|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
From Painius:
..the WNF (weak nuclear force), additively with the WNF's of other atoms, "reaches out" and appears to us as... gravity. In the spirit of friendly picayunishness, just what is the mechanism by which the WF 'reaches out'? And for that matter (since nothing can propagate faster than light), how does gravity 'get out' of a BH's event horizon, apparently with total ease and with zero attenuation? Does not gravity, by all its observed effects and behavior, appear to be a center-ward, accelerating, pressure-driven flow of 'Something'? And what's the objection to surmising that it just *might* be exactly what it appears to be and behaves as? oc |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Painius wrote:
Whenever i think this small, i remember back when long ago i read about how there is sooo much space between a nucleus and its accompanying electrons. And sooo much space between atoms, and how "ghostly" reality seems to be. And i try and try, but i can't even *imagine* what this "space" is they're talking about. When i was a kid i just thought it was "air." But *that* can't be. So what is it? Nothing? (...and what the heck is *that*?) g see what you get for boggling my meager mind? Even Einstein found the idea of "action at a distance" to be "spooky". Even more counterintuitive (to my at-least-as-meagre mind, at least) is the notion of space being quantized into 'bits of nothing' of finite size. -- Odysseus |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Sheppard wrote:
From Ody: If we try to picture electrons as little tops or other spinning macrocosmic objects we can easily be misled.... electron spin is quantized s=+/-1/2, either "up" or "down" but never in between. Without the aid of math, W gave a very straightforward conceptualization of electron spin (mentioned a few times previously). First, picture the (ground state) hydrogen atom as a modified sphere; it's somewhat oblate and 'dimpled in' at the poles. It's the most primal planform in nature, and common to all rotating systems it displays two hemispheres and a common equator rotating on a polar axis. But in addition to this circumferal spin, there is *axial* spin as the hemispheres roll out from the equator and back in thru the poles. Except that (as I've pointed out more than once before) the electron orbital of hydrogen in the ground state is spherically symmetrical, having no inherent pole, equator, or orientation whatsoever. In other words, when the quantum number n = 1 the orbital has zero angular momentum: l = 0. AFAIK this is not 'mere theory' but is borne out by experiment. Note that the quantum number l is *not* the same as the s I mentioned above, which describes the angular momentum possessed by individual electrons. Even in "excited" states (where n 1) allowing a few 'degrees of freedom' in which the orbitals can have various orientations and non-zero angular momentum (i.e. l 0), the electron spin, being quite independent, remains restricted to only the two values. (According to the Pauli exclusion principle only one of each can occupy the same orbital, but that doesn't come into play in the hydrogen atom.) So you seem to be confusing properties of an electron itself with those of the atom in which it is bound. The 'rolling toroid' picture you paint might suit the former -- about whose internal structure current theories have nothing to say AFAICT -- but seems to be quite at odds with known properties of the latter. Of course in the H atom there's a third 'spinner', which I don't recall having been mentioned yet in this thread: the nucleus, comprising a proton with an up-or-down angular momentum of its own. Considering that's where almost all the mass is found, "dustbunny" though it may be, it might make a better focus for your modelling efforts than the (even more ephemeral) electronic structure does. -- Odysseus |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
nightbat wrote
Bill Sheppard wrote: From Painius: ..the WNF (weak nuclear force), additively with the WNF's of other atoms, "reaches out" and appears to us as... gravity. In the spirit of friendly picayunishness, just what is the mechanism by which the WF 'reaches out'? And for that matter (since nothing can propagate faster than light), how does gravity 'get out' of a BH's event horizon, apparently with total ease and with zero attenuation? Does not gravity, by all its observed effects and behavior, appear to be a center-ward, accelerating, pressure-driven flow of 'Something'? And what's the objection to surmising that it just *might* be exactly what it appears to be and behaves as? oc nightbat Humble Maverick horse speaks to present lead herding one. Oc, sometimes exactly what it appears to be or behaves as is misleading for actually causation. Clue for the rest, ponder in terms of oc's drain premise flow principle. Not particularly limited to concentrated matter flow propensity but to the entire field dynamics. That the cause of gravity is not a true force but a renomalization counter group ground effect of the base micro field in present non equilibrium or disturbed state. That the fine structure mentioned is nothing more then the attempt at return to base uniform motion. And the outer neighborhood universities of chaotic particle states is one of continuum flow to neutral or base state but with no instant parity available without equal opposing outside force whether affine or metrically gravitationally defined. See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...opolophys.html The proposed (Wolter-oc) macro micro group flow is pointing naturally towards the sub micro dimensional base unified state and not particularly where the equalizable none violation of atomic electron super state is maintained but further condensable and not restX-Mozilla-Status: 0009nstants of the torsion being expected to coincide with the gravitational constant. (Under Strong Gravity State Neighborhood) the nightbat |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
To Ody:
Yeah, as you mentioned we've batted this stuff around before about spins, orbitals etc. But such minutiae are incidental to the weighty questions at hand like What is space? and What is gravity? oc |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
... To Ody: Yeah, as you mentioned we've batted this stuff around before about spins, orbitals etc. But such minutiae are incidental to the weighty questions at hand like What is space? and What is gravity? oc I've never had much use for "Big Picture" men. You can have the most aesthetically pleasing theory in the world, but if in your theory, minutiae such as 1+1=2 do not hold, you're screwed. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you, John. Now how about that original treatise on why c is
constant if there is 'no medium' ???? And no hand-offs to old dog-eared stuff. oc |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
From Nightbat:
..sometimes exactly what it appears to be or behaves as is misleading for actual causation. Well Night, in many instances it's more rational to simply let Occam's Razor hold sway rather than complicating things unnecessarily. It's like the iceberg principle (tongue in cheek of course); it's more rational to believe the unseen part is more likely made of the same stuff as the visible part, than not. On the question of gravity, it's more rational (and far less complicated) to simply accept it for exactly what it appears to be and behaves as. O's Razor all the way. oc |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
nightbat
Bill Sheppard wrote: From Nightbat: ..sometimes exactly what it appears to be or behaves as is misleading for actual causation. Well Night, in many instances it's more rational to simply let Occam's Razor hold sway rather than complicating things unnecessarily. It's like the iceberg principle (tongue in cheek of course); it's more rational to believe the unseen part is more likely made of the same stuff as the visible part, than not. On the question of gravity, it's more rational (and far less complicated) to simply accept it for exactly what it appears to be and behaves as. O's Razor all the way. oc nightbat Too many men for instance are placed in prison based on pointing circumstantial evidence and convicted instead of for actual causation. In many cases it's not until the true responsible criminal sometimes admits to the crime, or dna evidence is introduced, that the innocent is absolved of the charges and freed. In science the criteria for ascertaining truth is even more stringent, for it goes beyond just show me, but, proof it. For at times, per above, appearances can be deceiving. Also because of the sub micro quantum reality and the cosmic distances, the back is on the clock. I agree, if the model fits then why not run with it? Well, because the model may work until you run across those anomalies that don't fit and then you know relying on O's Razor won't help. (Big E's castle with no foundation) A better model is needed to explain those anomalies least you're back in left field. The natural flow is there whether detectable medium or not. You know I only disagree with your friend Wolter's agreed flow principle as to cause of flow, not whether there is one. Relying on an around the bend unobservable immense cosmic donut like engine as the cause of gravity is acceptable as innocent but profound for a theoretical ad hoc explanation for what's driving the flow. And my further knowing and understanding Wolter's relayed work background, one inadvertently sometimes uses what is customary or known to self. Not that the premise is wrong just how one interprets what is deduced. Remaining observationally correct is probably why my " Black Comet " or what they are commonly now calling gravastar is apparently a better fit theoretically and observationally even to the mainstreamer's. That us Mavericks have an impact in leading the herd is evident even without dependence on your Wolter's original medium donut based insight. It's the quantum flow principle oc and super position of Pauli states that is important and the true basis of the infant GUT. Ha, ha, I ran across this article about related gravastars where they even speak about your internet thought experiment of fish relating the ocean to their present understanding of zero space. Where did they hear of these things first? Talk about two tired astronomy steeds pointing the pack till the rest catch up. (:~) See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...Fgravastars%2F later oc, the nightbat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Bang busted? | Bob Wallum | Astronomy Misc | 8 | March 16th 04 01:44 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
NASA Celebrates Educational Benefits of Earth Science Week | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 10th 03 04:14 PM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 1 | July 30th 03 12:01 AM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 29th 03 04:50 PM |