that repeair DNA from radiation, and implant in other bacteria, eukaryotes, etc...does it make them immune to gamma rays/radiation? if yes, could be useful for living on moon, in orbit, etc. in humans, if we can simply incorporate the DNA into our DNA.
24) 12-07-05 how many neutrons go thru atoms, how many are reflected, how many are transmitted, how many are refracted?
25) 12-07-05 what is the minimum size accelerator (or aparatus) needed to add/remove neutrons/protons to an atom nucleus? Because we should experiment with trying to convert the CO2 in the earth atmosphere (increasing due to oxidation/burning of Carbon), and in the atmosphere of Venus. Perhaps this can be done with bacteria converting CO2 to O2 and CH4 (or diamond...or glucose). But there is potentially a huge industry that may arise from using particle accelerators to convert one form of matter into a different form. For example converting all the iron or Silicon on the moon to O2 and H2O. Fermi indicated that building up or down atoms releases many photons in gamma, but there must be some way, perhaps by heating H2O, or some other material that the photons can be absorbed. It's interesting that atoms/molecules become "radioactive"...it basically means that there is a chain reaction from atoms in, for example, a tree at Chernoble, who atoms are unraveling? at a very slow rate, but each atom that is separated releases many many photons, so many that they are released with gamma frequency...but that all those photons only amount to a handful of decayed atoms. There must be many many photons in every atom, and many many atoms in a very tiny space.
26) 12-07-05 can plant oils be used for combusion engines? If yes, we would not have to drill for oil, and we would
have a replenishable source of fuel.
27) could a laser be used to destroy venus atmosphere, separate it into photons? perhaps as an initial phase to cool down the planet so that landers that process the atmophere could be landed. But in addition, perhaps atmosphere could be destroyed with a laser, or particle accelerator from the ground. Potentially removing C from CO2 and S from H2SO4 would be more desirable, leaving O2 and H2O, but as a brute force quick answer to overpopulation, etc. perhaps a Venus with no atmosphere could be done faster and could start to be lived on sooner.
28) how much pressure is needed to separate an atom of Hydrogen?
29) Can a current be measured thru a paramagnetic object in a magnetic field? Can it be proven that the particles in a magnetic and electric field are electrons?
30) any differences in the interactions of photons with (positive)-matter and negative-matter (antimatter/exomatter/orthomatter/dematter/b-matter)? I doubt it, but it's something if people want to confirm that. 18) use an electron detector to see if the particles around a magnet are electrons. What is the magnetic (electric) field made of (particles?)? Can the particles be stopped (or blocked) with an object? (electrons will not go thru some thick objects)
****31) photoelectric effect, photons separating atom's electrons, replacing them, or forming new electrons? Test by insulating metal, running photoelectric effect for some time, opening circuit, is metal positively charged? no=electrons were replaced, yes=electrons were not replaced. From this people can measure the ratio of photons to electrons (although it is difficult to know which photons went in which atoms), but it still may be a good estimate as to the size and mass of a photon as compared to an electron. Number of Photons/Number of Electons=? 1 Electron=X Photons?
32) Are there particles in a magnetic field? Is a magnetic field made of particles? Are those particles electrons? Can those electrons be detected? Can they be blocked? Is the magnetic field on a half covered magnet less than on the naked half of the magnet? A magnet does not set off a "Beta decay" detector which detects "high energy" electrons (nor did a television set). Maybe the electrons are not "high energy". In any event, I would feel better knowing that a magnetic/electric field does not contain any particles through thorough testing and detection experiments.
33) Is the change in frequency of the "Compton effect" and the "Raman effect" the result of the angle of the detector? In other words, if the detector is placed to be perpendicular to the reflected beam, is the original frequency observed? I think they measured the same frequency, but also a tiny amount of shifted frequency. Moving the detector at various angles would reveal if frequency is effected by detector angle.
34) what color is the material near the center of the earth...I guess it would take some light to look at it, but if in a vacuum/or empty space, it probably would look like red hot metal, emitting photons with visible red frequency. I guess we would not even need light to look at it, it would be emitting enough light to see it. So, it seems clear that more photons can be squeezed out of matter that is under pressure. The more pressure (from weight for example) the more photons are released and the faster the atoms decay. Maybe there are some experiments in here. Do atoms decay by emitting photons faster when they are compressed? Is the sun like the earth but without a crust? One thing that is different is that: does the sun emit photons with gamma frequency and the earth does not? Then there is a clear difference between the two processes that result in molten red hot material.
****35) test the equation for propane (methane or hydrogen) combustion:
C3H8 + 5O2 ? 3CO2 + 4H2O
because clearly, in my opinion these are nuclear reactions, where neutrons, protons, and electrons are all being separated into photons (in the form of heat and light). And in addition, weight the entire experiment. On a scale, have a tank of propane, a tank of oxygen, inside a vacuum chamber have a spark connected to a battery, burn the propane for a long time, and see the weight decrease, because clearly there are photons emitted from the flame and those photons are matter, and even by the old thinking where the photons are energy converted from mass, still the mass goes down, and if the mass goes down, that means the above equation is incorrect, that some atoms are being separated (converted in the old thinking) from matter (mass) to photons (energy). There is a second equation, perhaps that goes with the first and that may be:
C3H8 + 5O2 ? photons (in the form of infrared [heat], visible and other frequencies)
36) focusing beams together...does that create protons, electrons, anything in empty space (or even in space with gases, etc)? Is there any interaction at all? Are any electrons formed? protons? neutrons? nutrinos?
37)planet/electron gains, loses matter - how does orbit change?
38) Future: Model earth with various spheres with texture maps of individual points (ships) to show how earth orbit will fill up. Make the spheres rotate with the earth (and at different speeds perhaps). More outer will probably be thinner? Maybe many humans will continue to lift a ceiling (to take advantage of light from the star, or tired of living in shadow) with supply station supports. Perhaps this would be best ray traced.
39) photons that originate on a sphere, move in each direction. They are only shown if they collide with the screen/plane at viewer (perhaps +-1 in z dimension). photons travel at 1 pixel/frame (but are spaced with 1 [or varies] pixel inbetween).
a) move viewer back from 0,0,-20 to 0,0,-1000 to show that the intensity, number of beams of photons decreases.
1) show how without any gravitational change in vector, those photons would always stay the same frequency, although intensity would decrease.
2) Given this example...it shows exactly how large the number of beams must be to still reach us from distant galaxies...since with each pixel we move away...far fewer photons reach us, presuming one beam/pixel of the surface of the sphere. The number of photon beams sent out must be large, and each beam very small compared to us and our detectors.
b) add in 1 in 10 chance of changing direction for photons and show received photon count...space between changes from 1 to 2 for some photons...or even 3, etc. as photons change direction/from scattering.
40) Here is a great experiment that I think must have been done by now. I know that protons can be stripped of electrons...it is the basis for proton accelerators...Hydrogen would not accelerate if not stripped of electrons first...this really would be the proof in the pudding...does that "denuded" hydrogen combust in oxygen? does it? holy cow. I don't know, but perhaps you do. If it does...throw out that electron losing mass theory. This one would prove it for all time, and we would not need to bother with the Hydrogen combustion long terem experiment, but I see no reason why we should not do that one just for the experimental records. Yes, this time I am thinking just Hydrogen in Oxygen combustion, the others are good too, again for experimental experience and data, but H2 + O2 is as simple as it can be...it makes everything easier. Searching in google.com for "denuded Hydrogen combustion" gave no results. The answers are relatively clear on this experiment.
A) Denuded Hydrogen does combust: butane lighter is probably nukes, and probably some atoms are completely separated for all gas combustion and even nuclear fission (and potentially fusion of various atoms smushed together if that is possible). The light and heat coming from a flame comes from the protons, neutrons and electrons of Oxygen and fuel atoms.
B) Denuded Hydrogen does not combust: This hints that most combustion is electrons losing mass. The light and heat of flames comes only from the electrons losing mass. In any event protons cannot be separated by a mere spark.
In addition there may be other findings like, there is combustion, but only while the spark is present...there is no continuous flame. For myself, I would feel better if A were the result...it would say to me that all matter is photon, that perhaps much if not all of the matter that is separated into light and heat in a typical combustion originates in the nucleus. Potentially, the electrons in the oxygen might be the source of the photons, but I think that can be ruled out because oxygen does not combust on it's own. But it could be argued that the oxygen electrons bond with the Hydrogen first...before losing mass to light and heat. possible we should look at denuded oxygen too...I am not sure if that is possible...that is a positive charge of 8...I have doubts that is possible. Still the burning of protons might hint that combustion is nuclear, although I think the "oxygen electrons tranfer to the protons" argument is conceivable.
41) EX: Are there similarities between the genes involved in prokaryote conjugation and eukaryote conjugation? If yes, then the process was probably inherited.
42) EX: between the 3 mitochondria types, which is the most ancient? or at least what appears to be the order? Which is most like rickettsia?
43) EX: what genes are used in eukaryote conjugation? Are they found in euglenozoa? Are they found in other eukaryotes besides ciliates and some algae?
44) EX: if metamonads have nuclei that were prokaryotes, which prokaryotes do their nucleii most resemble (obviously flagellated prokaryotes)? Lynn Margules has a good web page in PNAS (vol 97 issue 13) that supports the theory of a prokaryote origin in eukaryotes, and after thinking more about it, I think this is the most likely scenario, but am still keeping an open mind. It's an important question, because potentially all eukaryotes may trace their ancestry to one prokaryote that either merged with a different cell, eventually taking over the functions of the host's DNA, or a flagellated prokaryote that grew cytoplasm outside it's cell wall. One way to figure out which bacteria is to compare the flagella of metamonads and those of bacteria, in addition to the genomes, and chemical composition. That metamonads have flagella on their nuclei I think is strong evidence that the nucleus of all eukaryotes is descended from a flagellated prokaryote, but ultimately the physical (genetic, chemical, etc) evidence will show clearly where the eukaryote nucleus evolved from.
45) EX: does the frequency of sound decrease at all over large distances?
46) EX: separate the circle of DNA is bacteria, do the bacteria then die? Do they stop copying? Clearly you have to remove at least one nucleotide, or better yet, add 2 nucleotides or somehow...keep the circle of DNA from rejoining.
47) EX: connect the chromosomes of a simple single-celled eukaryote. This is complex because there are histones packed in the DNA. This is part of an entire series of experiments: one which is, can a eukaryote exist with the same exact DNA, but not histones? Simply making a strand of the eukaryote genome, and replacing the existing genome in a different eukaryote. Does it copy? Does it form a nucleus in the new copy, etc. It's a major line of research there.
48) ***EX: look for changing red shift from stars near stars that show parallax, planets, ecclipsed sun, moon. Is there any detectable red shift from light that is bent? Then we can see that bending light does cause red shifting, but then an explanation of why beams of light do this is needed. The direction of photons are easily changed, even over a hot surface in air we see the bending of light beams. Even a finding of no change in red-shift is helpful, then we can feel that there is strong evidence that light does not spread out at all when bent around stars and galaxies. We should check to see if there is frequency-shifting from light bent in gas too (or whatever the phenomenon is over a hot surface like a hot grill).
09/01/06 update: This is basically Eddington's famous solar eclipse experiment, but now measuring Doppler shift of the light from the star that appears to change position. For all I know, this is such a simple experiment that it has already been done years ago.
49) EX: show that the rotation of the orbit of Mercury can be seen using Newtonian physics (which is basically the equivalent of relativity minus the bending of time or space, which theoretically [and incorrectly in my view] only happens for high speed particles).
50) ex: can protists be evaporated with water? or does evaporation filter out some or all protists? This can simply be tested with a container of water with an angled drip surface, the collected water from the evaporated water can then be searched for protists. And I would try the same thing for fish sperm, ova, zygotes (these I doubt can be transported through the air).
51) EX: This would be a cool experiment to see in empty space...to see if a heavy object does reach a second object faster than a light object does. The force of gravity is so small, that it might take a lot of time, or massive groups of objects, but that would be wild to see. Is gravity noticable in, for example the space shuttle? Do objects start orbitting each other? I kind of doubt it or else we would have seen this effect by now, my guess is that it is a very slow attraction, but perhaps noticable over time.
52) EX: inject one prokaryote into a second and find a combination that will allow the engulfed prokaryote not only to survive but to duplicate. Is it true about the organelle-nuclei being found in some later generation cells, and not in others? Ofcourse it has to be true.
53) EX: Can an entire prokaryote be englufed through a pilus?
54) EX: Is there any evidence of full prokaryote fusion? I find it hard to believe that not one example of full prokaryote (even just cytoplasmic) fusion has ever been found. I think sex possibly evolved in prokaryotes, that sexual prokaryotes may even still exist, and that the first eukaryote may have inherited the ability of cellular fusion, because some metamonads are already doing sexual fusion and they are the most basal eukaryotes alive.
55) EX: run a simulation with various random factors (people tend to be more violent, or less violent, with various weightings...harsher penalty for violent crime than nonviolent, etc...) for a population of 10 humans (then 100, 1000, 10000 etc.) and try various methods...what are the results? which results in the fairest system? It's in the interest of logic in enforcing the (let's always hope fully democratic) laws, and effectively convincing people to obey them. It's interesting, and it satisfies my interest in there being a logical system (if only advisory) of punishment for those, in particular violent humans. But also logical and fairness in punishing those nonviolent people with an eye on teaching them, informing them, winning them over to the law abiding side, not through an excessively harsh system of punishment but through a logical system of fair and best method punishment.
56) ex: does the mass of burnt objects become less after combustion? I am sure that people have done this before, and it is clear that giving away the answer here: we see photons exit the glass experimenter's vessel...unless the same amount of photons are being put back in, it is very likely that those atoms have lost mass. And this is the root of the question of is a photon mass?, and is a photon matter? Because, if a piece of matter, which we all except is matter, like propane, or methane, or wood, loses mass in combustion, there is only one place that mass could be, and that is in the photons of light that are seen (and unseen) leaving the matter. So, I seriously question the above equation. For each molecule of propane we are getting 4 molecules of water? I mean...that is a lot of steam, 4 times the amount of propane. I think the most simple experiment I am calling for is to burn a large log in a chamber on a scale with a finite amount of oxygen in the vessel, enough to burn a significant portion of the wood....because photons are so small and light (yes, the light is light), a large portion of wood needs to be burned. I am not sure how gas is weighed, but perhaps that is more simple. I saw a video...with an old guy from MIT that basically showed a similar experiment in the San Francisco museum of science, they only hinted that light enters and leaves the box, they didn't equate light and mass publically as I am doing here.
57) 04/25/07 Michelson-Moreley experiment, but in the up-down direction relative to earth. If the Mossbauer experiment is correct as we have every reason to believe it is, then light changing wavelength simply from a gravitational field (of earth in this case) implies that photons are changing velocity, because there is nothing colliding with photons in the light beams to change their wavelength (such as a gas, liquid or solid). The conclusion is that gravity alone is changing the wavelength of light. It's hard to imagine that Michelson would not have thought about this, but apparently, from what I have read, he mainly focused on the x-y plane parallel to the earth. And beyond that, we can not deny the Mossbauer experiment results that show clearly that, even over a short distance (2 stories), the wavelength of a beam of photons with gamma wavelength changes because of a difference in gravitational force. Maybe some people will argue that this disproves the light as a particle theory to have a changing wavelength without a changing velocity, but I doubt this has been found. This is probably, by now, a classical experiment of history, but performed secretly. The result is unknown to we excluded. My guess is that they found that surprisingly, yes, the speed of light does change under a changing gravitational field. If they found that no, light still has the same velocity, then there needs to be a different interpretation of the Mossbauer effect. One possibility is that a different gravity effects the atomic structure of the crystal that absorbs the specific wavelength of light, so that at higher gravity, that wavelength is not absorbed. If the speed of light were found to be variable, I think it would cast serious doubts about the theory of relativity which is based on the presumption of light having a constant velocity. Anyway, with any result, this is a classic experiment, as was the original Michelson-Morley experiment. This will probably be done over a larger distance away from the sun as we move out to other planets. It requires syncronization of source and detector. I would do this electronically, but the Fizeau method is possible. I have to think about the velocity going up/down to complete a path...photons would in theory...slow down going up and speed up going down...perhaps the two differences would average out in which case only one way should be measured; if up the speed should be slower (as the large gravity of earth pulls on the escaping photons), if down it should be faster (as the large gravity of earth pulls matter down). Again, a classic experiment, with thought-provoking results.
58) Photons collide with each other. Photons must collide with, or bounce off each other. This experiment seeks to show that this is true. Two very high intensity light beams (probably giant lasers) are directed to collide with each other in empty space (a vacuum), and sensitive photon detectors line the inside of the chamber to detect any collided photons. Like 57) this is a classic experiment that was probably done decades ago in the past secretly. Probably they detected reflected photons, proof that photons can collide with each other, but that it requires a very high density of them in beam form.
59) There is a very simple method of mapping spiral galaxies. Presume that all spirals are exactly the same size (although obviously this is probably not true, but for this model it may make little difference), and then presume distance is strictly related to their apparent size using some standard magnification (telescope). Then using this distance map, compare to the Doppler red shift of each galaxy. This will allow to see how close is the relationship between distance based on apparent size versus distance presuming Doppler shift is strictly related to distance. In addition, unusual anomolies can easily be found, where Doppler shift is far different from distance estimated based on galaxy size. My view is that red shift is caused by gravitational shifting over great distances, but that it is also caused by gravitational shifting that is from large objects in between here and there - which has nothing to do with distance.
60) It may be that we are in a "red shift hole" because we are so close to our star. Our star is a very large mass, and so, presuming particles of light to be material and therefore have mass, which seems ridiculously obvious to me, but yet we must state this, because light being material and particular is not obvious to many people, the direction of light beams is changed because of the mass of the Sun. According to simple Newtonian gravity models, particles are red shifted in approaching any star, because the mass of the star accelerates closer photons which increases the frequency of that part of the beam, however, after passing a star, that portion of the beam moving away from the star becomes blue shifted because closer photons are pulled back toward the star slightly which causes the frequency of light particles in that portion of the beam to be smaller. But because we are so close to the star, we may (this is entirely theoretical and may be proven incorrect - or the effect may be too small to measure at short distances) mostly see the end of the red shifting phase of light beams - only farther away would we be able to notice that the spectrum of a distant star or galaxy is not as red shifted. Perhaps even as close as Jupiter's orbit, we could measure a difference in Doppler shift of the light from distant stars and galaxies - because of the Sun's gravitational effect on the mass of light (and perhaps other kinds of) particles. It is interesting that the difference would be light we see in the opposite direction of the Sun can only be beams heading towards the Sun, while any light we see behind the Sun, while facing the Sun, can only have passed the Sun.
61) In terms of small particle physics: the velocity of a particle may relate to its size, the higher the velocity, the smaller the size. The evidence of this is from modeling particles. If all particles in the model start with, for example, 3e8m/s velocity, the fastest particles, the particles that cover the most space in the shortest time, will be those that are not tangled with other particles. When two particles with velocity of 3e8m/s orbit each other, while their own individual velocity may remain the same, their combined velocity can only be less than 3e8m/s because their directions constantly change as they orbit each other. So while each particle is moving the same speed, those particles caught in orbit of each other will be covering far less ground than those particles that do not change direction. This is, in some sense, the opposite of the Lorentz theory that electrons gain mass when approaching the velocity of light particles. The concept that an electron gains mass with velocity appears to be a violation of the "conservation of matter" principle. But even in the view that an electron with an initial high velocity can only have a very large mass, seems inaccurate to me, given this truth about the slowing effect particles getting tangled with each other has. Again, this slowing effect may not be a slowing of the individual particles, but only of the collection of particles compared to a single or second collection of particles. It very well may be that there is a relationship of, the more particles tangled, the slower the cumulative mass (particle grouping).
62) The penetrative power of a particle may relate only to it's physical size. The larger the penetration, the smaller the particle, the smaller the penetration, the larger the particle. This theory fits the story of why alpha particles are not as penetrative as beta particles - since alpha particles are much larger in size (and mass). Clearly if strictly viewing penetration without particle collision, only the smallest size particle would penetrate any material the farthest and in this case, motion, that is velocity, acceleration, etc has very little relevance, presuming the particle has enough velocity to eventually be detected on the other side of the barrier being penetrated. However, if particle collision is possible, then particle motion may be much more relevant - although this presumes that the observed penetration is like a billiard ball phenomenon where the particles detected may not necessarily be the original particles, but instead particles dislodged by the original particles. In addition, for a beam of particles, the particle interval of the beam may be relevant for penetration that is the result of particle collision. But if true that particle size is directly related to penetrative power, then gamma particles (gamma rays) would contain the smallest particle know, then x particles, then radio and visible light particles, and each atom. There is a theory that all matter is made of a basic particle. So that all larger particles can only be collections of these basic smallest particles. So, x-particles would be two or more gamma particles, radio particles would be two or more gamma and x particles, etc. The current view argues that there are unique particles, and that, for example, light particles do not orbit each other to form larger particles.
63) Show how molecules in the air moved by two sound sources bounce off each other to cancel their motion making silence at precise points of intersection as measured by a microphone, and then show the analogy for light using two radio light producers (perhaps ignition coils), and show how a simple light meter measures that the particles of light do not reflect off each other to produce no light, but instead, the quantity of light measured is doubled at points of intersection.
****classics of all time and best experiments I have come up with yet perhaps.
3 Classic questions
Classic question 1: If photons are effected by each other's gravitational influence, at what photon density does a beam of photons turn into an atom (or proton or electron...it is not clear what is the first step)? Clearly, at xray frequency, 10nm to 100pm apart, the photons do not bind together. Even for gamma rays (which I think are an interesting, all be they dangerous, thing to experiment with...can gamma be changed to visible with a filter? Is gamma also detected as visible at lower multiples? why don't our eyes see it then?). People claim that xrays frequency is so small it goes through dense objects, but I claim that there are so many photons in an xray beam that they go thru dense objects.
Classic question 2: There is a second classic question about a possible delay in the transmission of light thru materials....if no detectible delay (and I mean it may be very very small, at the atomic scale)...then maybe the photons are passing through untouched, but if there is a delay, then maybe the photons are from the atoms and not the original beam, although they look identical to the detectors.
classic question 3: Do photons collide with each other? What happens when two photons would occupy the same space?
Heavier matter goes to center. I made some videos of random positioned and weighted points from mass 1 to 5, color coding the points using roygbiv, red=1 (gram for example), orange=2, yellow=3, green=4,blue is heaviest =5. It is clear that the heavier blue points go to the center and basically stay there, the lighter red and orange points take on long elliptical orbits around the central mass. Perhaps galaxies and star systems move the same way, but perhaps other models are more accurate. One question that arises when making these random point simulations is: when does the matter settle down into a spiral? Does that take a few minutes, hours, days, months, years, centuries?!, ... I think I have to dedicate one computer to just running one simulation for a few years and see how much time it takes for a group of points to form a spiral (one power outage or computer problem and I would have to restart the simulation). Video: rgb1000.avi
The heavier blue points (can be thought of a stars too, interesting that there are no green or pink stars...it must have to do with how Helium separates into source photons...a process that ejects photons at specific rates) being heaviest appear to move the fastest, and cover the smallest amount of distance, so they probably are the first points to define the future shape of the cluster of matter, while the lighter points take much longer times, and move over much more distance, slowly making large elliptical orbits around the central mass.
It is interesting to clearly state the major differences in a universe defined by Newton gravity theory and Einstein Relativity Theory. Mathmatically, except for time dilation (which I reject as false), Newton and Einstein are equivalent. The main point I want to state clearly for all people is that with both systems, to accurately calculate the future locations of matter in the universe, we would need to include every single piece of matter in the universe in the equations, and that is impossible. Even calculating the future location (for example where they will be in 1 second) of 100,000 pieces of matter takes an average computer more time than 1 second. There is no way we can include every piece of matter in the universe, the number of atoms in a drop of water is much more than 1 million atoms....it is basically almost impossible, for example to calculate the future movement of all the atoms of water in the ocean. We can come surprisingly close with generalizations...viewing the earth as a single piece of mass, but the reality must be accepted and explained to people...that we will always have to update our current model of the solar system because of, for example, the unpredictable nature of the water in the oceans (and even simply sand, internal changes in the distribution of matter, etc.), may speed up or slow down the earth in some tiny fraction that we can't estimate because we don't track the location every single atom of iron, etc. Why are we never told this by people in science? Why is there a myth that everything is known. I think that people don't want to be upset by imperfect truths, or something, how else can anybody explain it? But in any event, there is a difference in the interpretation of Relativity and gravity. Einstein (and perhaps others I have to read about the history of science more) had time as a variable just like space, in other words t is viewed exactly like x,y and z, where Newton has x,y,z, viewed as spacial dimensions and t as a time dimension. The relativity view is a 4 dimensional geometry, where the Newton view is a 3 dimensional geometry with a variable for time. It's not clear to me, but I think that modeling the universe with Newton gravity, or the 10 tensor equations of relativity can be interpretted in the same way...you can view the t variable as a spacial, geometrical variable in the Newton model. Both systems view the universe as fated. In other words, that all matter has one and only one course. That if we knew the x,y,z,t for all pieces of matter, we could model the universe and we would see stars, planets, life on planets, etc. all happen. There is also the model I am putting forward which I have called the "photon is matter" theory, or "all matter is made of photons" theory. But I think it needs a name like "photon direction" model or something to convey the idea that the basis of the idea is that photons change direction and not velocity. This system too, is a fated system. There is also "quantum dynamics" or "quantum mechanics" which, as far as I understand is not fated, but based on probability...my point on that is that, as far as I understand, particles take a definite path, for example in the Schodinger cat example, the photon definitely takes one or the other path, some reality exists without any observer, so even there, I think qd is a fated universe model. It seems impossible for average people to think that the universe and matter is fated to some course, after all, is every sip of tea, etc... all destined? don't we change our planet every day? Most of us live thinking we can change the future, and I don't doubt that we can...and ofcourse we should try our very best to change things for the better. If matter is fated, the overwhelming amount of matter, has made the final path, completely uncalculatable...completely unpredictable, with no hope of possibly even being remotely close...because there simply are too many photons, too many atoms to possibly even calculate the future movement of 1 particle for 1 nanosecond.
I thought of something that really breaks apart a serious part of accepted chemisty (that perhaps others have already secretly uncovered, but are keeping some kind of public lie cover story, although why I would have to think about), and here it is: A simple equation like the burning of propane gas in oxygen:
"C3H8 + 5O2 ? 3CO2 + 4H2O" (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion)
ok there is a problem, because on the left there is a spark (or focused photons), and on the right there is heat and light. So this equation is more like:
1) C3H8 + 5O2 + some initial photons -> 3CO2 + 4H2O + "energy" (light+heat)
I think most people would accept that. But then there is this classic and clear problem:
where is the energy (the light and heat) coming from? We can count 3 Carbons, 8 Hydrogens, 10 Oxygens on the the left and on the right...so clearly all the atoms are accounted for...where does the extra mass converted into energy (to talk in the language of the "mass=energy-ists") come from? To me, the equation has to be more like:
2) 5,000C3H8 + 25,000O2 + some initial photons -> 300CO2 + 400H2O + the rest in photons
3) C3H8 + 5O2 + some initial photons -> simply photons (no atoms remain)
4) two reactions:
reaction 1) and reaction 3) in equal (or some ratio of) amounts.
I find it hard to believe that 200 years of chemistry would have resulted in such an erronius claim...I mean there had to be CO2 and H2O detected as combustion products of propane...so presuming that to be the case...the ratio is probably wrong, in other words 4) is probably the correct explanation...some of the atoms are separated into photons, and others are combined to form CO2 and H2O.
Here is an interesting fact after some searching:
"A mixture of Chlorine and Hydrogen explodes when exposed to sunlight to give Hydrogen Chloride. In the dark, no reaction occurs, so activation of the reaction by light energy is required.
Cl2 + H2 ==> 2 HCl "
"Chlorine combines directly with most non-metals (except with Nitrogen, Oxygen and Carbon, C)."
Why not N if it combines with P? I guess N is a gas, and usually N2. Interesting that P is not P2 too. The same is true for H2 but not Li2 or Na2.
I think time is the same through-out the universe. Maybe space can be viewed as being shaped or bent by matter, and gravity modeled, but I think the idea of space-time as a single unity is going to fall, although people may claim that there is a space-time, but that time is the same throughout the universe for any given instant of time, such as a movie frame or image modeled. For example if the time is 12 o'clock here, it is 12 o'clock on the other side of the Milky Way, and 12 o'clock in the Andromeda Galaxy, and every where else in the universe. It seems very unlikely to me that time should depend on the velocity of some piece of matter, and I think this 100 year mistake is eventually going to fall.
Snell's law is actually dependent on the wavelength of light, and this is clearly known, because Wikipedia refers to this as "dispersion" that light of different wavelengths moves with different speeds in a material (although the current view is the wave view not the particle view to my knowledge). But in my opinion this calls for a new form for Snell's law which may have already been determined, because clearly each wavelength of light has it's own index of refraction for each atomic object.
It may be that the "interference pattern" when light passes through a double-slit a millimeter apart is the result of photon actually reflecting off of each other, in other words photon-photon collisions. Maybe no, but it is surprising that people do not explore the much more intuitive particle theory of light. Another possibility is that interference is an aspect of atoms. When two photons arrive out of sync, an atom can accept two instead of one, etc. Another possibility is that there actually is a beam of photons in the dark areas but of a different frequency that the human eye cannot detect. Yet another theory is that when photons are close enough, they go in orbit around each other and form some other particle (this has to happen somewhere, maybe only in stars, but clearly this must happen some where). One major problem with the interference as a transverse sine wave is that we do we not see interference from two different lights? Why does seeing interference patterns require such specific requirements? I'm only interested in the truth. Another classic problem with a wave interpretation is what is the medium? atoms in air are the medium for sound waves. It was claimed that an aether is the medium, although this was rejected for relativity. relativity seems to me a very curious mix of schools, it supports the light as a particle, but uses the FitzGerald length-dilation used to prop-up the ether theory of light. And then the light particle is not matter but is energy which seem illogical and unlikely to me as I view the photon as being the basis of all matter.
It seems that people (such as Eddington, Hans Bethe and many others) made what appears to be a simple mistake in thinking that because the spectrum of most stars is hydrogen that stars and therefore matter in the universe is mostly hydrogen. But obviously light in the form of spectral lines from a star can only be from atoms that have been combusted/heated to incandescence. The hydrogen lines only represent the outermost layer of stars, while exploded stars (novas, which probably should be called "muertas" or something signifying that they are not new but exploded or defunct) reveal that the inside of stars is as a person would expect, mainly heavier atoms such as nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, and so this suggests to me that stars may be mostly hydrogen, but they are not hydrogen all the way through, the center is more like a terrestrial planet's center, a higly compressed solid surrounded by molten metal. This suggests to me that looking at the composition of any exploded star should reveal the basic composition of matter in the universe (which in my opinion is 100% photon). And this composition is in my novice opinion, without actually looking at the spectral analysis of even one exploded star, more like 30%H 15%He, 10%N, 10%O 10%Al, 10%si, 10%Fe, etc....many more heavier atoms than previously claimed. For exmaple I think the current claim is 99.9% H for all matter in the universe. Certainly there is more hydrogen and helium in nebulae, but if matter is mainly in the form of stars (and I seriously doubt dark matter, since all matter emits photons in infrared...I'm still open minded and maybe people can convince me with physical images and clear simple explanation), then this claim of 99%H is false and is probably based on the simple mistake that...the spectra we see from stars can only represent atoms that are being combusted, separated into photons.
Perhaps there is some way of adapting Schroedinger's standing sine waves to a point wave of electrons, and the same for De Broglie's matter waves. Can't these be interepretted as non sinusoidal line beams with a wavelength that is determined by space between particles? It seems like people used the sine wave simply because they needed to describe a beam of particles and sine was all that they thought of. There could be other waves, but what is the math to describe a beam of particles? That must be even more simple, but yet why has that never been publically explored? Sine may be a convenient way of dealing with a wavelength, and it applies to a point wave if only sin(x)=1 matters. I guess just a custom made function f(x) might suffice (although many mathematical reductions have been created around sine).
sci: There is a basic principle that few people if any identify, and I would call this principle something like the "one frame at a time" or "can only play movie forward" or maybe "only path to future is through each time interval", which is: currently the only way to accurately estimate the location of any matter in the future, is by taking their location some time in the past or present and running a simulation forward at a very small time interval (for example 1 frame every nanosecond, for my own gravity simulations I run 30 frames a second [a new set of universe calculations each 33ms...matter takes on velocities of however many pixels/frame which translates to some time]). Although for a closed volume of space where only a few pieces of matter move according to periodic regularity, the motions can be generalized geometrically. And I think this is what was done in making the perihelion of planet Mercury comparisons between Newton's equation and the ten tensor quations of Relativity, the only solution I have ever seen in print (although I need to look more) uses a geometrical proof, not an interative (running the movie forward from some given set of planetary positions) proof. So both for Relativity and Newtonian Gravity this concept of "one frame at a time to get to the future" is required. There is no known method to "skip ahead" in time without calculating intermediate mass positions, to my knowledge.
Sci: I think it's important to carefully measure the mass of various particles using a method that is independent of electrical charge. Not only to find the actual true mass of particles but to see if there is, and what the nature of the relationship between mass and charge may be if any. Perhaps one method to determine mass without using charge, is to measure the force conveyed by a beam of particles on some measuring device (but here, the quantity per unit length of beam would have to be known, in addition to the particle velocity). There must be other methods, measuring the movement of charged particles around similar sized neutral particles since the gravity exerted on two masses results in their mutual acceleration, the acceleration (for two similar mass objects) is an indication of the mass.
It's clear that an electromagnetic field is made of particles - or at least that this is a major theory that deserves to be examined carefully. The question remains as to are the particles around a magnet or any wire photons, electrons, or some other particles. There are perhaps numerous experiments which could determine what kind of particles, surround a wire or magnet. Like many things, this seems like a basic question that has not been publicly answered.
Most mysterious missing simple experiments:
1) Using a particle beam to make a neuron fire - like Galvani did in the 1780s but remotely - clearly this would be a useful tool - to remotely control muscles - think of the many possible uses - ofcourse to stop violent people, but to relax a permanently contracted muscle, to excersize muscles without having to actually think about it, there are other useful purposes.
2) Artificial muscle - simple rubber polymer that contracts under electric potential - only now are these being made public - clearly this opens the door to many light-weight machines - like flying machines and two leg running robots.
3) What is the mass of the light particle?
There is an analogy or equivalent view or theory to the action-at-a-distance theory of the force of gravity, and to my knowledge this was first and only expressed publicly by the astronomer William Pickering, and that is that anywhere there is the phenomenon of gravitation, a person can view the same phenomenon as being the result of many millions of particle collisions - in the place of a collection of matter like a star or planet, or even atom, is the idea of a "tangle" of matter. In this view, there is no force of gravity, in place of gravity, there is only individual pieces of matter with motion. So, for example, a person that feels the weight of gravity and is attached to the earth is actually feeling the particle collisions of many particles pushing down on them - far more particles pushing down on them then pushing up on them. As far as I know, this equivalent model would have all the same effects of an inverse distant square force because the closer a person or any piece of matter got to a large cluster of matter - like a star or planet - the more particles per second would be colliding with them - as the density of tangled matter increases.
I have documented this in a video in my vlog, but I think that this is clear evidence of the particle nature of light, and that so-called diffraction gratings, are, as William Lawrence Bragg suggested for x-ray crystal diffraction, actually particle reflection. This is an extremely simple fact and experiment: Simply move an index finger in front of a diffraction grating while looking through it and you will see that the light in the first order of the spectra is blocked only when your finger forms around a 45 degree angle with the grating. You can see clearly that the colors in the spectrum can only originate from light that is reflected at around 45 degrees. The same is true for all colored light from the spectra of any order. This simple view has never been made public to my knowledge - that clearly the light from the spectrum created by a "diffraction" grating is the result of light that has an original angle of around 45 degrees relative to the viewer - this is a requirement of light to produce a spectrum apparently.
Evidence can be gathered to help or hinder the theory that most of the other galaxies are speeding away from us with very high relative velocities, by simply examining the emission spectrum of galaxies in ultra-violet and x-ray frequencies. This spectrum is easily measured using the William L. Bragg equation and a simple calcite crystal. If the theory that the red shifting of calcium absorption lines is accompanied with a similar shift in the emission spectrum, then these x-ray spectral lines should be shifted to the red too. If they are shifted, then the Doppler shift theory is supported, but if not shifted, then, this would tend to case doubt on the theory that most other galaxies are moving away from us with a high velocity. In addition, if such a red-shift is observed, and this seems like a somewhat simple experiment, this shifting may still be due to other explanations - such as Compton or Raman effect, or gravitational shifting. In addition, there is simply looking at the distribution of the spectral lines - Is there an end to the highest frequency emitted from galaxies and stars? Since the emission spectrum of stars is continuous, there may be no lower end, but it seems clear that there should be a higher end - and this higher end provides a boundary to determine if the light emitted from stars also is red shifted like the calcium absorption lines are. Simply to add that there may even be non-continuous breaks in the radio spectral emission lines which could indicate a red shift, but this seems doubtful.
Light with radio frequencies should be able to produce spectral lines using rows of regularly spaced partially transparent partially reflecting material plates spaced for the light particle spacial interval (wavelength) in accordance with Bragg's equation. Clearly Bragg's theory that diffraction is simply reflection from regular rows of partially-mirror planes should work for any frequency of particle - even other particles besides light. This is very obvious, but yet, so far we see no radio spectra. In particular I want to emphasize that the theory that light is a transverse wave is most likely false, and the clearly more accurate and productive view is of light being made of material particles that move in straight (rectilinear) lines.
1) march 21, Sept 21 "equinox" points are not at the geometrical equinox points (aligned with the focus of the ellipse the Sun is located at) - but are farther along in the ellipse. But yet, what textbook explains this? Many pages, including government pages like this one, still show the Sun at the center of the ellipse(?!) This book (from 1803 :p) explains some of the truth about this:
figure 3 is:
"...but it must be observed , that those four situations of the earth, at the two equinoxes and two solstices are not equidistant because the Sun is not in the centre, but in one focus of the earth’s elliptic orbit...therefore in the Summer, ... the Sun is farther from it than in the winter...and in fact, the diameter of the Sun appears larger in winter than in summer...the Sun appears to be in the northern hemisphere about eight days longer than in the southern,.. Those eight days longer...are not entirely owing to the greater length of the arc,...but is partly owing to the earth’s moving along that arc at a slower rate..."
How many people knew that- that during the Summer equinox the Earth is at the farther end of the ellipse, and that the Sun appears to be in the northern hemisphere 8 days longer than in the southern hemisphere?
So now, the remaining question is, where, geometrically speaking (and then an estimate, since the orbit of the earth is not exactly a perfect ellipse for any given orbit), are the March and September 21st/seasonal points? They must be far beyond the actual geometrical equinox points- but yet, what textbook or astronomical expert is explicitly stating this obvious and simple geometrical truth? Perhaps when the Church agrees and the Eye agrees, all the d2b denied public gets is big absurd lies and a view that truth is disease.
2) Just like globular clusters, we living objects have to replace matter lost from emission of light particles. Here is another basic truth, like the theory that the light particle is the basic atom of all matter at our scale, that still has not reached the public (in the case of the theory that all matter is made of light, 800 years and counting have gone by since Robert Grossteste first published that theory).
I don't remember ever seeing or hearing an important potential truth that: probably the spin of a planet greatly increases the chance of living objects evolving there- because a planet that has no rotation around its own axis probably has one side that is too cold for complex molecules to form and the other side which is too hot for complex molecules to form- where most parts of a spinning planet go through an alternating cycle of star-lit and star-shadow which allows for surface temperature changes and more interesting molecules to form and stay together. In fact, a spinning planet may be a requirement for larger and more complex, multicellular living objects to evolve. So given that likely truth, it is interesting to look at the star system we live in, and realize that many of the planets and moons that do not have self-rotation might be unlikely candidates for a long and slow molecular evolution by natural selection that results in larger multicellular living objects.
Great chemistry experiments:
Goal: Determine the number of atoms before and after a combustion reaction, to see if they are equal or if some atoms were, in fact, disintegrated (separated), nucleus and all, in to the emitted light particles.
possible experiment #1: Measure the average radiation from a sample of radioactive oxygen, combust the sample with hydrogen, and measure the resulting average radiation. If the resulting radiation is less, can it be presumed that some radioactive oxygen was, in fact, completely disintegrated (including the so-called nucleus)?
possible experiment #2: Combust known quantities of oxygen and hydrogen, then separate the hydrogen using chlorine gas and determine if all of the hydrogen atoms still remain.