Okay..
Why not just consider the photon as a self-propelling spinning radiating helix to explain why it near instantly accelerates from 2/3c in glass to c in air?
This model of faster than light emission can also explain quantum entanglement:
Maths Of Self-Propelling Spinning Radiating Helix Required
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
Why not just consider the photon as a self-propelling spinning radiating helix to explain why it near instantly accelerates from 2/3c in glass to c in air?
This model of faster than light emission can also explain quantum entanglement:
I include tachyons to combine with the photon, and in fact to actually build the photon. Personally I account for all physical interactions with all particles. That's the way I like things to be. You account for everything. It's up to you how you describe a self propelling system. My personal way is to describe everything. I would not like any idea with missing physics. I also have a problem with any pull forces apart from suction. I have tried to imagine every possible solution to pull forces, and they all end up as push forces, even suction. But at least suction makes sense. Your idea requires contained energy, and you are at a scale where the contained energy is wormholes. The wormhole have to be held together, and I hold them together with Tachyons. After Tachyons you don't need anything else apart from describing their propagation. Being as the Tachyons are in wormholes their propagation is very easy to explain, they simply bump into each other. That bump then has the Newton's 3rd Law, and a quantum hole reflects the bump force back out again. Thus the quantum hole is cyclic to the wormhole, and the bump force. Action At A Distance is described in the wormholes.
Common_sense_seeker made a proposal. He was shown why his proposal is not consistent with physics and yet he continues on. He is in fact proposing even sillier things and moving farther and farther out into the land of woo.
It is time to move this into the fringe section where it belongs.
It is time to move this into the fringe section where it belongs.
I guess it is too bad that reality does not go along with you. Reality can be a bitch that way...
Scientists also propose that Action At A Distance is produced by wormholes. I proposed the same thing years ago. But I have also accounted for the physics.
The "pull force" is easily explained by spinning Archimedes screw-like structures. A right-handed screw is simply spinning left-handedly and vice versa. A helical graviton, which exerts a force of attraction, which travels around a 4D hypersphere, a wraparound universe, will arrive and act as a "pull force" i.e. dark energy.
Yes, yes, I am sure you amaze yourself. But this should all be in the fringe section.
You have to take into account the vibrational resonance of strings and branes as they relate to interdimensional wormholes in quantized space in conjunction with virtual dark energy leading to the pair production of tachyons and anti-tachyons.
Gee, this is fun just making up stuff that vaguely sounds scientific!
If you want to call it a pull force then fine. But look closely at the forces, they all push. It's like people call a chain a pull force, but if you look closely at the links they all push. This pull force is just a word in the English language which identifies whole objects, and not individual particles. You get to particle physics, and all of the pull forces vanish. You have elasticity, you look closely, and you have atoms, they are not pulling, you look at electrons and they are spherical, sphere can't pull. So you have to come up with bonding as a flow force, and no pull forces. Newton... he messed things up.
i was thinking this screw is life size, not for electrons and photons.
in which case two things came to mind;
1-this thing will not be stabilized, it will keep trying to rotate about its center of gravity by the ejection force (momentum conservation). If you had twin screws I guess that'd be fine.
2-mass decrease is important, as that'll shift the center of mass. if whatever particles are ejected others will be input at the screw head, you need to consider the momentum they impart as well.
in which case two things came to mind;
1-this thing will not be stabilized, it will keep trying to rotate about its center of gravity by the ejection force (momentum conservation). If you had twin screws I guess that'd be fine.
2-mass decrease is important, as that'll shift the center of mass. if whatever particles are ejected others will be input at the screw head, you need to consider the momentum they impart as well.
Why not just use the terms "attraction" and "repulsion" like everyone else. Both can be easily explained by a spinning Archimedes screw structure. Gravitons which exert a force of attraction by spinning twice as fast as ...
Holey moley!!
This is what I've just deduced! The self-propelling regular helix spins twice as fast as it moves, which makes it a force carrier. The light photon and emissions must therefore have half the 'wavelength' of the graviton helix structure.
I don't have attraction in my theory either. An area of least resistance has forces pushed into it from behind. Like when you suck from a drinking straw you remove the air, so now you have an area of least resistance. The liquid is propagated by push forces from behind, and this is down to the liquid having a flow force of gravity through it. Lots of push forces, all combined together. Hence you get a red shift from contraction not inflation.
An aether-like theory?
It implies 'gravitons' may be self-propelling as well and not the smallest mechanical structure possible.
An aether of all propagated forces not just light. Space grain is a better analogy, because grain has a stacking system, and you can see the stacking system in Dark Matter images. Stacking systems always have gaps in them, so you have infinity of gaps, and stuff can escape from black holes through the gaps.
Howdy.....Hello......DM stacking is like standing fields and waves, and travelling waves between and within, the fields. Since DM is symmetrically coherent in bond, as induced by the amount of, and size of collision resonance, then take a true measure of its' location geometrically around earth and aim telescopes in the greatest concentration of DM., for any frequency variation, common to stars in the area.
Howdy......Hello.....Mr. Origin.....Of course the earth has its' dm. Would it be more concentrated toward the equator? Does it mean that every time we look at the stars, we are looking through dm? Which means transparent. Would there be any telltale events in perceived star light? Would multiple stars show a common wave variation?.....No sir, I am not trying to "pull your leg". I was attempting to show that standing resonance within and from a collision may act as dm. Somewhat akin to a photo of a pond splash resonance......If what I have written disturbs you, I apologize. I am not allowed to express what I believe......I am in the cesspool, but the truth is that gravity is compressed compression pressure density and that is the truth......Oh yes, a gross error on my part in that my opening paragraph in my thread contained three subjects. I was so excited to have a thread of my own to express what I have been learning. I had recently finished m/m' and its' allow ability, 1/(m/m'). I should not have written about that and only maintained the property of compressed compression pressure density......Truth told Dogma, what you are today, I will be tomorrow. JJM
Most of that is incoherent, except for the comment that DM is transparent. I think that you stating something that is correct is a bit of a milestone.
This is more like the never never land stuff you normally discuss. What you have written disturbs me in that it is a waste of band space and since it is just incoherent rambling it should not be in the science section of the forum.
What do you expect, this is a science site. Science is not making up weird stuff and then spouting it like it has some meaning.
I fear that this has some meaning to you but you must understand saying, "compressed compression pressure density" is completely with out meaning. It is like you randomly picked words and strung them together.
On the other hand, congratulations on finishing your MM's, was it a big bag or the 'fun size'! I like the peanut MM's but they are really fattening.
Howdy....Hello.....Mr. Origin.....Look into the posts on plasma physics. There I put some information that will help you, as you read my thread in the 2nd month descending order, in the cesspool, you may realize that it is very simple. ex. a snowball colliding with a wall creating a disk. The physics is the same universally, the geometries at differing angles of collisions and the geometries that they form, and its' apparent cosmological mannerisms to the observed.