I have a possible extension about the theory of Sound.

Ahhh I feel much more relaxed today, thank you origin. Well here's some stuff I looked into today and yesterday, Dinitrogen (N2) makes up 78% of the Earth's atmosphere it is also diamagnetic which means it repels magnetic fields. In the sea, water (H2O) has both of it's Hydrogen have partial positive charge (+). Solids have electrons closely compact (-). When Iron filing are repelled by a bar magnet they go at 180 degrees. When Iron filing are attracted to a bar magnet they go at 90 degrees

Antimoun (+) average velocity is roughly 600 metres. I say my model but that is wrong of me I should say the model.

So according to the model: Antimuon travels twice as far in liquid and air because they are being repelled in a longitudinal wave fashion.
Antimuon travels half as far in solid because they are being attracted in a transverse wave fashion.

In answer to your question about compression waves deforming the crystal lattice structure of the metal rod. Remember that light beyond and below the visible spectrum is passing through at all times, and that when you strike the starting end the atom moves more. So the protons get more + charge which the photons then carry along the poll which means the other atoms electrons are reaching out for the photons coming their way, thus electrons changing positions.

Hello new members

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I looked into this user constant-theoris12345 and as I suspected he believes there are contradictions about space-time and all sorts of things like the Big Bang theory etcetera etcetra. I'm gonna read his posts now and see what he has to say. Also I don't like the title of this thread, I think it sounds to formal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes water is a polar molecule.

This is not correct. Water molecules when in the form of ice have the same electron configuration as water molecules in the liquid form. Unless you are trying to say that the atoms are more tightly packed which is correct.

This is also incorrect. Iron filing are not repelled by a magnet. The iron filing line up with the magnetic field lines.

600 meters is not a velocity. Anitmuons travel at nearly the speed of light which is nearly 299,800,000 meters/sec.

You do not have a model, you have an idea. A model is much more involved that what you are talking about.

This is incorrect. An anitmuon is a charged particle and so it interacts with other charged particles. An antimuon travels a much shorter distance in a liquid than air and a shorter distance in solids than liquid simply because of the density, which means the antimuon is much more likely to interact with an electron of the more densely packed atoms.

This is incorrect. Photons with a frequency less than light will not pass through a metal rod. For there to be any significant penetration of the rod by a photon it needs to be a high energy gamma photon.

This in not correct. A proton never gets a higher positive charge. A proton has a charge of approximately 1.602 x 10^-19 C, always.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you a former member that was banned?

 

Ah man thank you for this, it's really helpful, I tell you what this reminds me of, you know when you're programming and you check the code and sometimes it goes error, error, error, fatal error, that's what your lay out reminds me of. Ha ha. Maybe this thread title would have been better 'Different idea about sound'

 

Please answer this.

 

No but I did have a different name on a different science forum where I talked about something very different to this, and I was respectable there to.

 

OK, just checking.

 

I'm going to present this idea in a chart to keep things nice and tidy
Name______Symbol___Distance__Half Life distance__Magnetic Effect_Momentum Effect

Antimuon_______u+_______________~600m________~600m_________________

Z Guage Boson____z0___299 792 458m_________________________~6 micro metres

Edit: Uh oh where did the spacing go... That's better.

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

You're right I should totally measure effect in time that would make much more sense.

 

Huh? I'm right? I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

You should totally try harder to make sense. Since no one have any idea what you're going on about, it's a bit hard to discuss or help you in any meaningful way.

 

I think it's too early for me to put an analogy here. I'm going to do a quick run down and then present the new possible answer to the metal bar.

When a charged particle moves more it creates a stronger magnetic field (Proton's field repels Proton, Pion brings them back) (Proton's field repels Proton further, charged Pion brings them back)

Charged Pions decay into virtual W+ boson which decays into a Muon Neutrino and an Antimuon

Antimuons u+ travels ~600m during it's half life and is effected by magnetism

Muon Neutrinos Z0 has momentum at very short range at the start of it's journey

___________________________________________________________________

When you hit a metal bar, atoms under the hammer move due to electron repulsion and gravity. Z0 then moves along jostling the atoms (temperature) and causing layers of atoms to slide over each other (Bending) The free electrons of the metal atoms in front are reaching out for the Antimuons behind creating temporary mounic hydrogen. The electron will always go to the ground state (least energetic) and turning into an atom temporarily achieves this.

What do you think?

 

It is very simple to answer. We can detect those particles so when we hit a piece of metal we should see these particles if your idea is correct. We do not see the production of these particles when a metal bar (or anything else) is hit so your hypothesis has been disproven.

Hopefully you understand this. You made a hypothesis, you gave a testable prediction, the prediction was incorrect therefore the hypothesis is incorrect.

At this point you should be able to abandon this notion of yours as incorrect. If you cannot accept that your hypothesis is incorrect then you are not doing science you are doing pseudoscience which is simply a flight of fancy. I hope you can accept that your hypothesis is incorrect and are not seduced by the 'dark side'.