Is CERN a waste of money ?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Lostinspace, Jul 5, 2018.

  1. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    With all due respect , more nonsense.

    There is no space without space-time is nonsense, space-time did not exist until Einstein thought it up, before that it was just space and Newtons laws of gravity. Einstein interpreted it differently to Newton, but painting things different colours does not change the thing. How can we contribute space-time is the same as space when space is defined : 1.1 a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied. Quite clearly space-time and space are two separate things , not one and the same thing by definition. Please stop talking nonsense when we have definitions of things, it is not difficult to google a definition if you are unsure to what it means.

    Please define the mechanism of time of space according to the provided definition of space ?

    Time occupies space, time is things that can age or decay , time is not some magical entity that exists independent of matter.


    Again nonsense


    I defined space as the reference frame


    It is necessarily and it is self evident.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Indeed, but do we account for in these formations , field compression and overlay content ? In analogy rubbers balls being forced together compress and two drips of water can combine to make one bigger drip.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,101
    is no one going to address the screaming entitlism in this comment ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,336
    The shapes, in the case of electron orbitals, are due to the solutions of Schrödinger's equation. They come out like spherical harmonics because of the effect of the attractive electrostatic potential between the electron and the nucleus.

    I do not understand what you mean by "field compression" or "overlay content".
     
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    I guess the central question is, are we dealing with a new troll or is it a sockpuppet. Kinda seems like a new troll to me.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  9. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Why, he is just a troll and sooner or later he will be booted. It just depends on how long it takes for him to ramp up his trolling. [shrug].
     
  10. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,196
    TIME does not exist
    Only NOW exist
    TIME is not things that age and decay
    Things change and the period between one arbitrary moment of a item and another arbitrary moment of a item is AGE
    AGE is not TIME

    Read

    The Invention of Time and Space by
    Patrice F. Dassonville

    Technical and very detailed in places but good explanations as to why time does not exist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    More nonsense, we are discussing physics, where is the ''trolling''?
     
  12. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35

    May I suggest you consider the titles to understand and think about the content. What does compression normally mean ? What does overlay normally mean ?

    I am not speaking an alien language here!
     
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    But you are not discussing physics, you are just saying mainstream physics is wrong to annoy people; you know - trolling.
     
  14. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Where do I say mainstream physics is wrong ? Some of you misunderstand mainstream physics .
     
  15. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Seriously, are you really so ignorant of physics that you don't know your disagreeing? Amazing.
    These are some examples...
    Here:
    "I interpret space-time is a spatial field that can curve comparative to the background space".
    Here:
    "I agree the rubber sheet represents space-time and shows space-time curvature, but if you remove the sheet , that does not remove the space that ''underlays'' the ''overlay'' sheet, the sheet curves comparable to the ''background'' space."
    Here:
    "Additionally can we consider the 'edge' is where space-time 'thins' out ? i.e light intensity"
    Here:
    "Geometrical points of space are stationary , in relativity , we can look at space as the stationary reference frame that everything is in motion relative too."
    Etc., Etc.,Etc.....
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,336
    No indeed, but you may be using it to talk out of your arse.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Stranger things have been known on this forum, and I have only a faint sense - so far - of who you may be.

    Let me be more specific about what it is about your query in post 82 that I do not understand:-

    1) What field do you have in mind that might be "compressed" in an atom?

    2) What would "compress" this field?

    3) "Overlay" only has significance if one says what two or more entities are "overlaid". What entities are you thinking of, that might be overlaid?
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,162
    Space-time existed before Einstein "thought it up."
    Electrical fields existed before William Gilbert "thought them up."
    Magnetic fields existed before Joseph Priestley "thought them up."
    They are the same thing. Space-time is a more accurate description than space, just as "anthropogenic climate change" is a more accurate description than "global warming." But they refer to the same things.
    You are making the same mistake that physicists made for decades, and did not stop making until Michelson and Morley proved that there was no absolute reference frame (i.e. no 'aether.')
     
  18. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Seriously , are you so ignorant of thinking about interpretation ? I suppose you are one of these expanding space types which compare to flat ''earthers''.
     
  19. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    I never mentioned compressing fields in atoms, I mentioned spatial field compression . Space-time overlays space.
     
  20. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    499
    At the end of the 19th century there was a theory called LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) see (for example)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
     
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Trolling. Hope you get a bite!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    499
    Since James R (as moderator) seems ok with going down this rabbit hole - I propose to go further.

    Let us imagine we are driving down a street and we pass some sort of laser light display. One part of the display is made up of pulses of light fired up a pole and making a globe at the top flash very brightly.

    Let the height of the pole be p, the speed of light be c and the time it takes for the pulse to travel from the bottom to the top of the pole in the street frame be t.
    As we are driving past at velocity v as far as we are concerned the top of the pole isn't where it was when the pulse started - the top has moved back (this is very Newton, very high school, we can all do this) - the top has moved back by our velocity multiplied by the time T (note this capital T) by the time it takes the pulse of light to get to the top of the pole. So we've moved forward a distance q where q=vT. Since we're in a car let's call our frame the car frame. So the distance the light has travelled in the car frame, lets call this r (this is Pythagoras now, still very high school) is given by
    r²=p²+q²
    We know that the pulse of light has travelled the distance r in time vT, so, with the speed of light being c we have
    r²=c²T²
    we remember (from earlier) the distance the car moved (q) was vT
    so
    c²T²=p²+v²T²
    With luck we remember that (in the street frame) p was equal to ct
    so
    c²T²=c²t²+v²T²

    Unless I have fouled up, in the fullness of time, with little difficulty lostinspace will be able to give us the relationship between t (the elapsed time in the street frame) and T (the elapsed time in the car frame).
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,101
    hang on a moment im disengaging hyper drive

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page