Out of Pod Experience

Stuff

Yes, but in this context it also constitutes anything (in the literal sense of the word).

First off I am not contradicting anything, it is just very difficult to summarize something as complex as this in a single post. I'll avoid the wall of quotes and just type this out instead.

The person who told me that the forces involved with hurricane formation and galaxy formation were different, was someone not unlike you on a dedicated physics and philosophy forum. He claimed some education in cosmology. I'll be sure to pass on your sentiments.


If you "meh" your way through the wave interaction elaboration, then you have missed the entire thing. The WHOLE DAMN thing. If you do not care to even try to understand the implications then the rest of it cannot possibly make sense. Since you seemed to have done this, the fact that you did not understand the following makes sense to me.







I have to quote this because, truth be told... there is no contradiction here. You just seem to be imagining one after a "fashion". I am having trouble finding a way to comment on this because I truly do not know what you are talking about. I made nothing irrelevant, and I have not contradicted anything. I suspect that you have your head so far up the standard models backside (as so many others do to be honest ) that as smart as you appear to be in many other respects , you truly have no idea what I am talking about in this respect.



Last but not least, to think that when I say "agitation" I am some how saying that this is meant to be (like in anyway shape or form) a massless force carrying particle responsible for one of the four forces of the standard model, makes me wonder if you actually know anything about this at all... Maybe your knowledge lies mostly in building computers and math? I mean... on a totally serious note... and I hope you answer this one, what possible connection does something like waveform interference have with a massless force carrying particle like a Gluon? I mean honestly





Ultimately you did not contradict anything that I have typed with actual facts of your own. You made false presumptions and drew to conclusions that were not in the text. Even better, you discounted the most important part "skipping a bit more through platitudes that I don't find either insightful nor relevant to the topic at hand". You may not find it insightful because you lack the intuition or original thinking to understand it's implications. On the other hand, maybe it is right and maybe it is wrong, but you simply ignored it, disregarded it and presented no information to the contrary with regards to it's potential implications. That's some very bad science right there. Case in point...right there.


You also conveniently failed to address this...
Which was the original point of the OP




Which was no doubt intentional, because this statement is true.

I'm just an amateur particle physicist. I'd love to study that in classes, but for now all I have are what I read on the internet or hear from others who are in the know. I don't have the money to take classes on it, but I think I have a knack for it.

I think I can address your points in response to my previous post by saying that yes, while we can see that particles are predictable, we cannot always predict them. What I mean by we know that particles are intrinsically predictable is that we are more certain of this than we are of some of our most fundamental macrosciences. Gravity is one of these forces, and we (scientists) have demonstrated gravity and these other forces with greater repetition and accuracy than we have demonstrated other basic sciences such as heat transfer through substances, light refraction and interference, or the speed of compression waves through various substances. You may have heard of the uncertainty principle, in which you cannot know both the precise velocity of a particle and the precise position. However most people misunderstand this and think that it means that knowing the particle's velocity causes its position to be unknown, and vice versa, but that's not what happens. To put it simply, the particle does not actually have a precise velocity and position at all. Particles are fields with an apparent source of concentration, which can be thought of as their position. It is not truly their position, however, for they do not truly have a position. When you view a particle-field from a macroscopic standpoint, you can see a large amount of its influence and gain an average which can have a measurable velocity. This average consists of conflicting velocities that all coalesce into one overall factor. But the closer you view the particle-field, the more uncertain your measurements of its velocity will be, because you will be seeing less of its influence and thus gaining a smaller part of the picture.

I don't really explain it fully, nor do I even understand it fully, but I hope you get a better gist of it from my explanation. I am deeply fascinated by these things, as they greatly enhance my understanding of the world around me. For instance, I had long wondered how gravity could have an instantaneous effect at any range, and also how gravity could be caused by a particle (the graviton). The answer is really quite simple: gravitons are fields just like other particles--they are a field with a strong gravitational effect. Gravity is confined to our three dimensions of space, causing it to dissipate at a rate of 0.25x every time the distance from the center of the graviton is doubled. The electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force all exist in more spacial dimensions, causing them to dissipate at a greater rate.

Interesting point to note: we can manipulate electromagnetic forces with ease, allowing us an easy way to bring our influence beyond the boundaries of our three-dimensional space. As this electromagnetic force is intrinsically connected to our space yet has an impact beyond it, we can use this force to sense what is out there. I just realized this as Ii was writing this. I must think of this and try to figure out how to use magnets to explore outside our space. Maybe I will come across an exciting discovery.

Cymatic waveforms aren't really adequate as explanations for particle/wave duality. Cymatic waveforms are incredibly complex structures that rely on simpler structures which are themselves more complex than that very particle/wave duality. I think the best explanation of the particle/wave duality is the "probability field" or field of influence as I call it. It acts as a wave in that it oscillates from a lower power of influence to a higher power of influence. This differs from a compression wave in that the compression wave oscillates up/down or left/right as it travels forward--they do not necessarily move like this but often do. My point is that compression waves involve spacial movement and particle waves do not.

The "medium" of spacetime may actually be multiple mediums, fields generated by multiple types of particles. The Higgs field likely has an effect that deals with the mass of objects. I actually know very little about the ideas behind the Higgs boson and the Higgs field and how it relates to mass, but I have watched some videos on youtube that attempt to explain it.

The need for the graviton goes along with the field of influence of particles. The curvature of spacetime (gravity) (if we are understanding it correctly) necessitates the presence of the graviton because the graviton IS the field. The more massive an object is, the more it tugs on all other mass around it. The graviton is the stuff inside this mass that tugs on other mass. Mass can therefore be directly and accurately measured by the number of gravitons inside something, at least on a macroscopic scale. Knowing what I do know about particle physics, this is probably not true at the very tiny levels, and there are probably yet more sinister and exciting reasons why, that will undoubtedly blow my mind at first, and then come with an "oh that explains five other things I didn't understand". So I still don't get gravitons fully but I have the gist of it. Gravitons are what's pulling everything with mass to everything else with mass. But gravitons are not actually mass. This might have something to do with why photons are affected by gravitons but are massless.

I also have a beef with scientists who make big presumptions, but in my experience the vast majority of these youo hear about are actually media reporters making big presumptions. One physicist gets excited about what they are studying and imagines great things as a result of future discoveries. (S)he excitedly tells people what MIGHT be known in the near future. A reporter then runs off with their quote, snips it up, and makes it appear that the physicist said that it is already known that such and such IS the case, and then several other reporters borrow from their article, and before you know it, the mainstream community starts to believe that these false quotes and misrepresentations are what the scientific community is actually saying. Now I've only read bits and pieces of the posts on this forum so I'm only quoting on part of what is here. I hope I don't sound too much like Michio Kaku, ignoring 3/4ths of what you said. :P

I saw at another point you were talking with Akita T about the similarity of the shape of a hurricane to a spiral galaxy. I agree partly with you, yes it is pull forces largely that make this shape. But there really are a great many differences at work here. For one, the hurricane works with fluids in which the particles impact each other and appear to bounce off (it's actually far more complex and there is no impacting or bouncing). The real difference at work here is that the electron fields around the air particles in the hurricane have a fairly large radius at which the repulsive forces become greater than the attractive forces, while the matter in the galaxy does not have that. Parts of the galaxy move through other parts of the galaxy as if each other doesn't exist, and only when centers of mass pass too closely together do they start roiling about as the net gravitational forces have been disrupted. Second difference is that the hurricane is constantly fed by particles being forced at each other, as the air in one area quickly stagnates without air around it giving it a push. The matter in the galaxy will never stand still because gravity is the only significant force at work in it, and gravity only pulls, never pushes.

Light interferes and forms cymatic patterns, and it is not presumed to be a compression wave. Even if there was a field that oscillates from "lower power of influence to a higher power of influence" as you put it, this is technically still an agitation through a medium and it would also carry with it cymatic effects. That was the point I was trying to make. ANY oscillation (agitation) of any medium will result in cymatics. This is so because the nature of wave forms, compression waves or not, all behave the same way. The cymatic effect is totally independent of the medium or the nature of the wave.





I presume so yes. And the reason why you do not understand the higgs field interaction is because it does not actually make sense. It is a "field" that cannot be detected. It does not act as a force, nor does it accelerate particles. nor does it transfer energy. It however can decide which particles have mass and which should not (because it is magical) and in doing so this is supposed to explain the difference between particles that have mass and their massless force carrier counterparts.

It's a bandaid placed on the holes of the standard model.





I see no reason why matter must create a field in order to tug at spacetime and cause a curvature. Using the surface tension of water once again, a piece of particulate laying upon the surface does not generate a field in order to "pull" at the water. The distortion is cause from the water itself and it's interaction with the particulate (the actual properties of the water not the particulate). Thus, it is possible that gravity exists because of a property of spacetime itself and not matter alone... and therefore cosmologists cannot unify everything because they are looking in the wrong place.

Photons could be bent by gravity by a very simple and well known means... lens distortion. They are at their core waves training through spacetime. If a region of spacetime were to be less dense, it would in fact bend the wave for the same reasons that light bends in a crystal. No gravitons are needed for this interaction.

Also... if photons really have no mass then how do you explain "radiation pressure?" That is... the pressure of pure light that knocks spacecrafts miles off course? If it has no mass... then how can it exert a force on an object with a mass?


P = m * v (so if) Momentum = 0 * (The speed of light) then... well... you get the idea. How can it be exerting a force if it truly has no mass at all?




I would tend to agree, except that they awarded the Noble Prize... the ultimate achievement, for a thing that has not been observed, tested or proven in any real way. This is a travesty of science. And no you don't sound like Michio Kaku,




And finally... with regards to your galaxy to hurricane comparison, I must once again reiterate that waves, interference patterns and how matter responds to either "push" or "pull" is always the same. It does not matter if it is coming from atmospheric friction or the mutual gravitational forces of stars. The outcome will be identical. All that matters are the vectors of force. even the particles of wind that seem to be standing still are moving at extreme velocity, it is just that they appear to stand still verses you the observed and other local points of reference. This is an easy mistake to make.



Thx again for your well thought out reply

Ignoring the Cymatic stuff for a moment... how? How is it solid and tangible?




How can a particle made of normal fermions, having a positive charge... do or be a part of what they are saying it is a part of, and do what they are saying that it is capable of doing? It is just a particle with a decay rate, a spin and a mass like most everything else they have found at CERN.

How can you or they be confident by any stretch, that this thing is a part of a field that permeates the universe, but applies no force to any non- mass carrying particles (and does everything else they say that it does)? Why does this particle, having a totally normal decay rates, composition, charge and properties... stand out among the rest?

Yes, but it is not normal to award the Nobel Prize at this juncture of understanding.... now is it?

You think the discovery is noble worthy atm?

It is not the nuances that brings me to conflict, it is the questionable methods.