On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:09 PM,
David Rountree
ghost_hunter_ 01@comcast. net wrote:
>>
Frequency is the key to everything.

It can be said a resonance at a frequency mediates momentum exchange
in our kinetic universe. We can say infrared photon pairs exchange
kinetic energy between molecules of a substance and its environment
exhibiting what we call heat, a tiny portion of the total frequency
ranges comprising the energy of the object . If you tell me the
average frequency of photons exchanging momentum between molecules and
radiating from a body, is no different than telling me the temperature
except in the units of measure.
>
All frequencies together give the total energy or mass of an object
An electron changes momentum only by sending and receiving photons at
particular frequencies unifying the electric and kinetic into a
singular mechanism. It is that a frequency is equivalent to a
momentum (p=h*f/c) on the bottom layer that frequency can be
everything in a world that is fundamentally kinetic. Even when we
push on something, it is resonance by exclusion of common frequencies
in common quantum state, exchanging photons that does the pushing, we
never actually touch the object, photons exhibit momentum exchange and
all momentum exchange is by photon exchange ultimately.
>
The notion that frequency tells us how often something happens is
wrong. Each photon exchange happens independently, perhaps just once,
it need not be frequent. The photon momentum is exchanged laterally
and transversely (angular) in the exhibition of a space time interval
having a specific time period, t=1/f, and distance, x=c*t. It is the
time delay exhibited not how frequent it is that exhibits the energy,
the space, and of course time itself.
>
In the unification time is exhibited inversely to energy. High energy
is big and slow, low energy is small and fast. The resonance of
common frequencies becomes frequencies becoming distinct relatively by
momentum exchange obeying Mead's law that the universe conspires to
prevent there from being two equal frequencies. But what is manifest
is time delay, and space by x=c*t, and seemingly solid matter not
penetrable at wide ranges of occupied frequencies. The time delay
equivalence of energy, e/h, by discrete action locally constructs a
fabric of orderings, serially as time, and in parallel as space.
>
The frequency tells us the dimension of the space time manifold
exhibited by each event. It does not repeat. It exhibits a single
delay element relatively. It exhibits a lateral and transverse
(angular) right handed or left handed twist in quantum state by
cooperative equal and opposite logical action. A delay element alone
is insufficient for logical action. And, or and not operations plus
a delay. We can expect the universe to be logical, and find the
apparent quantum logical action is universal general purpose logic.
Physically, two one half dimensions are exhibited to one bit of
precision each having one way arrows of a length determines by the
momentum exchanged frequency equivalent. This physical construct
proves general enough to build any conceivable information system and
the universe is not distinct from an information system as far as it
is comprehensible.
>
Given that quantum systems are information systems, without local
hidden variables, that the quantum logical description is complete,
as both experiment and theory suggest, the logical nature of the
universe is unrestricted. No simple model, restricting logic, as say
only frequency in some fixed dimensions, can be complete. A quantum
system can be constructed to contradict any limited logical system due
to in universal general purpose nature.
>
In the objective information model, no human ideal is allowed, only
the logical action and associated relative delays are allowed in the
model. anything else is considered fantasy. All quantum
interpretations become superfluous. All that matters is the manifolds
of space time interval exhibited by delays by perspective. The notion
of the policing of information in physical systems has recently been
formalized in the notion of Information Causality,
http://arxiv. org/abs/0905. 2292
===================== . .
#
Socratus.
In his book " Isaac Newton " Soviet academician
S. I. Vavilov wrote:
" . . photons with extremely fast frequency . . .
in the experience was observed . . . .
the remarkable phenomenon of transformation
them in electron.
Undoubtedly, reverse process is also possible. "
======== . .
Questions:
Can photon and electron be one and the same particle
in different conditions ?
Can the difference between photon and electron depends
only from frequency ?
============ . .
#
May 23, 2009.
I think not just frequency, but phasing and polarity will differ.

David M. Rountree, AES
Scientific Paranormal Investigative
Research Information and Technology

www.spinvestigations.org
=========== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
===================

Israel,

I have been working on a vibration model that explains much of what you have described above.

It can be found at Aaron's Reality

These notes are from the perspective of this model.

The first paragraph is in line with this model. A photon is a boson, a carrier of information. This information is Frequency, Wave Length and Temperature. These three bits (memes) of information are check-sums of each other. Planck described in detail how these bits of information create a photon. The photon also has a counter. This allows the receiving electron to read the temperature of the emitting baryon and the distance the photon has traveled.

The electron is not the same vibration as the photon. It is the electron that emits the photon. The gluon converts information to the Z boson. The Z boson then excites the electron by transferring its information. This is called Reiter Loading Theory . The excited electron resonates the Dark Energy to vibrate the information as a photon.

A strong Z boson is electricity. In this case the Z boson's information is so intense it ejects the loaded electron. In extreme cases the Z boson can extend to another nearby Z boson. This is plasma.

I also describe how the information causes the interactions and some of their work equations. Yes, the universe is an information system.

You need to read it from bottom to top. You may find yourself in there. I would like to be told where there may be logic or mathematical errors.  

Aaron Guerami

Just picking a small piece from http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com/":

"The Earth Moon Sun gravitational relationship is a n-body problem. It is not a series of 2 body problems. This problem has stumped me since I was 11. I did not realize then that this was considered an impossible problem to solve. ..."

This is Web 2.0 physics.
I mean anybody with an internet access can read anything anywhere without any understanding and express his view on physics without any background. Considering the number of incompetent people overweight the number of competent people, it is clear than very soon real physics will be hidden and lost on a totally noisy internet. Therefore many kids will be lost for science before they get just a chance to learn it.

Here is one more sample of web 2.0 physics fromhttp://aaronsreality.blogspot.com/:

"I have problems with Einstein's equations. It is saying that the only main variables in Energy are mass and the speed of light. No time, temp, freq, wave length... Not even x,y,z."

This is what people can write when they learn physics on the web.
However, real physics can be also be found with google.
Here is the energy (hamiltonian) for electrodynamics:



It is clear that E=mc² is only one term in this equation.
What makes this term so famous is any other story: see you preferred newspaper.

Thank you for reading my work. It is nice to see that you have a civil bone in your body. Who ever you are?

Web 2.0 Physics. What an interesting concept. "it is clear than very soon real physics will be hidden and lost on a totally noisy internet." Are you kidding me? are you saying that more data available to the public will disrupt the flow of knowledge. And what you are saying is that only the priest of physics can have a say in the development of models. Poor Kids, They may learn the incorrect way to orbit satellites around the moon or smoke Marijuana. Kids might get the wrong idea so we must kill the internet, throw its arrogant users in jail. Protect the kids at all costs. Who cares about the children when the adults have it so wrong?

I am disappointed that an Anonymous user of the internet does not know this, the n-body problem is an impossible problem using the predictive tools that we have. Please have a computer calculate positions of the Sun, Earth, and Moon with rotations for 365 days. Lets see your results, publish them here. You will have to use error correction to resolve the incorrect solution.

Now lets look at that Hamiltonian Equation. When I look at that equation I see fields. Fields are 3 dimensional. The energy statement in the equation is a 0 dimensional non-point. How do you wish to resolve this issue? Can you take density and convert it to mass. Then after running it through the the equation to find its change in field, return that mass to its original density and shape. No. You nor anybody can.

There will be many decimated priest, when they find out the moon follows the Earth inside the Earth's Magnetosphere. Actually in the tail of the magnetosphere. Half the orbital period of the moon is 12h 25.2m. This is the tides. The tides show effect from the position of the moon. If the Lunar Orbital Period was 28 days. We would show a 14 day precession, not one that is 12h 25.2m.

Here is another one for you priests. I say you, because you want to keep the information inside the great temples. Where they train acolytes to preform tasks. When the acolyte has finish preforming the required tasks, they are given lovely vestments and accolades. So, back to reality. How do you get a 0 dimensional non-point and multiply it by a vector and return a field? or . I was thrown out of the temple for that one. Thank you for blessing me sir, may I have another!

Aaron

p.s. I may not have written down all my failures in trying to solve the n-body problem for the last 30 years as a good scientist would. But they are the experiments that led me to this problem with physics. I have given up on current models of physics. So many problems, they do not solve.

And now this is web 2.0 way of thinking:

"... the n-body problem is an impossible problem using the predictive tools that we have ..."

Statements without definitions.
Such a statement including such capital words as "impossible problem" would at least need a definition.
Blogging web2.0 physics is a big very noisy joke.

Anonymous:
"And now this is web 2.0 way of thinking:

"... the n-body problem is an impossible problem using the predictive tools that we have ..."

Statements without definitions.
Such a statement including such capital words as "impossible problem" would at least need a definition.
Blogging web2.0 physics is a big very noisy joke."

Aaron:
So. You don't understand the n-body problem. Here is the setup. We have the Sun, Earth and Moon. What we need to do is to evaluate the barycenter of each pairs of objects: Sun Earth, Sun Moon, Earth Moon. Then we need to evaluate the force upon each of these objects in tandem.

My question to you is when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, does the Earth have enough gravitational force to pull the Moon back to it's orbit?



Here we have the Moon in position 1.



Now the Moon is in position 2.
Please tell me where the Moon goes next. And show your work by using any current equation of your choice.

Many great web 1.0 physicist have worked their entire life on this. It is not so easily dismissed. The Moon falls to the Sun.

Aaron

Aaron

Here are some other major issues our understanding of the Moon's orbit.

1) If the Moon had a 28 day orbital period, then the Earth would show a 14 day precession towards the Sun. Then a 14 day precession away from the Sun. This does not occur in the night sky.

2) The tides show the orbital period of the Moon. That period is 24h 50.4m. What that tells me is that the Moon is closer to the Sun every 12h 25.2m and closer to the Earth every other 12h 25.2m. This is serious evidence.

3) The face of the Moon always faces the Earth. This only occurs when the Moon is not spinning.

There are more, but that gives away the ending.

I have a solution at Aaron"s Reality Web 2.0 Physics.

Aaron

Frequency is a key to the force called photon. There are four key data points that make up a photon wave. These are Frequency, Wavelength, Temperature, and a counter. Planck's Spectral Black Body Equations explain this well.

But, magnetism or the force called the W boson does not have Frequency as a data point. The W boson has 4 data points also. Charge, Current, Voltage and a counter.

Electricity is the force called the Z boson. It carries Charge, Photon data, W boson data. The Photon data is converted by the Electron to a Photon wave. The W boson data provides the Electron with existence data.

The Strong Nuclear force is the force called the Gluon. This is all spelled out in my web 2.0 physics blog. Aaron's Reality

As far as I can tell, Frequency is but a meme of data that determines a Photon.

Aaron

This is the n-body equations of motion for point masses:



This is solved routinely and in this sense this is not an "impossible problem".
A simple generalisation of this equation for finite-size bodies has been also solved to study the motion of the moon in detail and the coupling of all the degrees of freedom has been studied a long time ago and is a rather well understood question.

Blogging physics has shown already serious limit on your blog.
It seems that forums, judging by your answers here, are even more seriously limited.
Why do you call an "impossible problem" a problem that is solved routinely since long?
What is your definition for an "impossible problem"?

Would you mean by that that you have not been able to solve it?
That would indicate some common sense wisdom: leave physics to physicists and leave you car to a car mechanics unless you made a successful effort to learn.

anonymous:
"This is the n-body equations of motion for point masses: "

Aaron:
This is a nice Equation that uses POINT MASSES. These are not densities in motion. Can you convert density to mass and return the mass to its original density and shape? That is the entire problem with point mass motion.

A real physicist would tell you about the severe limitations of the problem that you are trying to solve with point mass equations. That you don't take into account, in that equation, Thermodynamics, Electricity, Magnetism or even previous kinetic motion. You have to start with a perfect state and then you can solve your point mass problem. Another major problem with that

Here is the problem with point mass. Point mass does not show the differing densities of the surface of the Earth. If you were to calculate the orbit of a 2000 kg satellite, then you would lose that satellite. Unless you used error correction. Error correctors would be gyros and attitude and control thrusters.

Find me a point mass and I will find you a mermaid.

Aaron

Here is another issue with point mass equations.

Can you predict the path of a balloon that is filled with 1kg of helium? The balloon is released from the ground on Earth. Why does it rise?

Aaron

I also said:

"A simple generalisation of this equation for finite-size bodies has been also solved to study the motion of the moon in detail and the coupling of all the degrees of freedom has been studied a long time ago and is a rather well understood question. "

There is no problem of principle to solve the motion for more complicated bodies.
This has been studied extensively for the moon.

It is well known that geological surveys of the earth have provided detailled maps of the gravity field that can be used for this kind of problem. Similarly, such data are also available for the moon (less detailled, but the assymetries are higher). Such data reveal partly the shape and structure of the gravitating body.

In some situations, more details might be available. For example the slowing down of the earth rotation needs proper account of the internal structure.

Still you did not define what you called "an impossible problem".
Web2.0 thinking is very fuzzy.

A balloon filled with 1kg of helium is subject to the same laws of gravity as any other balloon filled with 1kg of any other liquid because the only way to weigh helium is to liquefy it and when filled with 1kg of liquid helium, the balloon would not rise. Anchoring a helium "gas" filled balloon with a 1kg lift is not measuring the weight of the helium balloon it is measuring the "lifting force" of the balloon and it would take more than "1kg" of lifting force, to lift (raised from the ground) a 1kg weight. "Buoyancy" is not reverse gravity.

However well the rest of your model works is not in question but, the analogy of the "1kg helium filled balloon" is wrong.

Bob,

Thanks for reading my work. I was trying to coax the word 'buoyancy' from the reader. Buoyancy or lifting force is Density. The balloon needs to rise to its level of density. That is the atoms inside the balloon rise to have the same density as the atoms outside the balloon.

This 3d process in chemistry is called 'Specific Gravity' (a misnomer in my opinion). A lava lamp illustrates this process using liquids of differing densities and heating those liquids. The rise in temp causes one of the liquids to decrease its density an rise.

If we know the densities of the planets, then we will realize that the order of the planets are based on density. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars are solids with metals. Jupiter & Saturn are mostly metallic hydrogen and other gases. Uranus & Neptune and beyond are Ices. this is a density arrangement.

Aaron

In standard conditions of temperature and pressure (SCTP), 1 kg of He fills a volume of 5.6 m³.
This also means that the density of He in SCTP is 0.1786 kg/m³.

This is an elementary secondary school calculation based of the atomic mass of Helium (4.0026 gr/mol) and the volume occupied by a mole in SCTP (0.022414 m³/mol).

Air composition is roughly 20.9% O2 and 79.1% N2.
This implies a volume of 0.777 m³ for 1kg of air, and a density of 1.287 kg/m³.

From all these data kids can calculate the lift force on a ballon without hezitation.

What's the matter now with all you guys who cannot solve the most elementary problems in physics and spend your time criticing professional physicists and create rubbish altenative theories even worse than numerology?

Yeh, but does density exist without gravity? Where is /kg without gravity? The various planets are "given" "densities" but they have never been weighed.

Anonymous, (who ever you are?)
In standard conditions of temperature and pressure (SCTP), 1 kg of He fills a volume of 5.6 m³.
This also means that the density of He in SCTP is 0.1786 kg/m³.

This is an elementary secondary school calculation based of the atomic mass of Helium (4.0026 gr/mol) and the volume occupied by a mole in SCTP (0.022414 m³/mol).

Air composition is roughly 20.9% O2 and 79.1% N2.
This implies a volume of 0.777 m³ for 1kg of air, and a density of 1.287 kg/m³.

+++++++++++

So what you are saying is that lifting force is the differential between differing densities. Why does the balloon accelerate? Is there a terminal velocity for the balloon in SCTP?

If we were to create a box 500m in the y, 10m in both the x and z in reference to the ground. This box has door with a 500m on one side. We can open the door to introduce our SCTP. But we don't want other influences on our experiment. So we close the door. At the bottom of the box we have a mechanical device that will release the helium balloon as described above but including the density of the mylar balloon in our calculations.

What set of equations would accurately describe the balloon's voyage? Gravity suggests that the massive Earth would pull the balloon or any mass towards it. The balloon would never leave the ground. So any equation based on the axiom of gravity would not work. Mass does not accurately describe anything. So any equations based on mass will not work. Only density equations will work.

Aaron

You are really stupid.

The gravity also attract the atmosphere.
Since the atmosphere is heavier than helium, it slips below and helium leaves the place.
Gravity drives everything in this story, but you need to understand also that the different parts also interact by other forces: the pressure of air also acts on the ballon, but this pressure is a result of gravity also (p=rho g h for a simplified model).

Or it may well be the other way around, Anon!

Aerodynamics is a little messy kind of science!

Recall that Lord Kelvin (1895) once declared and labeled heavier than air flying machines as impossible

"Indeed, eight years before Orville and Wilbur Wright took their home-built flyer to the sandy dunes of Kitty Hawk, cranked up the engine, and took off into the history books, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society of England made a forceful declaration. "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible," said this very powerful man of science....Rumor has it Lord Kelvin was slightly in error."
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/09/lord-kelvin-1895-heavier-than-air.html

And that failed prediction of his can only mean one thing: [There are really no simple rules for clear-cut and straightforward explanations] in this particular field of applied physics; right?

NASA has an overlooked and amazing high-altitude ballooning program.

http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code820/

Much has been learned because of the work of these people. I saw a show on the Discovery Science channel. They need much more money to fund a highly productive program.

This does not mean I am correct in my model. It is just interesting to see.

If any government/congressional people read this. Please fund this extremely underfunded program. The dividends are phenomenal.

Aaron

Again a web-2.0 sort of statement that just tells the limits of the poster:

"Aerodynamics is a little messy kind of science! "

What does such a statement tells us more?

I could as well say that aerodynamics is difficult, or that it is not yet fully understood.
Would that be of any scientific value?
I would be much more interrested to learn from a real expert what the difficulties are and why they are difficulties, where is the researhc going today, or even more basically what we should learn first and how.

I would also find more interresting to learn (more) about routine aerodynamics modelling in engineering, how well the perform, what the weaknesses still are, what are the benefits, how these have changed the world, ... .

Let's leave "messy science" for messy scientists.

Anonymous;

In that world of yours its ok to copy equations from wiki. Most scientist would laugh at you for this. So I agree with with Bob, come back after High School.

So here is the equation. I bet you cannot describe this equation as a word problem.



Wiki Hamiltonian Equation

Aaron

If you believe that physics is done with words then you will be stuck in your ignorance for a long time.

Consider the famous example of the Maxwell's displacement current.
Do you think Maxwell discovered that with words?
Physics is an exact science and "charge conservation" means "equations of conservation" for any respectable physicist. Imposing these equations of conservation led Maxwell to the crucial discovery of the displacement current.

It makes no sense that I put words on the relativistic charged particle Hamiltonian since these words will not have any meaning for you.

For example, could you just understand why the "generalised momentum" is called "generalised momentum" or simply why "momentum". How could you understand these things without ever confronting the reality of physics: physics is an exact science and it owns its objectivity to the mathematics.

Maths follow physics, not precede it, which is why you are all screwed up in your logic, "Anonymous"!

Anonymous said: "physics is an exact science and it owns its objectivity to the mathematics."

Jose says: Boy, do you live in a dream world! Show me one experiment that produced exact data that matched the mathematics to the "nth" decimal. There is not one. Physics is a game of horse shoes. You are full of something that will probably make tomatoes grow.