What is reality ?

Please do not troll.
James R said:
Good explanation. Very thorough.


I see. What was all that fuss about with the LHC and the Higgs boson?

Is the Higgs boson an imaginary particle influenced by an imaginary field? Or maybe a real particle influenced by the imaginary field? Or what.

I look forward to your detailed explanation, which I assume is coming.
Click to expand...

Before the Higgs particle is the quantum realm .
 
Mark Turner said:
In spectral emissions it is recognised that high energy propagates to lesser energy points of space . Your assumption that space is a vacuum doesn't account for spatial fields occupying that vacuum such as a hypothetical Higgs field .
In consideration of ZPE , zero point energy we can presume also propagates to less energy , less dense points of space . A variation of hot to cold , basic thermodynamics .
Light density seems passive ?
Click to expand...
paddoboy said:
Like I said, light is created at "c" and always remains at "c' in a vacuum.
The rest of your post is word salad, noting that ZPE is the energy of a system at zero. Have you heard of the CMBR?
Click to expand...
Also of course the Higgs field is needed to give particles mass and was needed with the discovery of the Higgs particle in 2013 and was instrumental in Peter Higgs and Francois Englert receiving the Physics Nobel prize. It is necessary and gels with the particle Standard model. Obviously it exists at the quantum level and as far as I can tell, does not in anyway affect the vacuum state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
 
James R said:
'c' is the speed of light through space. We all agree on that, I hope.
Click to expand...

c is the speed electromagnetic radiation propagates through space.

What does this "transition" idea add to the concept of speed? Are you saying that the light changes state as it moves? What does that mean? What states are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Energy density state , high density , high energy spatial points , by natural laws of thermodynamics , transition to lower energy state points.



If you want to talk about the speed of light, just say "speed of light".

I notice that whereas previously you said the "transition of light is c", now here you're suddenly you're saying the speed of transition is c. So, you've changed either the way you're expressing your idea, or you've flip-flopped to a different idea entirely. If you'd just said "the speed of light in vacuum is c" in the first place, nobody would have argued with you.


Do you think it's so? Or are you just making something up on the spot?
Click to expand...

I'm not making it up on the spot , I've thought about this for a while . I can make things up on the spot , I'm good like that .

From what you've written, I take away that you believe that something in the form of "high energy" propagates out from a light bulb, and that the reason that it leaves the light bulb is that there is less energy outside the bulb, in some sense.

So, tell me what the physical principle is that you're using to arrive at this reason for the propagation of light. What is it about the low energy outside that makes the high energy leave?
Click to expand...

Gravity

It also sounds to me like you think energy is sort of like a substance.
Click to expand...

Indeed , we ourselves are the same substance .

Science starts with observation. What we observe when we turn on a light bulb is that light comes out from inside. We have some well-developed physical theories that explain why light comes out when we turn on the electricity, and how the light travels once it leaves the bulb. But here's the problem I'm having: your "energy" explanation above doesn't ring true to me as "the reason that it leaves the bulb", based on my understanding of the relevant science. So, I start to wonder whether you actually know anything much about how or why a lightbulb produces light, or how or why light propagates through space (from any source).
Click to expand...




The information you give about science almost invariably strikes me as full of holes, and is often factually incorrect. And that's when you manage to express yourself clearly enough that I can make some sense out of what you're saying. Mostly, I find that the true things you say are the obvious things, and you quickly get lost as soon as you start talking about the scientific explanation for this or that.

To tell you the truth, I forget now how a discussion about "what is reality" got into a debate about the speed of light and so on in the first place. At the very least, that suggests to me a lack of focus on the topic of the thread, which you started.[/QUOTE]
James R said:
So, I read back over the thread, and the speed of light was introduced here:


We've spent a fair amount of time dealing with the fallout from that nonsense statement, but I'm hoping we've helped clear things up for you a bit now, Mark.

Do you now agree that 'c' is, in fact, the speed of light, contrary to what you said when all this started? Can we agree on that, at least?

You might now like to outline your understanding of the Higgs field and its relevance to the propagation of light for us, if you still believe it is important. I suggest you start with a quick explanation of what the Higgs field is, just to refresh my memory.
Click to expand...
Electricity is attracted to the lesser energy ahead of it while propagating a wire .

I'm sorry I'm getting angry at my phone now , it took me what seemed ages to type all that , I'll return later , or I'll smash my phone up , horrible things .
 
The quantum realm is really the arrangement of particles . Up , down , colours etc . To form all forms of matter .

But upon what is the quantum world based ?
 
river said:
Before the Higgs particle is the quantum realm .
Click to expand...
I see.

You made the claim that "The Higgs field has no basis in reality." You were asked to support your claim. You ignored that and tried to change the subject again.

This is troll-like behaviour. You are officially warned.
 
river said:
The quantum realm is really the arrangement of particles . Up , down , colours etc . To form all forms of matter .

But upon what is the quantum world based ?
Click to expand...
As in another question you asked regarding black holes, I do not understand how you're using the word "based" here. Previously, I asked you to explain what you meant. You ignored that question.

I will ask you again, for this one. What are you trying to get at when you ask what the "quantum world" is based on? What kind of explanation are you looking for?

I mean, you've just described arrangements of particles etc. Is that not the "basis" you're looking for? If not, what are you looking for?
 
Mark Turner said:
c is the speed electromagnetic radiation propagates through space.
Click to expand...
I'm so glad we agree about that.

Energy density state , high density , high energy spatial points , by natural laws of thermodynamics , transition to lower energy state points.
Click to expand...
Was that supposed to be a sentence?

Why did you ignore all but one of my questions there?

Did you understand the questions I asked you? They didn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not making it up on the spot , I've thought about this for a while
Click to expand...
You've thought about it for a while, and the most you've come up with in terms of an explanation is one word?

I can make things up on the spot , I'm good like that .
Click to expand...
That's not how science is done.

Gravity
Click to expand...
There's your one-word explanation for why light comes out of a light bulb.

So, walk me through the process. How does gravity get the job done, exactly? I'm really interested to find out.

Indeed , we ourselves are the same substance .
Click to expand...
Well, there's one problem, right there. I have news for you: energy isn't a substance. You can't bottle it. You can't see it. You can't hold it. You can't be made of it.

Electricity is attracted to the lesser energy ahead of it while propagating a wire .
Click to expand...
Why, when I ask you about the Higgs field, do you start talking about electricity in a wire?

I am a bit reluctant to start in on your misconceptions about electricity at this point. No doubt that's another huge can of worms.

I suppose I could start by asking you what you think electricity is. You say this electricity stuff - whatever it is - propagates in(?) wires and is attracted to some kind of energy. So, what is the electricity, and why is it attracted to the energy? You say "lesser energy". Where's the "greater energy"? Is that in the electricity stuff? Is greater energy attracted to lesser energy?

Where are you getting your understanding of electricity from, in the first place? Where did you pick up this stuff about greater and lesser energies etc.? Have you ever taken a science class?

I'm sorry I'm getting angry at my phone now , it took me what seemed ages to type all that , I'll return later , or I'll smash my phone up , horrible things .
Click to expand...
If it's all a bit hard, don't feel obliged to post. Nobody is forcing you to post here.
 
James R said:
I'm so glad we agree about that.


Was that supposed to be a sentence?

Why did you ignore all but one of my questions there?

Did you understand the questions I asked you? They didn't seem that difficult to me.


You've thought about it for a while, and the most you've come up with in terms of an explanation is one word?


That's not how science is done.


There's your one-word explanation for why light comes out of a light bulb.

So, walk me through the process. How does gravity get the job done, exactly? I'm really interested to find out.


Well, there's one problem, right there. I have news for you: energy isn't a substance. You can't bottle it. You can't see it. You can't hold it. You can't be made of it.


Why, when I ask you about the Higgs field, do you start talking about electricity in a wire?

I am a bit reluctant to start in on your misconceptions about electricity at this point. No doubt that's another huge can of worms.

I suppose I could start by asking you what you think electricity is. You say this electricity stuff - whatever it is - propagates in(?) wires and is attracted to some kind of energy. So, what is the electricity, and why is it attracted to the energy? You say "lesser energy". Where's the "greater energy"? Is that in the electricity stuff? Is greater energy attracted to lesser energy?

Where are you getting your understanding of electricity from, in the first place? Where did you pick up this stuff about greater and lesser energies etc.? Have you ever taken a science class?


If it's all a bit hard, don't feel obliged to post. Nobody is forcing you to post here.
Click to expand...
The easiest way to explain how gravity causes light to propagate through space is by considering fire . The reason fire always points up is because the high energy state of the fire is attracted to the lesser energy state above it and of the stratosphere .
Now if you consider the high energy state of the Sun , the high energy is attracted to the lesser energy surrounding space of the Sun .
 
Sorry if I'm being a bit blunt , I've two warnings now about my posts and don't want to mess up again . I think I should end today before I mess up further more .
 
Mark Turner said:
because nobody has ever give me respect and trust .
Click to expand...
Because you don't deserve either.
You may - temporarily - get away with this sock puppet ruse but as Theorist/ Stevie Turner/ Constant-Theorist you've been banned from multiple science fora (including this one) for posting inane rubbish.
In simple terms , nobody seems interested so why should I bother ?
Click to expand...
Then don't bother: just go away.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Because you don't deserve either.
You may - temporarily - get away with this sock puppet ruse but as Theorist/ Stevie Turner/ Constant-Theorist you've been banned from multiple science fora (including this one) for posting inane rubbish.

Then don't bother: just go away.
Click to expand...

Ya what ?

Beans spilling time about you ...
 
Mark Turner said:
The easiest way to explain how gravity causes light to propagate through space is by considering fire . The reason fire always points up is because the high energy state of the fire is attracted to the lesser energy state above it and of the stratosphere .
Now if you consider the high energy state of the Sun , the high energy is attracted to the lesser energy surrounding space of the Sun .
Click to expand...
I guess you understood this post ?

The same process also applies to the laws of motion . An object remains in motion because the high energy , high density state of the object is attracted to the lesser energy space ahead of it .
.

Now I'm retiring from this because you all thing I'm some sort of joke , when the reality is I'm a better scientist .

That is what reality is .
 
Mark Turner said:
The easiest way to explain how gravity causes light to propagate through space is by considering fire . The reason fire always points up is because the high energy state of the fire is attracted to the lesser energy state above it and of the stratosphere .
Now if you consider the high energy state of the Sun , the high energy is attracted to the lesser energy surrounding space of the Sun .
Click to expand...
Bullshit, gobbldidook, word salad, nonsense. Have I made myself clear?

Mark Turner said:
I guess you understood this post ?

The same process also applies to the laws of motion . An object remains in motion because the high energy , high density state of the object is attracted to the lesser energy space ahead of it .
.

Now I'm retiring from this because you all thing I'm some sort of joke , when the reality is I'm a better scientist .

That is what reality is .
Click to expand...
You certainly are delusional, egocentric and ignorant.
It appears that obviously Seattle and exchem were right about you. The evidence now sticks out like dog balls.
 
paddoboy said:
Bullshit, gobbldidook, word salad, nonsense. Have I made myself clear?


You certainly are delusional, egocentric and ignorant.
It appears that obviously Seattle and exchem were right about you. The evidence now sticks out like dog balls.
Click to expand...
As crazy as a fool , what's it to you ?

Do you feel a need to pick on people with MH issues ?

Shame on you !

Some of you are quite delusional too .
 
If none of you understand reality , why comment ?

The reality is I'm correct and you're all in denial because of envy .
 
exchemist said:
The person who wrote posts 217 and 282 in that thread expresses very similar ideas to yours in this present thread. :D
Click to expand...
I guess they must know what they're talking about then .
I don't see any real objective arguments about what I've said in this thread , plus the one post I mentioned fire in , must make some sort of sense to somebody?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top