So can someone explain curved space to me?

twistor59 · **#261** by **twistor59** » May 31, 2014 10:22 am

I stand corrected - you're not going to quote Lamb and Scully's semiclassical model. You have your own mod... err, no, you don't like models, - you deal in reality rather than mere models. But you have "mathematical evidence" that light doesn't have a particulate nature. :scratch:

I look forward to the demonstration of how your mathematical machinations explain the experimental results of quantum optics.

Oh you've written a book, according to post 23 here :cheers:

campermon · **#262** by **campermon** » May 31, 2014 10:29 am

twistor59 wrote:... - you deal in reality rather than mere models...

Perhaps he's an estate agent? :ask:

In the meantime, here's scientific model that may interest you;

[Reveal] Spoiler: model

kennyc · **#263** by **kennyc** » May 31, 2014 10:32 am

Does the model have curves or curved space? No image showing up here...

campermon · **#264** by **campermon** » May 31, 2014 10:35 am

kennyc wrote:Does the model have curves or curved space? No image showing up here...

Both..

can you see it now?

kennyc · **#265** by **kennyc** » May 31, 2014 10:36 am

AH YES! Curved space always gets a rise outta me.

campermon · **#266** by **campermon** » May 31, 2014 10:42 am

kennyc wrote:AH YES! Curved space always gets a rise outta me.

Arthur · **#267** by **Arthur** » May 31, 2014 10:55 am

Arthur wrote:
I don't reject QM altogether, but indeed I reject probabilistic physics. Especially the probability of presence in the Schrödinger-Equation I reject. The Schrödinger-Equation is tinkered in order to describe mass. I recommend instead of taking care for the Schrödinger-Equation, you better should solve the Helmholtz-Equation(s).

This makes no sense at all.

Perhaps you could explain?

Why "this makes no sense at all" for You? Do You know Schrödingers equation? Do You know Helmholtz-Equation?

campermon · **#268** by **campermon** » May 31, 2014 11:01 am

Arthur wrote:Arthur wrote:
I don't reject QM altogether, but indeed I reject probabilistic physics. Especially the probability of presence in the Schrödinger-Equation I reject. The Schrödinger-Equation is tinkered in order to describe mass. I recommend instead of taking care for the Schrödinger-Equation, you better should solve the Helmholtz-Equation(s).

This makes no sense at all.

Perhaps you could explain?

Why "this makes no sense at all" for You? Do You know Schrödingers equation? Do You know Helmholtz-Equation?

Yes to both.

Also, to help make some sense of your posts can you please attribute quotes please.
A guide to this found here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1346442

:thumbup:

twistor59 · **#269** by **twistor59** » May 31, 2014 11:22 am

campermon wrote:
twistor59 wrote:... - you deal in reality rather than mere models...

Perhaps he's an estate agent?

In the meantime, here's scientific model that may interest you;
[Reveal] Spoiler: model

Yeah that's how I remember scientits oops spelling...

Arthur · **#270** by **Arthur** » May 31, 2014 1:21 pm

\begin{equation}
\fbox{$ \begin{array}{rcl}
\begin{array}{l@{\quad \quad}l}
m = \frac{\mu_0 \cdot e^2 \cdot k^4 \cdot r_0^2 cdot \left\{ \frac{64 \cdot \pi^2 \cdot r_0^5}{45} + \frac{ \left(9 + 256 \cdot \pi^2 \right) \cdot r_0^3}{18 \cdot k^2} + \frac{\left( 3 - 176 \cdot \pi^2 \right) \cdot r_0}{6 \cdot k^4} + \left( \frac{\left( 200 \cdot \pi^2 - 3 \right) \cdot r_0}{3 \cdot k^4} - \frac{88 \cdot \pi^2 \cdot r_0^3}{3 \cdot k^2} - \frac{1}{k^6 \cdot r_0} \right) \cdot sin^2(kr_0) \right.}{4 \cdot \pi \cdot \left\{ 4 \cdot r_0^4 + \frac{36 \cdot r_0^2}{k^2} + \left( \frac{36}{k^4} - \frac{56 \cdot r_0^2}{k^2} \right) \cdot sin^2(kr_0) \right.}\\
\hspace{9.0cm} \frac{ \left. + \left( \frac{16 \cdot \pi^2 \cdot r_0^4}{3 \cdot k} + \frac{\left( 3 - 368 \cdot \pi^2 \right) \cdot r_0^2}{6 \cdot k^3} + \frac{176 \cdot \pi^2 + 3}{6 \cdot k^5} \right) \cdot sin(kr_0) \cdot cos(kr_0) \right\}}{ \left. + \left( \frac{16 \cdot r_0^3}{k} - \frac{72 \cdot r_0}{k^3} \right) \cdot sin(kr_0) \cdot cos(kr_0) \right\}}\\
\end{array} \end{array} $}\\
\end{equation}
\noindent\\
With this mass formula it thus is possible to calculate the mass of the elementary particle only with the following three parameters:\\
\noindent\\
Surface charge $Q$ (here: elementary charge e)\\
\noindent\\
particle radius $r_0$\\
\noindent\\
spin angular frequency $\omega$\\

twistor59 · **#271** by **twistor59** » May 31, 2014 1:27 pm

LaTeX is broken I'm afraid Arthur.

campermon · **#272** by **campermon** » May 31, 2014 1:28 pm

twistor59 wrote:LaTeX is broken I'm afraid Arthur.

yes...

just looking for an online converter..

hackenslash · **#273** by **hackenslash** » May 31, 2014 1:40 pm

All the ones I can find have a character limit well below the content of that post.

campermon · **#274** by **campermon** » May 31, 2014 1:42 pm

hackenslash wrote:All the ones I can find have a character limit well below the content of that post.

Me too.

I've found a couple but they fail because of the <noindent> tags etc..

twistor59 · **#275** by **twistor59** » May 31, 2014 1:52 pm

: helmholtz.gif (4.96 KiB) Viewed 2198 times

meh didn't quite work

campermon · **#276** by **campermon** » May 31, 2014 1:53 pm

twistor59 wrote:
helmholtz.gif
meh didn't quite work

Yeah, I got the same from 'textify'

hackenslash · **#277** by **hackenslash** » May 31, 2014 2:54 pm

campermon · **#278** by **campermon** » May 31, 2014 3:10 pm

^That's a big sum.

Haven't got a clue where it comes from or what it means!

:beer:

Arthur · **#279** by **Arthur** » May 31, 2014 3:47 pm

Thank You very much, twistor59 and hackenslash for bringing the mass formula on the screen.
(The "cdot" in front of the bracket has to be replaced by a point)
Herewith I proudly present the mass formula. With this formula You are able, to calculate the mass of every elementary particle.
"k" is the wave vector, its value k = spin angular frequency / speed of light.
"e" is the elementary charge, that is the same for every particle. "r0" is the radius of the particle. "mu_0" is the permeability constant of the vacuum and pi is the circle constant.

DavidMcC · **#280** by **DavidMcC** » Jun 04, 2014 4:27 pm

Arthur wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Arthur wrote:
Photons are always travelling at light speed

Since it is clear that photons don't exist, I avoid the word "photon" and use "light quantum" or just "quantum".
Quantums only travel in the vacuum, so the sentence above is valid. In the case a quantum meets a gravitational field of e.g. that one of an atom or molecule, the light beam is bent,
...

So, for you, photons don't exist, yet "light quantum" does. What is the difference?

So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Re: So can someone explain curved space to me?

Who is online