John T. Nordberg's theory...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by curious45, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Ok, you stand in front of a high speed bullet or touch a highly charged capacitor with other hand on earth. Then may be you will understand that momentum or charge is not accounting system.

    Did anyone tell you that they are substance? I think I told you that they are not accounting system.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Yes, that's right.

    And those water molecules are made out of electrons plus other particles. And those electrons were made out of photons, which have an E=hf wave nature, in pair production. And when you take all the energy out of a wave, it isn't there any more. Remember what I say about putting the photon through a repeated Compton scatter? And about pair production? Those electrons are quite literally made out of kinetic energy. And so are the water molecules. Only if they weren't waving because of the extra macroscopic wave energy, you wouldn't be picked up.

    I'm not confused, I'm with Einstein on this.

    I'm teaching you here. Pay attention.

    I'm not. This is what happens when you remove all the energy from the E=hf photon. It isn't there any more. There are no zero-energy waves.

    Don't forget the wave nature of matter. Annihilation removes the wave energy from the electron, and the positron.

    But he was right about E=mc². Or are you saying Einstein was wrong?

    I have. I'm the one giving the references.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Nice to have such expertise around, thanks Tom....or is it Harry?.....or maybe Dick?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,639
    Reported as pseudoscience in the science section.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,577
    You're still not getting it. A bullet is not momentum. And a flow of electrons from a capacitor is not charge.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,577
    Farsight:

    The best thing about beating your head against a brick wall is stopping.

    There's no need for me to address the same points you made earlier just because you think repetition makes your argument stronger. My objections stand.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    That will do two things: jack and shit.
     
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    James R, the original issue was your assertion that the energy is accounting system. I still hold that it is loose generalization by you.

    You are talking about energy conservation from one form to another like KE to PE to thermal etc, and keeping the substance (mass I presume) in different bracket, this is where you are off the mark. Substance is nothing but mostly energy only. I am not making an assertion that you can convert mass into energy or vice versa, but think what is 1 kg substance....what it is made of?
     
  12. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    609
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Odd that it tends confirms an abstract mathematical function, which James vehemently rejects.
    That depends. A cubic centimeter of pure clay will coat an entire tennis court.
    One can make a sheet of graphene 1 atom thick. Below is a sheet of grapheme:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Obviously a mathematical construct.
    From Wiki:
    Matter is made of elements in sets of specific configurations. The matter of water is made from the bonding of 2 hydrogen atoms (an atom with a specific atomic value) to a single oxygen atom (with a different atomic value), creating a mathematical construct of a water molecule, with a combined weight of the 3 atoms, the mass of the water molecule.
    Of course, the atoms themselves are mathematical constructs of particles, each with a specific value or mass.

    If James did indeed mention an form of "accounting system" (or function), I am in agreement.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2016
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,577
    I know you do.

    Since I have now explained my point to you more than once, I don't see that there's any good reason why I should explain it a third time.

    Why don't you and Farsight discuss it amongst yourselves and see what you can come up with together? My previous posts are available for you to re-read and think about.

    In my experience, 1 kg of substance is usually made of atoms, or some other kind of matter.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Supersolids produced in exotic state of quantum matter

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    https://www.sciencenews.org/article...il&utm_term=0_a4c415a67f-091fde9dd9-104691249
     
  16. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    No. Not a fucking sheet of graphene. A fucking artist's rendering of graphene.

    Do you see the problem with your argument?
     
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I am sorry Kittamaru, this man did claim that he was a PhD. Old saying goes that education makes you humble and civil. He missed his lessons. What a terrible loss, it saddens me whenever I see a man going towards self destruction.
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    And 'atoms' are made of?
     
  19. pluto2 Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    I tend to agree with you.

    It's people who can't think outside the box who are the problem. Conformity to the state is bad for science.

    Humanity and science are going down the toilet because people are never willing to question the mainstream ideas.

    Corporate culture in universities and extreme conformity of the people to old mainstream ideas are not good for the progression of science and humanity.
     
  20. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Yes, your atoms might be the monatomic atoms of a gas in a box. Only when you make those atoms move faster, the box weighs more than 1kg. Moreover you could replace those atoms with photons. Photons are massless, but when you catch a photon in a mirror-box it increases the mass of that system. And when you open the box, it's a radiating body that loses mass. Like Einstein said.
     
  21. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    609
    I'm not sure this is correct in the way that you clearly intend to suggest. I think the effective mass increase comes from the way any acceleration of the box changes the momentum of the photons within resulting in a 'back pressure' which is indistinguishable from (but not the same as) 'mass'. The only link I had to this mechanism has been lost.
     
  22. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,419
    How long would it take for your photon to be absorbed by your box?
     
  23. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    609

Share This Page