John T. Nordberg's theory...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by curious45, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    WIKI is your source of intellectual information , pad ?

    well carry on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    No I gave the proper information as everyone else did, and then used WIKI to show rajish he was again wrong.
    WIKI is ok, and certainly far more informative then agenda laden god botherers that like to come to science forums and attempt to refute 100 years of cosmology....good for a laugh though.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    but you carry on.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    what is proper information ? and from what source ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Sure river!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Quarks are particles consisting of energy, angular momentum, spin, charge, and color.
    Quarks could be made of smaller particles, but so far there is no evidence to support or even hint at this. If this were true, then those smaller particles likewise will not be "made of energy" either....they will only have energy.
    Energy is not a substance; it is though an attribute of other things such as adding to mass and spacetime curvature and a measure of mass.

    What source? I'm sure you are able to google to confirm what I and others are trying to relay to rajish.....any source actually is the answer to your question.
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    quarks are sub-atomic particles ,

    consisting of , magnetic , rotation ( color ) , vibration , charge and gluons

    I read pad , google is nice to get you started on any topic , but google does not give you the depth on any ology .
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,113
    Thank you for the response. In order for me to visualize it, in addition the billiard example, could we also use say, a collision of beach-balls? IOW, each ball is so flexible as to absorb the impact but immediately return to their former state after impact?
    I can visualize this, however, what about change in trajectory, momentum?

    In your example of the billiard balls the intent is to direct a stationary object toward a specific target (pocket). If both atoms are already in motion, the resulting change in trajectory and momentum would be dynamical expressions of energy. Would it not?
    Question: Does it require energy to force the stationary ball toward the pocket?
    If so, could it be said that there occurred an exchange (propagation) of a dynamic energy . Even as the monoatomic atoms themselves remain unaffected in original value?
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  10. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Not a bad example. So yes in general there is an intermediate situation where at least part of the KE (or all for exact head-on collision) becomes PE but then restores fully to KE in the ideal elastic case.
    As with KE, momentum exchange is a function of reference frame. But even with inelastic i.e. lossy collisions where net KE is not conserved, net momentum before always equals net momentum after. A slight subtlety is that any heat generated is radiation which becomes a small part of the net momentum balance. Negligible in most cases, like with billiard or beach balls.
    I suppose - depending on the exact meaning of that piece!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Yes and yes. In the pool table frame, which is the one a pool player needs to worry about.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    An exact analysis of two billiard balls colliding and ricocheting off each other would be extremely complex. As elastic solids, impact will set up a whole set of vibration modes - waves propagating back and forth in a complicated pattern. The 'miracle' is nearly, but not all, of that wave motion ends up refocusing and converting back to KE of the whole ball(s).
     
    Write4U likes this.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Certainly you read river , nonsense...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I mean nuclear wars on Mars! Even MR gave that one the heave ho!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Try "Gravity's Fatal Attraction" Sir Martin Rees and Mitch Begalman.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,476

    I did not say that. Did I say that when particle antiparticle annihilate, we get mass equivalent of momentum or charge or angular momentum ? Did I say that 99% mass of proton or Neutrons are made up of momentum?

    Actually both you and Paddoboy are not able to go away from this substance for mass issue. Paddoboy did paste something which has certain hints about elementary particle, but he did not follow on that. Kindly refer to the Wigner's definition of particle and also read about from where protons and neutrons derive their masses. It is established science and nothing is being pushed by me. For example a Neutron Mass is around 940 MeV, it is theorized to be made up of two down quarks and one up quark, the total rest mass of these three quarks is just 12 MeV, so where does this 940-12 = 928 MeV come from? Certainly not from some kind of accounting system or abstractness. I do not think there is any need for me to give you a link for this 940 MeV or 12 MeV, its well established.

    Another issue is that rest mass is invariant, but KE/PE etc are frame dependent, so possibly you are generalizing this as frame dependent accounting system. Forms of energy are many, they are all not frame dependent.
     
  13. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Are you saying that an object must have 'certain fixed density' (of course when it is at EH) above that value only a BH can form or escape velocity at the surface shall be c?

    For example for an object to have escape velocity equal to 'c' its density must be greater than say n kg per cubic meter. Where n is some constant value irrespective of mass of the object.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,113
    But if all forms of energy display a certain fundamental order, does that not suggest forms of dynamical mathematical functions at work?
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    I'm saying what is obvious and which most intelligent people have interpreted me as saying.
    That is a collapsed mass if squeezed to or at its Schwarzchild radius, will have a density and a surface escape velocity of "c", and becomes a BH, and further more, that according to GR when that is reached, no known mechanism will stop further collapse to a Singularity.

    If you have reputable information/reference/citation supporting your view re mass of quarks and other fundamentals, plus anything contradicting BH and density, then I respectfully suggest you give it.
    Afterall, so far all we have are your own rantings, claims and stories.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  16. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Since I have not understood your point, Pl clarify, a very pointed answer will be of great help.

    Are you saying as below?

    For an object to have escape velocity equal to 'c' its density must be greater than or equal to say n kg per cubic meter. Where n is some constant value irrespective of mass of the object.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    I'm saying as what accepted cosmology and physics dictates.
    If you have other ideas, please support them with citations and or links.
    To help you out further.....
    An atom is mostly empty space....with fundamental matter particles at the nucleus called neutrons and protons, with electrons orbiting a fair way off [an example given in a previous post]
    When stars come to the end of their useful lives, they have three choices depending on their mass: [1] White Dwarfs as our Sun will end up as. roughly electrons squeezed to near the core where the protons and neutrons reside and held up by EDP: When the stars mass is greater, this EDP density is overcome and a Neutron/Pulsar is formed, where again in layman's terms, the elctrons are forced into protons forming new neutrons, which is held up by NDP density.
    Finally when even more massive stars come to the end of their lives, even this NDP is finally overcome and the Schwarzchild radius is reached with the "c" escape velocity and further compulsory collapse to singularity...in other words a BH.
    Again without any pedant nonsense, or obtuseness, if you claim anything different, then again, please supply a reputable citation, as with all due respect, your say so is certainly not believable.

    All my claims though are accepted mainstream and all can be supported.
     
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Paddoboy

    You have posted atleast 3-4 times in this thread that I am wrong, so I want to understand where and how I am wrong.

    I am attempting to understand your objection, my question in #193 is very simple and unambiguous, please clarify your position as requested in #193.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    With all respect rajish, I have seen you in action before.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I suggest you recognise your non existent expertise and credentials on this matter, and check out some reputable links or references....Plenty about and I have given plenty.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,113
  21. river

    Messages:
    9,793
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,113
    Indirectly, this is what the was talking about.
    I can ask the same question in a different form; "What is Life?" My answer; "Life is a biochemical (mathematical) process"

    Life in the universe is almost a mathematical certainty. We can base this probabilistic prediction on the existence and diversity of living things that have existed on earth and earth is an average rocky planet, same kind of stuff and conditions that exist in billions of other planets in the universe.

    As to our individual experience of life is recognizing and sharing those patterns which are pleasing (compatible) to our cognitive mirror neural systems.

    But when you get down to it, mathematical functions can create anything you can imagine. 4/3 is but one example.
    The "mathematical function" is a logical imperative of our permittive (probabilistic) universe, IMO.


     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2016
  23. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,476

    Since you are declaring that I am wrong, can you please answer the question in #193. You are running away from answering a direct question. I.must know what's your unambiguous stand on this density issue.
     

Share This Page