Squares

General FreeBASIC programming questions.
Locked
albert
Posts: 6000
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Post by albert »

From the wiki on gravity:
===============================================================================================================
Gravity and quantum mechanics

Main articles: Graviton and Quantum gravity

In the decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.[17] It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.[18][19] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,[17] where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required.
===============================================================================================================

Read After the last [17]

I don't believe in any virtual or multi-dimensional, B.S. ( I'm working on developing the "NEW APPROACH"... )

Each fundamental force should be equatable to any size or range , wether sub-atomic , solar , galactic or of universal scale.
There must be "One Law For All" concerning size or scale.
Richard
Posts: 3096
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

Re: Squares

Post by Richard »

@ Albert.
You are a Theoretical Physicist, quite out of touch with our reality. The words you use come from the language of popular physics, but the order you place them in your sentences generates only new-age confusion.
The distance between atoms in a crystal is about 1.6e-10 metres. I don't think you need worry about things smaller than the Plank length of 1.6e-35 metres. That is the graininess of the inside of the smallest things that make atoms, a place where the locally strong nuclear forces are trillions of times greater than gravity.
Albert wrote:There must be "One Law For All" concerning size or scale.
The world is not fair, and the sooner you learn it the better.
dodicat
Posts: 7976
Joined: Jan 10, 2006 20:30
Location: Scotland

Re: Squares

Post by dodicat »

albert wrote:@Richard
If gravity is like they show on the animated wiki page ,differing by mass, then:
The further you go into the earth the less gravity you should feel, as the total mass below you shrinks and the mass above you grows.
----
Hi Albert, this bit is correct (nearly).
If the earth was hollow, and just the thickness of the crust (a few miles), if you went down through this crust into the hollow bit you would immediately become weightless.

If you imagine it, you are just inside the hollow bit, the bit of crust above you is close to you so pulls you back up towards it, but the rest of the crust stretches away from you in all directions right round the globe, a few miles thick, and all this matter is pulling at you also.
But the matter that stretches in all directions away from you is getting further and further away, so it's pull is getting less and less.

The net pull on you is zero, like a stalemate tug of war.
You are weightless.
All the thickness of the crust you have passed through has no gravitational effect on you now.

Same applies for the solid earth, if you have dug down 200 miles then that shell of 200 miles thick around the earth you can dismiss as having no effect now.
Only the remaining ball of matter below you which you have not breached will be the matter which gives you weight.
Of course that ball is smaller than the whole earth, so you will be lighter than on the surface.
When you get to the core, the whole world now can be regarded as the shell you have dug through, and of course, shell you have dug through has no effect so you are weightless.
albert
Posts: 6000
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Post by albert »

Theres has to be :

1 law for all gravities. ( sub-atomic , planetary , solar , galactic , universal )
1 law for all electrical potentials.
1 law for all magnetic potentials.

The calculating of each law should not change except in the scale.

So if gravity is alot higher inside the atom, then:
We could say that gravity is caused at the sub-atomic level, and decreases as the distance increases,
there may be a points of difference due to some anomalies , like flat values for periods or reverse levels for periods or other things that may be added in to adjust for particular real-world measurements or findings.

But coming up with multiple dimensions or virtual particles is just horse-poop.
albert
Posts: 6000
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Post by albert »

A problem:

If aether is neutral and makes up all particles, then any particle that has any property, isn't broke down all the way.

But if every smallest sub-particle is neutral, then how do the mechanics work between neutrals, to create property ????

The above question, is how i came up with the multi-axial whirlpool idea. with elasticiy and spin of the aether whirlpool creating particles and gravity.
(if you take a sink drain whirlpool and put different stuff into the whirlpool some go around and around the whirlpool , and some go straight to the center.)

(but i'm stuck at electric charge and magnetism. of particles. how could they be eminated with mechanical action of neutral objects.)
dodicat
Posts: 7976
Joined: Jan 10, 2006 20:30
Location: Scotland

Re: Squares

Post by dodicat »

But this is the problem Albert.
The forces inside the atom are classified as strong and weak NUCLEAR forces, gravity is surmized to be a very weak universal force inside or outside atoms.

The inverse square law breaks down with nuclear forces.

Physicists are trying to unify all these forces, just like you.

The maths is ultra complicated, they bring in other dimensions to try to get the maths to agree.

If you watch or read all the gaff, you can have an infinite number of universes, you can have parallel universes, you, yourself can be sitting on some other planet on this forum, for certain.

With infinity all around us you can say just about anything and who is to argue.

We will get answers in due time by using and upgrading the tools we have.

If a person is not Mathematical, they have a headache with this stuff.
If a person is Mathematical, they have a bigger headache.

A lucky intuative notion by anybody on this planet could mean a breakthrough, but you would have to climb a mountain to have it believed, then you would have to run the gauntlet of the good the bad and the ugly.
albert
Posts: 6000
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Post by albert »

@Dodicat

With the multi-axial whirlpool , it works just like a 2D one, except it works on all planes.

One particle winding up causes whirlpools around it, and that one pulling aether in, creates a new smaller whirlpool (orbital) ,
and that smaller one can spawn of yet a smaller one and that one yet a smaller one.

So you could end up with a sun with a planet in orbit, and a moon in orbit around the planet, and possibly a sub-moon in orbit around the moon, and so on, until the aether gets too stretched to create any more orbitals.

If you take a orbital out of an atom it should regenerate it after some length of time. (providing the aether isn't too stretched.)

==============================================================================================================

The sub-atomic gravity , would be just the normal gravity, force of the whirlpools pull across the distance.
Unless its caused by orbitals knocking against the larger particles from the back-side , which would drive them together with a force of their mass moving at near light-speed, which might also cause nuclear emission if the orbital hit the front side while orbiting around.

===============================================================================================================
albert
Posts: 6000
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Post by albert »

If you look at the universe , galaxies , solar systems , planets , everything is rotating or spiraling aound something else.
There is no galaxy or sun just sitting still in space that has gravity or orbitals, it all requires spin and the whirlpools.

The earths crust moves about 12-13 hundred miles a day, 1 rev,
the core might be doing several thousand revolutions a hour or minute,
if so, then gravity would get greater as you go in towards the core or outer core.

I was thinking that the core might have spawned particles that then became atoms ,
if the spin rate at the core is real great and the fineness of the whirlpool is sub-atomic then it could have spontanieously spawned off the mantel and crust and atmospheric atoms ??

A certain amout of gravity could come from, not mass, but from the atoms that make up the mass , their normal external gravity fields. A single atoms gravity whirlpools might extend out miles and miles and make it have distant effects.
Richard
Posts: 3096
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

Re: Squares

Post by Richard »

@ Albert. You need to check your foundation of facts before constructing castles in the air.
Albert wrote:The earths crust moves about 12-13 hundred miles a day, 1 rev
No. The length of the Equator is 25 thousand miles. If you are on the Equator you are doing over 1000 miles an hour.
Albert wrote:the core might be doing several thousand revolutions a hour or minute
Measuring the Doppler shift of seismic signals from earthquakes on the other side of the Earth makes it possible to measure the rate of rotation of the core.
scientists from the University of Cambridge have discovered that earlier estimates of 1 degree every year were inaccurate and that the core is actually moving much slower than previously believed -- approximately 1 degree every million years.
The wonders of modern technology and digital signal processing.
Richard
Posts: 3096
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

Re: Squares

Post by Richard »

The force due to the electric field about a point charge, decays as the inverse square of the distance. The force due to the magnetic field about a filament of moving charges (current), decays only as the inverse of the distance. When you collide with a physical object there is no force, you do not start to share momentum, until the first point of contact.
This means that different forces have different ranges. In different places and at different scales, different forces will dominate. The idea that all forces act in the same way, to make Albert's universe simple, is quite preposterous.
albert
Posts: 6000
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Post by albert »

@Dodicat
I'm not theroizing that all forces are the same..

I'm still trying to figure out how electric potential and magnetism , can be made out of mechanical actions of neutral particles.

================================================================================================================

In your guys's world there was a big star that exploded, and at some point in the expansion, particles started conjoining into atoms and eventually formed stars that then coinjoined to form galaxies and subordinate solar systems.

In your guys's world all the differing particles existed in the original star that exploded, and they can all still be accounted for, as some universal total mass.

So what happens to all the positive ions and photons being spit out by galaxies and stars , when they get to the end of the universe??? Do they curve back in? Or dissappear into a black hole? Or just cease to exist?

================================================================================================================

In my world every object that can affect another object has to be physically connected to it in some way.
Either by emmission or by manipulating some inter-object medium.
Gravity is caused by whirlpools in the inter-particle medium that happens to also be what the particles are made of.


If property is inherent in the mass, as you guys suggest: (every type of particle existed at the foundation of the universe.)
Then an electron is negative because of the size or quantity of its mass.
Then a proton is positive because of the size or quantity of its mass.
Then a neutron is neutral because of the size or quantity of its mass.
Then the level of magnetism of a particle, is the result of size or quantity of the particles mass.

I just don't think its true!!!!
albert
Posts: 6000
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

Re: Squares

Post by albert »

I'm a firm believer, that no one person can account for all the possibilities of a problem.
Every problem needs a full team of people to uncover all the possibilities or problems that might come up from another problem.
Richard
Posts: 3096
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

Re: Squares

Post by Richard »

Albert wrote:If property is inherent in the mass, as you guys suggest:
BUT WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT, YOU DO.
bfuller
Posts: 362
Joined: Jun 02, 2007 12:35
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Squares

Post by bfuller »

Have you read a little book called "A brief History of Time", subtitle "From the Big Bang to Black Holes" by Stephen Hawking.

It is fairly readable for such a complex subject, and still leaves some doubt as to the "complete theory" . The one I have was written in 1987, I don't know if there is a later revision. In any case, it is an interesting read.
dodicat
Posts: 7976
Joined: Jan 10, 2006 20:30
Location: Scotland

Re: Squares

Post by dodicat »

Yes bfuller, Stephen Hawkings has spent his whole life thinking about these things, like many others.

@Albert
Regarding these different forces and how they act at a distance.
In simplicity:
A point source radiating something, at any instant an amount of that something is on the surface of a sphere of radius R.
The area of this surface is 4*pi*R^2

So the amount of that something passing through a unit area (say a square metre) is proportional to 1/(4*Pi*R^2)

That is (One square metre)/(All square metres).
So We have R^2 on the bottom line, inverse square.

If a cylinder radiates stuff, then at any instant an amount of stuff is on the surface of a cylinder.
The area of the surface of a cylinder is 2*Pi*R*(length of the cylinder).
The amount passing through a square metre is proportional to 1/(2*Pi*R*length).
So this is a (1/R) law.

A plate just radiates out in straight lines, so no matter how far away you are, you'll get the full whack.

So we use 3D geometry to determine forces in our universe, Electric/magnetic/Gravity etc.

It seems too good to be true?
Locked