What are the frequency spectra of particles with mass? Do they vary or does a neutron always have the same spectrum? If a photon or an electron interacts with the energy dense nucleus of an atom then surely the innermost portion of the wave will slow causing refraction towards the dense nucleus.
The idea of a magnetic field is an interesting one. Electrons take a certain path at a fraction of the speed of light the magnetic field may just be a good way of tracking ionic change properties in air and in a more dense medium.
When an electomagnetic wave travels past a more dense medium there is a propensity for more Bragg type effects. Is there more noise created at other Fourier components? The main wave slows and continues at the same frequency. Does the wave lose energy and give the energy up to a different wavelength?
Wednesday, 23 December 2015
Saturday, 12 December 2015
Statistical push from above and pull from below.
Statistical push of electrons tending to escape overwhelmed by the geometry of imbalanced charge and the push of returning electrons.
That is to say an object at the surface of the earth will tend to get pulled into the earth because there will be a tendency for a slight imbalance between electrons and protons at the center of the Earth. This imbalance between the number of electrons and protons that fit in the orbitals that would ideally be explained by a chemistry teacher is responsible for a push-pull whose net effect is gravity. The Earth could actually be any sphere of any size. There will be a deficit of electrons at the center of the sphere and a surplus of electrons outside the center of the sphere. In between the center and the periphery we experience gravity.
The electrons at the top of the sphere will have a tendency to launch themselves out into space. After being launched the electron will be attracted by the charge imbalance and will want to return back to earth.
Statistically the object on the surface of the Earth will experience a weak force at the top due to electron return. The bottom of the object will have a net negative charge and be attracted to the imbalance between the electrons tending outwards and the protons which stand still.
That is to say an object at the surface of the earth will tend to get pulled into the earth because there will be a tendency for a slight imbalance between electrons and protons at the center of the Earth. This imbalance between the number of electrons and protons that fit in the orbitals that would ideally be explained by a chemistry teacher is responsible for a push-pull whose net effect is gravity. The Earth could actually be any sphere of any size. There will be a deficit of electrons at the center of the sphere and a surplus of electrons outside the center of the sphere. In between the center and the periphery we experience gravity.
The electrons at the top of the sphere will have a tendency to launch themselves out into space. After being launched the electron will be attracted by the charge imbalance and will want to return back to earth.
Statistically the object on the surface of the Earth will experience a weak force at the top due to electron return. The bottom of the object will have a net negative charge and be attracted to the imbalance between the electrons tending outwards and the protons which stand still.
Sunday, 1 November 2015
Introduction
People think all kinds of funny things. Science has been littered with examples of bad theories that have gone nowhere. I'll give full props to the theories that were well developed yet were proven false through replicated formal experiment. The process and formalism of scientific thought is of param-ount importance and underpins what society expects from practitioners of physics, chemistry and science in general.
The statistics behind formal scientific thought and our understanding of what is true in our natural world comes from an adherence to a rigid set of counting. Counting successes and failures and determining truth or hypothesis verification to a confidence level of 95 or 99 percent. Failure to determine the exact nature of a hypothesis verification or a truth leads to muddy conclusions, half-baked science, hacked products and engineered systems that fail. Failed systems undermine the public's trust of engineers and science.
Using this forum I'd like to explore for myself what makes good science. Society is being peppered with examples of experiments that reference atomic tornadoes or molecular resonance. Are underdeveloped ideas being pushed into the limelight too quickly or do we need loose confidence levels that can be put together in strings of replicated experiments that yield high confidence 4.5 sigma output? Duane's reliability growth is an example of how strings of serial and replicated experiment can achieve a high reliability grows curve and an excellent output.
Magnets may or may not make use of electrostatic interactions to clear ions out of their path to create a vacuum for magnetic attraction. We know the phenomena of ion path vs. magnetic field is highly orthogonal to electrostatic forces but does this result of Maxwell's famous set of equations always hold true or are there deeper hypotheses to consider. Secondly, how might these be verified beyond a 99% degree of confidence?
Gravity is a weak force but if it is just a result of additive statistical electromagnetic attraction are there static attraction hypotheses to consider with respect to gravity? Can't gravity just be a rather simple result of the electron being radically lighter than the proton and the neutron. The electrons will fly off towards the edge of the sphere or planet and then arc back for a return trip. The resulting electron rain creates a force that binds us all to earth and tethers the astronaut or cosmonaut to the moon or to mars. Gravity may just be a mathematical-statistical result of the properties of a sphere. The mass and velocity of the electron is lighter and faster than the nucleus. How can hypothesis verification prove truth on such things?
The statistics behind formal scientific thought and our understanding of what is true in our natural world comes from an adherence to a rigid set of counting. Counting successes and failures and determining truth or hypothesis verification to a confidence level of 95 or 99 percent. Failure to determine the exact nature of a hypothesis verification or a truth leads to muddy conclusions, half-baked science, hacked products and engineered systems that fail. Failed systems undermine the public's trust of engineers and science.
Using this forum I'd like to explore for myself what makes good science. Society is being peppered with examples of experiments that reference atomic tornadoes or molecular resonance. Are underdeveloped ideas being pushed into the limelight too quickly or do we need loose confidence levels that can be put together in strings of replicated experiments that yield high confidence 4.5 sigma output? Duane's reliability growth is an example of how strings of serial and replicated experiment can achieve a high reliability grows curve and an excellent output.
Magnets may or may not make use of electrostatic interactions to clear ions out of their path to create a vacuum for magnetic attraction. We know the phenomena of ion path vs. magnetic field is highly orthogonal to electrostatic forces but does this result of Maxwell's famous set of equations always hold true or are there deeper hypotheses to consider. Secondly, how might these be verified beyond a 99% degree of confidence?
Gravity is a weak force but if it is just a result of additive statistical electromagnetic attraction are there static attraction hypotheses to consider with respect to gravity? Can't gravity just be a rather simple result of the electron being radically lighter than the proton and the neutron. The electrons will fly off towards the edge of the sphere or planet and then arc back for a return trip. The resulting electron rain creates a force that binds us all to earth and tethers the astronaut or cosmonaut to the moon or to mars. Gravity may just be a mathematical-statistical result of the properties of a sphere. The mass and velocity of the electron is lighter and faster than the nucleus. How can hypothesis verification prove truth on such things?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)