New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

particle physics in a pig's eye

Days

Commentator
Can you see an atom? Or is it too small? How about a particle, even the largest particle (proton or neutron) - isn't that much smaller than an atom? Can you see a proton stream passing through your head? What would that look like, if it was visible? A stream of light?

I ask because the astronauts saw tiny flares of "radiation" in Low Earth Orbit. We are told radiation is a particle stream... you know, protons and neutrons... how could a human see anything that tiny? What is the highest magnification of an electron microscope? Would you believe 2 million x?

Whatever the astronauts were seeing streaking across their skulls with their eyes shut... a human can not see an atomic particle, which, by the way, is another 1000 times smaller than an atom. Electron microscopes have taken pictures of atoms, after that it is a detection process, we can't see anything as small as a proton or neutron with an electron microscope. The human eye can not see the flaws in a diamond that show up on a 1000 x loop. Heck, we can not see the flaws that show up on a 50 x loop. Okay? Nobody has ever seen high energy particles in space, not with an electron microscope and certainly not with their eyes closed streaking across their retinas.

Such is the nonsense we swallow.

What is light?

Light is a wave, is it also a particle? Anyone ever see a particle of light? You do realize that a photon is just a measurement of light, the same way an inch is a measurement of distance? Is a measurement a particle? (No) A measurement is not composed of anything, in and of itself, it is just a scale for measuring. How many particles in a "degree"? None, people, it is a measurement of heat, it is like asking how many particles in a number? Numbers are measurements, they don't exist except in our minds, they have no matter. A photon is not a particle of light, it is a measurement of light... useful for mathematics. Okay? There's no protons, neutrons, or electrons in a photon. Light is a wave of energy, it is not, nor does it contain particles. Particle physics is simply a method for measuring... when particle physics measures light, it pretends light is a particle - for the purpose of measuring - but light is not a particle, there is no protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, elements, molecules composing light. The stars have elements, but the light they emit does not. There is no light from stars that carries elements, there is nothing in light, no particles, no hydrogen, helium, or carbon or lead, nada, light is not a particle nor does it carry particles, it is a reversing magnetic field that moves through a vacuum; by the way, vacuums - by definition - have no particles, no matter, nothing, a vacuum is the absence of particles. So whatever science is detecting when they detect quarks from distance stars, which, by the way, quarks are again another 1000 times smaller than electrons which are a 1000 times smaller than protons which are another 1000 times smaller than the smallest thing we can see with an electron microscope... an atom... guess why it is called "theoretical physics"? But vacuums are not theoretical. And space is a vacuum. Science used to believe space is an aether... that it contained something to transmit light, conduct the electricity... but today we believe space is a vacuum. Uhm, you know, no particles. At least we say we believe that, then we start saying light is a particle and a wave, which is really just our teachers trying to explain the old math from the days of aether... ouch.

Is there any particles that are necessary or in some way compose a magnetic field? (No) What is magnetism and gravity? You have to answer that they are "forces". Here's the scary part. A force doesn't exist, it doesn't contain matter, it is really just another measurement. We have no way to define any difference between gravity and magnetism, they both are definitions, descriptions, measurements, of the force between matter. That can be between large clumps of matter, such as a black hole, or be between tiny particles of matter such as protons or neutrons, after that, those theoretical particles smaller than protons, have no gravity, no atomic weight, they are too small to measure, and we don't even know that they exist other than we are detecting something, but we don't really know what it is we are detecting, we have no idea if an electron is a particle or not. Is electricity a flow of electrons? Sure it is, and we measure that flow with "amperage". Amperage, like degrees and photons, is a measurement, and like a vacuum, it doesn't exist, it has no matter, it is theoretical, like a number. No particles in a measurement, people.

A reversing magnetic field moves through a vacuum by means of "induction". Again, no particles. When a Coronal Mass Ejection explodes on the surface of the sun, it loops out into space and... and... and... falls right back into the sun. Nothing escapes into space, nothing of any atomic weight, if it has weight, if it is anything as big as a proton so that it has mass, then how in the hell is it escaping the gravity of the sun? (It isn't)
 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
Flares are concentrations of light. And light has no mass, it isn't a particle, it is, however, a wave. Radiation is a wave of magnetism. It is energy, but it is pure energy, and what is energy? Again, what is magnetism? What is gravity? What is the strong force and the weak force in an atom? Can we say it is the measurement that corresponds to a proton and an electron? Invisible forces or just mathematics? What's the difference? Mathematics is itself a purely theoretical exercise. There is no dividing line between gravity, magnetism, mathematics, and energy... they are all measurements, they are all theoretical... they have no mass, just as space has no mass and light has no mass, space is a vacuum; which is the quality of having no mass. (no particles)

So the next time you read that a solar flare emitted a particle stream, a particle storm, of charged particles, ions and whatever else theoretical particles they want to claim is traveling through space; hurling through space at millions of miles per hour, filling the vacuum of space with mass, creating an aether, oh shit, is that what that means? (yep) It is the old math of particle physics. It isn't real. It doesn't exist. It was just math, people, there is no particles, if there was, space would contain mass, and star light would be raining carbon and gold, and lithium down on us.... and by the way, they pretend that is happening too. DNA does not come from space. Nothing comes from space, or space is not a vacuum. Because... light is a wave and is not, nor ever contains particles.

So what is captured in the earth's magnetosphere? Do the Van Allen belts actaully contain protons? Or is it the charge of protons? And does that charge slowly fade away (over ten years)? If it was a particle, where does the particle disappear to? Protons have mass, they have atomic weight, how can mass just disappear? the charge of an ion dissipates over time, slowly fading to black, but if the ion was really a particle, the particle can not just vanish, that's against the law of physics, only God can do that, physics does not allow it, nothing can be created or destroyed, just changed from matter into energy and back... which is another way of saying created and destroyed, but that's a different problem, at any rate, if the particle became enrgy, the charge should have increased not faded to zero, so there was no particle, only the charge, the magnetic force, the energy that we associate with a particle because we like to use units when we measure stuff, but we never stop to ask ourselves, is light really a particle? Does it contain protons, neutrons and electrons? Are there atoms hurling through space? Or is light an electromagnetic wave? Do radio waves transmit particles? Does your receiver get clogged up with atoms? Empty any carbon, lead, magnesium, copper, hydrogen, etc out of your tuner lately? When you gety an x-ray, are they shooting you with lead? Or is it just an electromagnetic wave? See any elements forming in your microwave oven? Probably not. Electromagnetic waves are not, nor do they contain particles, mass, atoms, elements, they are energy, not mass. Particles absorb energy, that does not make energy a particle.

So, how does an ion stream from the sun move slower than the speed of light? Maybe it isn't the same type of magnetic field as visible light? An electromagneitc wave is a transmission, so maybe an ion stream has a different composition and therefore moves at a different speed? Can light slow down, can it move slower than the speed of light? Theoretically, we are told "no, light always moves at the speed of light" (heh) In a vacuum, that is. which doesn't contain particles, like glass or water, which we know slows down the speed of light, light travels slower through water, but it does travel through water, because light does not use an aether, it is an electromagnetic wave, it is a reversing magnetic field, so it travels via induction, and it will therefore travel through anything, that is, until mass absorbs it, which water will do.

Ever stop and ask yourself what "radiation" is? How about, a wave of energy? Sun rays are energy waves. No particles, people. Do we rip apart atoms with atomic bombs or are we merely collecting a certain element that happens to tear itself apart? Is there any reason to believe that mankind couldn't have gathered that element in ancient times? According to our measurement, a particle is missing afterwards... now remember, the measurement was just a measurement of force to begin with, so the resulting measurement of particles and energy released is also still a measurement of forces. no one actually can see a proton or neutron, hence, all you have there is math. e = mc2 is a formula for measuring forces, it doesn't verify that a particle has changed into energy... that's just a theory. Same as those charged particles trapped in the Van Allen belts... measurements of energy; not real world particles, not atoms, not elements, not actaul mass. Matter does not bend, light does that, because it is a wave, but light has no mass.

capice?
 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
cosmic rays have a shorter wavelength, than say, x-rays or ultra-violet rays, hence they are smaller, but they are still electromagnetic waves, not particles. If you want to call that wave an alpha particle, that's just a definition, a theoretical summary for what is there, but if you think there is an actual particle for every wave, it would build the most solid element conceivable, way thicker than lead or gold or stone.

Think what it is, microwaves are electromagnetic waves. They are the same wave length as a water molecule. Are they particles? Does it rain inside your microwave oven when you hit the start button? There are low frequency radio waves that are very long wavelengths, 10,000 feet long, do you get 10,000 foot long particles? There is no upper or lower limit to the electromagnetic wave spectrum, we just label bands of frequencies in the size range we work with, but the spectrum goes to infinity in both directions, just like numbers go to infinity, or better yet, measurements of size go to infinity towards larger and smaller.

Here's the catch, electromagnetic waves are all the same thing, there's no difference between a radio wave on your AM dial and a radiowave on your FM dial, they are the same animal, just different wavelength. If you increase the frequency with which you produce the wave, it produces a shorter wave, a faster vibration, and that's all an electromagnetic wave is, it is a vibration - not in air but in magnetic field - an electromagnetic vibration. Looks the same as a sound wave: (~) The difference is the medium that is vibrating. Sound requires an aether; some type of gas, liquid, or solid... the vibration of that medium produces the sound wave. Electromagnetic waves do not require an aether, they travel through a vacuum, it is a resonation of electromagnetism, even radio waves that are converted to sound by electronic tuners are not resonating an aether, they are their own occurance in nature, a reversing magnetic field that travels (shines) forth in a wave, dissipating as they go.

What they call alpha particles are tiny charges, but not large enough to constitute a particle anyway. How small is an alpha particle? Did you know that stars broadcast electromagnetic waves at all frequencies? We can "look" at the stars at various wavelengths, we have microscopes set up at all the bandwidths above and below the narrow bandwisth of visible light.

ions are charged particles. But are they really particles? We do not know if an electron is really a particle, how much more theoretical is an alpha particle or quark? For a working understanding of mass, anything smaller than a proton is too small to contain mass, it has no weight, hence, it isn't a particle. If they don't label it a particle, your mind won't understand it exists. And since they can detect it, it exists, so they label it a particle, but anything smaller than an electron doesn't rteally exist, there is no particle there; we are talking radiation, we are talking energy... capice?
 
Last edited:

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
cosmic rays have a shorter wavelength, than say, x-rays or ultra-violet rays, hence they are smaller, but they are still electromagnetic waves, not particles. If you want to call that wave an alpha particle, that's just a definition, a theoretical summary for what is there, but if you think there is an actual particle for every wave, it would build the most solid element conceivable, way thicker than lead or gold or stone.

Think what it is, microwaves are electromagnetic waves. They are the same wave length as a water molecule. Are they particles? Does it rain inside your microwave oven when you hit the start button? There are low frequency radio waves that are very long wavelengths, 10,000 feet long, do you get 10,000 feet long particles? There is no upper or lower limit to the electromagnetic wave spectrum, we just label bands of frequencies in the size range we work with, but the spectrum goes to infinity in both directions, just like numbers go to infinity, or better yet, measurements of size go to infinity towards larger and smaller.

Here's the catch, electromagnetic waves are all the same thing, there's no difference between a radio wave on your AM dial and a radiowave on your FM dial, they are the same animal, just different wavelength. If you increase the frequency with which you produce the wave, it produces a shorter wave, a faster vibration, and that's all an electromagnetic wave is, it is a vibration - not in air but in magnetic field - an electromagnetic vibration. Looks the same as a sound wave: (~) The difference is the medium that is vibrating. Sound requires an aether; some type of gas, the vibration of that gas produces the sound wave. Electromagnetic waves do not require an aether, they travel through a vacuum, it is a resonation of electromagnetism, even radio waves that are converted to sound by electronic tuners are not resonating an aether, they are their own occurance in nature, a reversing magnetic field that travels (shines) forth in a wave, dissipating as they go.

What they call alpha particles are tiny charges, but not large enough to constitute a particle anyway. How small is an alpha particle? Did you know that stars broadcast electromagnetic waves at all frequencies? We can "look" at the stars at various wavelengths, we have microscopes set up at all the bandwidths above and below the narrow bandwisth of visible light.

ions are charged particles. But are they really particles? We do not know if an electron is really a particle, how much more theoretical is an alpha particle or quark? For a working understanding of mass, anything smaller than a proton is too small to contain mass, it has no weight, hence, it isn't a particle. If they don't label it a particle, your mind won't understand it exists. And since they can detect it, it exists, so they label it a particle, but anything smaller than an electron doesn't rteally exist, there is no particle there; we are talking radiation, we are talking energy... capice?
Whoooosh! Are you claiming you can see cosmic rays but not particles? WTF?

Obviously the lines made in a cloud chamber are not the particles themselves, but the "wake" they leave as they move through the chamber. Similarly, the flashes of light astronauts saw wasn't cosmic rays per se, but the cone or rod being triggered which is perceived as light even though there really is none.

http://www.universetoday.com/94714/seeing-cosmic-rays-in-space/
Pettit described the physics/biology of what takes place:

“When a cosmic ray happens to pass through the retina it causes the rods and cones to fire, and you perceive a flash of light that is really not there. The triggered cells are localized around the spot where the cosmic ray passes, so the flash has some structure. A perpendicular ray appears as a fuzzy dot. A ray at an angle appears as a segmented line. Sometimes the tracks have side branches, giving the impression of an electric spark. The retina functions as a miniature Wilson cloud chamber where the recording of a cosmic ray is displayed by a trail left in its wake.”
 

Days

Commentator
Whoooosh! Are you claiming you can see cosmic rays but not particles? WTF?

Obviously the lines made in a cloud chamber are not the particles themselves, but the "wake" they leave as they move through the chamber. Similarly, the flashes of light astronauts saw wasn't cosmic rays per se, but the cone or rod being triggered which is perceived as light even though there really is none.

http://www.universetoday.com/94714/seeing-cosmic-rays-in-space/
Pettit described the physics/biology of what takes place:

“When a cosmic ray happens to pass through the retina it causes the rods and cones to fire, and you perceive a flash of light that is really not there. The triggered cells are localized around the spot where the cosmic ray passes, so the flash has some structure. A perpendicular ray appears as a fuzzy dot. A ray at an angle appears as a segmented line. Sometimes the tracks have side branches, giving the impression of an electric spark. The retina functions as a miniature Wilson cloud chamber where the recording of a cosmic ray is displayed by a trail left in its wake.”
so it isn't possible to see a particle a billion times smaller than an atom, but we can detect the presence of the electromagnetic wave, even as we detect the presence of sunlight upon our skin and it enables vision, so we are also detecting the wavelength through our eyesight. Does that make a photon a particle of light? Heck no, it is a measurement of light, not a particle. Can we detect things that have no mass? Sure, sunlight for one... stick your hand in a microwave oven and you will detect microwaves with your hand... not a very smart idea, btw, but you get my point. Detection of the wave does not equal existance of a particle. What we label as particles are better understood as charges. If you can grasp that particles that small have no weight, no gravity, no mass... then go ahead and call them particles; as long as you realize it is a theoretical for their existance; not a definition for the manner in which they exist...just because we can plot time on a graph, doesn't make time a dimension. Time has no dimension, it is a measurement. It doesn't take up space, it has no mass... capice?
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
so it isn't possible to see a particle a billion times smaller than an atom...
Correct. Like the cloud chamber, we're seeing the results of it's passing, not the particle itself.

Large ships passing through the night at sea churn up bioluminescence. On a dark, moonless, overcast night, it may be impossible to see a 90,000 ton aircraft carrier, but the wake it leaves behind it shines like a road map to the ship.

 

Days

Commentator
Whoooosh! Are you claiming you can see cosmic rays but not particles? WTF?

Obviously the lines made in a cloud chamber are not the particles themselves, but the "wake" they leave as they move through the chamber. Similarly, the flashes of light astronauts saw wasn't cosmic rays per se, but the cone or rod being triggered which is perceived as light even though there really is none.

http://www.universetoday.com/94714/seeing-cosmic-rays-in-space/
Pettit described the physics/biology of what takes place:

“When a cosmic ray happens to pass through the retina it causes the rods and cones to fire, and you perceive a flash of light that is really not there. The triggered cells are localized around the spot where the cosmic ray passes, so the flash has some structure. A perpendicular ray appears as a fuzzy dot. A ray at an angle appears as a segmented line. Sometimes the tracks have side branches, giving the impression of an electric spark. The retina functions as a miniature Wilson cloud chamber where the recording of a cosmic ray is displayed by a trail left in its wake.”
Now that we understand what gravity is - a force of attraction - but it is not mass, it is the attraction of mass. Now that we understand that, maybe we can attempt to explain why larger bodies of mass tend to structure their gravity in radials. The radials of gravity collect mass through their attraction to mass, and eventually the radial field of gravity is littered with dust and rocks and we call that "rings"... like the rings of Saturn. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus all have rings, but the earth only has a magnetosphere, nothing as powerful as a radial of gravity. Are the planets orbiting the sun in the sun's radial of gravity? Did you know there is tropic of cancer and capricorn on the sun where all the sunspots form? Are those two latitudes the radials of gravity of the sun? Do gravity radials of solid planets attract solid materials while gravity radials of stars attract electromagnetic material?

We pretend gas giants have less density that solid planets, hence, we say Saturn has the same gravity as planet earth... but Saturn has the strongest rings in the solar system, hence the strongest radial of gravity. Maybe Saturn is less dense than the earth, but it has a stronger gravity than earth... NASA has not caught up with that yet. If NASA does not understand the gravity of Saturn, how could they possibly have flown a probe all around it these past dozen years? Supposedly, Cassini has sent back pics of Saturns rings and moons and is flying in and around Saturn's radial of gravity. Apparently, that radial of gravity has no attraction for, or in no way affects the flight path of Cassini. If entire moons are held by that radial of gravity, I'm pretty sure Cassini would be affected. You don't just fly in and out and through Saturn's radial of gravity for 12 years, as if it wasn't there. It is there, we have detected it, the bloody rings scream it is there, so why hasn't Cassini measured it? And how is Cassini taking pics of the rings without being attracted to the gravity? Try to imagine how powerful and how concentrated a gravity radial is. Galaxies are pinwheels of stars that are caught in the gravity radial of the black hole at the center. Some say the stars themselves are born of the gravity radial. Gravity radials are the most powerful naturally existing forces in the universe; when cosmologists forecast the future interaction between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, what they depict is the interaction between the gravity radials of the two black holes.

gravity radials are forces of attraction, they have no mass in and of themselves but objects with mass will be caught in/attracted to their gravity. Planets have gravity and electromagnetic fields but they do not broadcast electromagnetic waves, like a star does. A planet may have that occuring in an ocean wake or tide, but that is a broadcast by a material on the surface of the planet, not to be confused with starlight.

Mass has gravity.

A proton has gravity.

An alpha particle, and an electron, has a charge - but no gravity.

I can't tell you the difference between an electrical charge, an electromagnetic charge, and gravity. They are all forces. We can detect them, we can measure them, just as we can detect and measure a magnetic field. But define the difference in the forces? Can't go there, cuz we do not understand what exactly the force is. It is as elusive as defining God. We detect his presence, we even measure the gift of the holy spirit, and yet, we can not define God. Damned if I can tell the difference between angels any more than I can tell the difference between forces. Magnetic forces only act on magnetic materials, while gravity acts on any material, but try to define the difference between the attraction/force of magnetism and gravity... all you can say is there is a force there, there is an attraction there. You can measure the force, but how can you define it? There is nothing there to define, there is no mass with characteristics, which we use to define elements, but we have nothing to discern between the gravity of one element compared to the gravity of a different element, it is just an attraction, a force.

The resonation of an electromagnetic field emits (broadcasts) an electromagnetic wave. It contains no mass. Particle physics is measuring electromagnetic waves as if it was a particle. That's okay for measurement, but don't get caught up in the idea that light has mass, it doesn't. Light is a wave, light is not a particle... but we measure it as a particle.
 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
Reality: the more you chase it, the more elusive it becomes. I like flat earthers because they have the courage to make their own observations, but they fall susceptible to their own religion, become true believers, and of course, that always leads to idiocy. But still, our whole root knowledge is a collection of good ideas made by people who were mostly idiots, so you have to hang onto the good ideas, while walking around the idiocy. Take Einstein, he went off the deep end with matter and anti-matter, and the space-time wrinkle ideas. Like the girl said, "100% complete bull shit". But still, that doesn't mean we have to go all out religious and throw away gravity, I still believe in gravitational waves, I just don't believe they are wrinkles in space or time.

I'm hoping my reader has some idea what I am talking about. There are those who believe gravity is a farce and that we live in a purely electrical universe, and they are not freaks, they are the best of the best, at least they see through all this dark matter bullshit. But they stumble where everybody stumbles, because the truth is, man does not understand particle physics. We have pieces to the puzzle, but we can't see the whole picture. We keep making mathematical formulas to explain what we are seeing, but it is like this huge pile of formulas that collectively makes no sense. Einstein spent his whole life trying to make sense of his formulas, and you can't make sense of them because they are not drawing from a common core of understanding, they are unconnected observations, far flung theories, when the very model of the atom is still not understood, how in the hell is it possible to make sense of a "god particle" and its associated field?

Look, gravity is real. I understand that like forces repel, but dammit, if protons and neutrons pack together to form a nucleus; then they are attracted to each other, and that just can not be reconciled with electromagnetic charges. But this whole ridiculous bullshit of dreaming up the equal and opposite force for every single nucleus that exists and assigning that force to the containment of every last nucleus of every last atom; that whole idea is bunk. So if the foundation is crazy, what happens next is bound to be crazier. At the same time, you can't throw everything away and start over, the whole field of physics relies on electrical charges... and you can't give up on gravity or gravitational waves, because they obviously exist, just not in the same way that Einstein's theories say they exist.

Space is truly empty. Space is the absence of matter, it is not itself made of matter. Light and gravity travel through space, and matter can pass through space, but space is not itself matter, it is just space, there is no matter there. Likewise time is a measurement of occurrence, but it is not a dimension, it doesn't take up space. So Einstein got space and time wrong. But that doesn't mean he got gravity or relativity wrong, he just went off the deep end with his theories. We just recorded gravitational waves, so he got that much right, but were those gravitational waves truly ripples in space and time? Hell no, unless we all died and don't realize we are just ghosts, or unless you can ripple through the matter in a human body and it all comes back together after each ripple, and trust me, the gravitational waves are still going through us, so how are we still existing? If the matter that we think of, in atoms and molecules and cells, is being rippled in space and time, the very atoms themselves are being torn and stretched, how the hell are you going to live through that? And it is happening non-stop your whole life? No, it isn't, life would not exist if that was what a gravitational wave does... but thankfully, gravitational waves are just waves of gravity, they don't ripple space or time. Time is not a dimension so it can't be rippled. Space is the absence of matter, so there is nothing there to ripple. capice?

SamIamNot had an argument with me about Solar Particle Events. (solar flares; the big ones are Coronal Mass Ejections) So, I asked Sam, how did he think the particles (charged protons and electrons) were moving through space? Sam gave the answer that agrees with what science tells us; because those particles do not begin to move at the speed of light, after all they have atomic weight, these are huge boulders compared to the neutrons and quirks that fly around at the speed of light, it can take hours and sometimes days for those particles to reach earth from the sun (light travels from the sun to the earth in 10 minutes) - so Sam answered what science tells us; kinetic energy, the explosion on the surface of the sun that we observe as a flare propels the particles out from the sun and they travel to the earth. Only thing is, it isn't true, and science knows it isn't true, even the biggest flares that kick huge wallops of material out into space; Coronal Mass Ejections, sure, those explosions eject the mass outward, but then the Sun's gravity sucks it all right back to the surface, nothing is escaping by means of kinetic force, in fact, it doesn't get very far. So how does a flare kick a stream of charged particles out into space(?); because that does happen. What I told Sam is the particles are part of the sun's rays and they move the same way sunlight moves; reciprocating electrical charge; aka, induction.

Now, Sam just left after I wrote that, he vanished for whatever reason; I think because he didn't want to go into that rabbit hole (DITRH = Deep Into The Rabbit Hole) because after all, solar particle events are moving at millions of miles per hour but nothing close to the speed of light, so how in heaven and earth can I say the particles are moving through space by induction; IOW, traveling by means of reciprocating charges, if the particles are not traveling at the speed of light? Sam didn't want to ask that question, he was already beat when I went to the definition of a solar flare which is an explosion of light; so if the light itself is exploding, it is traveling as light, even if that makes no sense for a particle as large as a proton and especially if the particle isn't traveling at the speed of light. So right there, that's a good time to walk away from the argument, because if you have to ask all those questions, then you have to admit you was wrong when you said you understood solar particle events better than I do. But explain it, how was he going to explain it? No one can explain it, so there's the dilemma. That's why you don't come and challenge someone in physics and pretend to have all the answers, NO ONE has all the answers.

What I do is work with the problem and make observations and try to conjecture what might be happening there. I always say, I could be wrong, some times I have to admit that i was dead wrong, big deal... no one has it right, so let's keep trying at this, eh? The strongest explosions are still not strong enough to kick mass free of the sun, so the particles are not being thrust away from the sun purely by fusion's explosions, but they are being tossed out there, and the explosion is freeing a lot of particles, but something must take over to keep those particles traveling away from the sun... what else is traveling away from the sun, that could push those particles along? Only answer: light. But the particles are not light, which is pure energy, the particles have mass, but the mass is charged; that's the key, the electromagnetic wave is interacting with the charge in the particles and it is the electromagnetic charge that is pushing the particles; so in one sense, this really is induction that is carrying the particles, but the particles are not themselves rays of light, traveling at the speed of light, even though they came out of explosions of light, they have mass, but they are tiny enough to be carried by the charge they obtained from the solar flare explosion and the waves of radiation from the sun pushes them and propels them along; electrical charge is what moves them out into space; they get their start from kinetic force of the fusion explosion, but they travel by electrical charge; the induction of reciprocating charges that moves sunlight through a vacuum is bumping those particles along, like a log being pushed by the current of water in a river.

I might be wrong, but I'm probably correct, cuz, this is the obvious answer. At least, it becomes obvious once you analyze all the forces present there.
 

Days

Commentator
Now, let's look at Einstein's general theory of relativity. Einstein bridged Newton's gravity with the particle definition of space (aether) to give us a working model of mathematics for the force of gravity. What does that mean? It means he assigned space the definition of particle physics, he viewed space as an aether of sorts, except without saying it was filled with mass. In other words, he defined space as composed of particles without those particles being particles of anything.... a kind of theoretical existence as particles; he named that theoretical existence "matter". This gave forces a quasi-solid form, it made numbers and measurement into real things, except, it was theoretical... not quite the same as something as real as a cow or the moon... what Einstein did was make the cow jumping over the moon equally as real as the cow and the moon. Einstein defined the gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields as the space they inhabited; so space itself became the forces that pass through it and inhabit it.

Let's slow down and think about this for a critical moment or two, shall we? If it took between 1905 - 1915 to make the math work for this theory, what was Einstein really working on? He was working on defining the force of gravity - something Newton never really did - Einstein turned gravity into something real, something tangible, after the general theory of relativity, mankind thinks of gravity as if it was something that exists, like a wrench or a screwdriver, we envision gravity the same way we envision electromagnetic waves. The difference between gravity and electromagnetic waves is stark; electromagnetic waves are contained in frequencies, they are real vibrations in a magnetic field and they can be produced or absorbed, they really do exist... meanwhile gravity is just a force, a measurement of force, there's no way to create or destroy or manipulate gravity, it is the direct consequence of mass. Gravity doesn't exist the same way an electromagnetic wave exists; although they both are forces, electromagnetic waves are transmission of energy, they have construction, they exist in a certain form, they are way beyond abstract measurement... gravity is merely a force of and between mass. Gravity is a different animal from an electromagnetic wave; gravity has no form, it doesn't exist in any real way, it is abstract, it is theoretical, it is measurement, it occurs as a force but it doesn't take up space or fill space in any way. Electromagnetic waves are energy, they pass through space, fill up space, they are real, they exist, they have form and substance.

Let's look at the space between the sun and the earth. It is a vacuum. And yet, it contains electromagnetic waves and various forces. The sun is sending out a magnetic field and so is the earth. The sun projects a gravitational radial, while the earth has mass and is therefore exerting and reacting to the force of gravity. The black hole in the center of the Milky way is also projecting a gravity radial that contains the space between the sun and earth... so there's lots of forces and energy present in the vacuum of space between the sun and earth. If we define the space as the forces present (gravity or magnetic fields) ... which force is the space? Is the space the gravitational radial of the sun? Or is it the magnetic field of the earth? Or is it the gravitational radial of the galaxy's black hole? It can't be a combination of all forces present because those forces are not the same nature; the magnetic field of the earth does not mix with gravitational forces; they are separate forces. So you have to conclude that the space contains the forces but it is not itself those forces.

I'm not saying there is no such thing as gravity - I believe in gravity. I also believe in God. I'm just saying that space is not particles of matter, it is the absence of matter. Matter is not the building block of space, it is the definition for all things that exist... but the force of gravity or the space it inhabits is not matter; because they have no form, they only exist as measurements.

And yet, I will contend that the general theory of relativity holds true, because it measures the force of gravity between bodies of mass. Even if it makes definitions for the purpose of that measurement that are flawed, the measurement itself was accurate. Think of it this way: Einstein worked for 10 years to measure the gravity force present between the earth and sun; even if he did so by defining the space it inhabits as the force itself, he still managed to come up with the math and measure the force present in that space. So the theory works because he got the math right. But the definitions were wrong. This is why Einstein could never tie together all his theories; they had flaws that were like loose ends that would never be tied together. But Einstein couldn't see where his math was correct and where his definitions they worked with were wrong. In 1905, man still thought that space was an aether. Today, we have forgotten what an aether is, so we don't get it, we don't understand what the thinking was, we adapt the idea of gravity to our understanding, we don't really understand what Einstein was thinking when he dreamed up the general theory of relativity.
 
Last edited:

Fast Eddy

Mayor
Some people believe that everything is a wave, particles just being concentrations of waves.
They now feel that space is not empty, but consists of particles poping in and out of existance. The amount of energy in the vacume is huge.
 

Days

Commentator
Some people believe that everything is a wave, particles just being concentrations of waves.
They now feel that space is not empty, but consists of particles poping in and out of existance. The amount of energy in the vacume is huge.
Even if particles really do exist as solid chunks of matter, everything that takes form is a result of forces. The different elements are altogether the product of force relationships between subparticles in the atom and especially atomic bonds in molecules. Without these forces that hold together mostly space, we would not have anything, force is the building block of matter. No one really knows what those forces consist of; if indeed they exist at all, maybe the best way to understand our existence is to say "all things consist of and are held together by the power of God" ... that certainly describes quantum mechanics better than Einstein's theories; and I'm not sure Einstein wouldn't have agreed. It seems the closer we look at the stuff that we think is solid and real... the closer we look, the less we see. Matter is mostly space. The nature of reality is a massive network of bondings, forces, and yes, electromagnetic waves. It is real easy to see why Einstein labeled space matter; an atom is 99.999999% space, it is easy to see why Einstein settled on calling the forces present in space the same as the space itself; both are void and empty; it is real tough to point at any difference.

Then there's the crazy nature of particles; like you say, particles pop into existence and pop out of existence, they break all the laws of physics even as they form them. You have to love the strict constructionists of the 19th century, they keep us sane... once you dive into theoretical physics and search the realms of sub sub sub particles... sanity becomes more and more precious. Could particles simply be concentrations of electromagnetic waves? I guess so. That takes us full circle from electromagnetic waves being treated as particles. The best theories in physics are the ones that stare long and hard at electromagnetic waves; they truly are the source of all life, the conveyors of energy, and the rhythm of the universe.
 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
particle physics in a pig's eye

Can you see an atom? Or is it too small? How about a particle, even the largest particle (proton or neutron) - isn't that much smaller than an atom? Can you see a proton stream passing through your head? What would that look like, if it was visible? A stream of light?

I ask because the astronauts saw tiny flares of "radiation" in Low Earth Orbit. We are told radiation is a particle stream... you know, protons and neutrons... how could a human see anything that tiny? What is the highest magnification of an electron microscope? Would you believe 2 million x?

Whatever the astronauts were seeing streaking across their skulls with their eyes shut... a human cannot see an atomic particle, which, by the way, is another 1000 times smaller than an atom. Electron microscopes have taken pictures of atoms, after that it is a detection process, we can't see anything as small as a proton or neutron with an electron microscope. The human eye cannot see the flaws in a diamond that show up on a 1000 x loop. Heck, we cannot see the flaws that show up on a 50 x loop. Okay? Nobody has ever seen high energy particles in space, not with an electron microscope and certainly not with their eyes closed streaking across their retinas.

Such is the nonsense we swallow.

What is light?

Light is a wave, is it also a particle? Anyone ever see a particle of light? You do realize that a photon is just a measurement of light, the same way an inch is a measurement of distance? Is a measurement a particle? (No) A measurement is not composed of anything, in and of itself, it is just a scale for measuring. How many particles in a "degree"? None, people, it is a measurement of heat, it is like asking how many particles in a number? Numbers are measurements, they don't exist except in our minds, they have no matter. A photon is not a particle of light, it is a measurement of light... useful for mathematics. Okay? There's no protons, neutrons, or electrons in a photon. Light is a wave of energy, it is not, nor does it contain particles. Particle physics is simply a method for measuring... when particle physics measures light, it pretends light is a particle - for the purpose of measuring - but light is not a particle, there are no protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, elements, molecules composing light. The stars have elements, but the light they emit does not. There is no light from stars that carries elements, there is nothing in light, no particles, no hydrogen, helium, or carbon or lead, nada, light is not a particle nor does it carry particles, it is a reversing magnetic field that moves through a vacuum; by the way, vacuums - by definition - have no particles, no matter, nothing, a vacuum is the absence of particles. So whatever science is detecting when they detect quarks from distance stars, which, by the way, quarks are again another 1000 times smaller than electrons, which are another 1000 times smaller than protons, which are another 1000 times smaller than the smallest thing we can see with an electron microscope... an atom... hey now, can you see why it is called "theoretical physics"? But vacuums are not theoretical. And space is a vacuum. Science used to believe space is an aether... that it contained something to transmit light, conduct the electricity... but today we believe space is a vacuum. (Uhm, you know, no particles.) At least we say we believe that, then we start saying light is a particle and a wave, which is really just our teachers trying to explain the old math from the days of aether... ouch.

Is there any particles that are necessary to form or in some way compose a magnetic field? (No) What is magnetism and gravity? You have to answer that they are "forces". Here's the scary part. A force doesn't exist, it doesn't contain matter, it is really just another measurement. We have no way to define any difference between gravity and magnetism, they both are definitions, descriptions, measurements, of the force between matter. That can be between large clumps of matter, such as a black hole, or be between tiny particles of matter such as protons or neutrons, after that, those theoretical particles smaller than protons, have no gravity, no atomic weight, they are too small to measure, and we don't even know that they exist other than we are detecting something, but we don't really know what it is we are detecting, we have no idea if an electron is a particle or not. Is electricity a flow of electrons? Sure, it is, and we measure that flow with "amperage". Amperage, like degrees and photons, is a measurement, and like a vacuum, it doesn't exist in any form, it has no matter, it is theoretical, like a number. No particles in a measurement, people.

A reversing magnetic field moves through a vacuum by means of "induction". Again, no particles. When a Coronal Mass Ejection explodes on the surface of the sun, it loops out into space and... and... and... falls right back into the sun. Nothing escapes into space, nothing of any atomic weight, if it has weight, if it is anything as big as a proton so that it has mass, then how in the hell is it escaping the gravity of the sun? (It isn't)

Flares are concentrations of light. And light has no mass, it isn't a particle, it is, however, a wave. Radiation is a wave of magnetism. It is energy, but it is pure energy, and what is energy? Again, what is magnetism? What is gravity? What is the strong force and the weak force in an atom? Can we say it is the measurement that corresponds to a proton and an electron? Invisible forces or just mathematics? What's the difference? Mathematics is itself a purely theoretical exercise. There is no dividing line between gravity, magnetism, mathematics, and energy... they are all measurements, they are all theoretical... they have no mass, just as space has no mass and light has no mass, space is a vacuum; which is the quality of having no mass. (no particles)

So the next time you read that a solar flare emitted a particle stream, a particle storm, of charged particles, ions and whatever else theoretical particles they want to claim is traveling through space; hurling through space at millions of miles per hour, filling the vacuum of space with mass, creating an aether, oh shit, is that what that means? (yep) It is the old math of particle physics. It isn't real. It doesn't exist. It was just math, people, there is no particles, if there was, space would contain mass, and star light would be raining carbon and gold, and lithium down on us.... and by the way, they pretend that is happening too. DNA does not come from space. Nothing comes from space, or space is not a vacuum. Because... light is a wave and is not, nor ever contains particles.

So what is captured in the earth's magnetosphere? Do the Van Allen belts actually contain protons? Or is it the charge of protons? And does that charge slowly fade away (over ten years)? If it was a particle, where does the particle disappear to? Protons have mass, they have atomic weight, how can mass just disappear? the charge of an ion dissipates over time, slowly fading to black, but if the ion was really a particle, the particle can not just vanish, that's against the law of physics, only God can do that, physics does not allow it, nothing can be created or destroyed, just changed from matter into energy and back... which is another way of saying created and destroyed, but that's a different problem, at any rate, if the particle became energy, the charge should have increased not faded to zero, so there was no particle, only the charge, the magnetic force, the energy that we associate with a particle because we like to use units when we measure stuff, but we never stop to ask ourselves, is light really a particle? Does it contain protons, neutrons and electrons? Are there atoms hurling through space? Or is light an electromagnetic wave? Do radio waves transmit particles? Does your receiver get clogged up with atoms? Empty any carbon, lead, magnesium, copper, hydrogen, etc. out of your tuner lately? When you get an x-ray, are they shooting you with lead? Or is it just an electromagnetic wave? See any elements forming in your microwave oven? Probably not. Electromagnetic waves are not, nor do they contain particles, mass, atoms, elements, they are energy, not mass. Particles absorb energy, that does not make energy a particle.

So, how does an ion stream from the sun move slower than the speed of light? Maybe it isn't the same type of magnetic field as visible light? An electromagnetic wave is a transmission, so maybe an ion stream has a different composition and therefore moves at a different speed? Can light slow down, can it move slower than the speed of light? Theoretically, we are told "no, light always moves at the speed of light" (heh) In a vacuum, that is. which doesn't contain particles, like glass or water, which we know slows down the speed of light, light travels slower through water, but it does travel through water, because light does not use an aether, it is an electromagnetic wave, it is a reversing magnetic field, so it travels via induction, and it will therefore travel through anything, that is, until mass absorbs it, which water will do.
 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
Ever stop and ask yourself what "radiation" is? How about, a wave of energy? Sun rays are energy waves. No particles, people. Do we rip apart atoms with atomic bombs or are we merely collecting a certain element that happens to tear itself apart? Is there any reason to believe that mankind couldn't have gathered that element in ancient times? According to our measurement, a particle is missing afterwards... now remember, the measurement was just a measurement of force to begin with, so the resulting measurement of particles and energy released is also still a measurement of forces. no one actually can see a proton or neutron, hence, all you have there is math. e = mc2 is a formula for measuring forces, it doesn't verify that a particle has changed into energy... that's just a theory. Same as those charged particles trapped in the Van Allen belts... measurements of energy; not real world particles, not atoms, not elements, not actual mass. Matter does not bend, light does that, because it is a wave, but light has no mass.


Cosmic rays have a shorter wavelength, than say, x-rays or ultra-violet rays, hence they are smaller, but they are still electromagnetic waves, not particles. If you want to call that wave an alpha particle, that's just a definition, a theoretical summary for what is there, but if you think there is an actual particle for every wave, it would build the most solid element conceivable, way thicker than lead or gold or stone.

Think what it is, microwaves are electromagnetic waves. They are the same wave length as a water molecule. Are they particles? Does it rain inside your microwave oven when you hit the start button? There are low frequency radio waves that are very long wavelengths, 10,000 feet long, do you get 10,000-foot-long particles? There is no upper or lower limit to the electromagnetic wave spectrum, we just label bands of frequencies in the size range we work with, but the spectrum goes to infinity in both directions, just like numbers go to infinity, or better yet, measurements of size go to infinity towards larger and smaller.

Here's the catch, electromagnetic waves are all the same thing, there's no difference between a radio wave on your AM dial and a radio wave on your FM dial, they are the same animal, just different wavelength. If you increase the frequency with which you produce the wave, it produces a shorter wave, a faster vibration, and that's all an electromagnetic wave is, it is a vibration - not in air but in a magnetic field - an electromagnetic vibration. Looks the same as a sound wave: (~) The difference is the medium that is vibrating. Sound requires an aether; some type of gas, liquid, or solid... the vibration of that medium produces the sound wave. Electromagnetic waves do not require an aether, they travel through a vacuum, it is a resonation of electromagnetism, even radio waves that are converted to sound by electronic tuners are not resonating an aether, they are their own occurrence in nature, a reversing magnetic field that travels (shines) forth in a wave, dissipating as they go.

What they call alpha particles are tiny charges, but not large enough to constitute a particle anyway. How small is an alpha particle? Did you know that stars broadcast electromagnetic waves at all frequencies? We can "look" at the stars at various wavelengths, we have microscopes set up at all the bandwidths above and below the narrow bandwidth of visible light.


Ions are charged particles. But are they really particles? We do not know if an electron is really a particle, how much more theoretical is an alpha particle or quark? For a working understanding of mass, anything smaller than a proton is too small to contain mass, it has no weight, hence, it isn't a particle. If they don't label it a particle, your mind won't understand it exists. And since they can detect it, it exists, so they label it a particle, but anything smaller than an electron doesn't really exist, there is no particle there; we are talking radiation, we are talking energy...


So, it isn't possible to see a particle a billion times smaller than an atom, but we can detect the presence of the electromagnetic wave, even as we detect the presence of sunlight upon our skin … and it enables vision, so we are also detecting the wavelength through our eyesight. Does that make a photon a particle of light? Heck no, it is a measurement of light, not a particle. Can we detect things that have no mass? Sure, sunlight for one... stick your hand in a microwave oven and you will detect microwaves with your hand... not a very smart idea, btw, but you get my point. Detection of the wave does not equal existence of a particle. What we label as particles are better understood as charges. If you can grasp that particles that small have no weight, no gravity, no mass... then go ahead and call them particles; as long as you realize it is a theoretical for their existence; not a definition for the manner in which they exist...just because we can plot time on a graph, doesn't make time a dimension. Time has no dimension, it is a measurement. It doesn't take up space, and it has no mass.


Now that we understand what gravity is - a force of attraction - but it is not mass, it is the attraction of mass. Now that we understand that, maybe we can attempt to explain why larger bodies of mass tend to structure their gravity in radials. The radials of gravity collect mass through their attraction to mass, and eventually the radial field of gravity is littered with dust and rocks and we call that "rings"... like the rings of Saturn. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus all have rings, but the earth only has a magnetosphere, nothing as powerful as a radial of gravity. Are the planets orbiting the sun in the sun's radial of gravity? I think so. Did you know the sun has something akin to a tropic of Cancer and Capricorn; where all the sunspots form? Are those two latitudes also the radials of gravity of the sun? Or are they something like electromagnetic radials? Do gravity radials of solid planets attract solid materials while electromagnetic radials of stars attract electromagnetic material? Sound like a good theory? If enough people read the theory, next thing you know, it gets bandied about as if it was scientific fact. Let’s return to earth in 500 years and see if the scientific community has all made the assumption that stars have electromagnetic radials… maybe I’ve started something here.

We pretend gas giants have less density than solid planets, hence, we say Saturn, which is much larger, has the same gravity as planet earth... but Saturn has the strongest rings in the solar system, hence the strongest radial of gravity. Maybe Saturn is less dense than the earth, but it must have a stronger gravity than earth... NASA has not caught up with that yet. If NASA does not understand the gravity of Saturn, how could they possibly have flown a probe all around it these past dozen years? Supposedly, Cassini has sent back pics of Saturn’s rings and moons and is flying in and around Saturn's radial of gravity. Apparently, that radial of gravity has no attraction for, or in no way affects the flight path of Cassini. If entire moons are held by that radial of gravity, I'm pretty sure Cassini would be affected. You don't just fly in and out and through Saturn's radial of gravity for 12 years, as if it wasn't there. It is there, we have detected it, the bloody rings scream it is there, so why hasn't Cassini measured it? And how is Cassini taking pics of the rings without being attracted to the gravity? Try to imagine how powerful and how concentrated a gravity radial is. Galaxies are pinwheels of stars that are caught in the gravity radial of the black hole at the center. Some say the stars themselves are born of the gravity radial. Gravity radials are the most powerful naturally existing forces in the universe; when cosmologists forecast the future interaction between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, what they depict is the interaction between the gravity radials of the two black holes.

Gravity radials are forces of attraction, they have no mass in and of themselves but objects with mass will be caught in/attracted to their gravity. Planets have gravity and electromagnetic fields but they do not broadcast electromagnetic waves, like a star does. A planet may have that occurring in an ocean wake or tide, but that is a broadcast by a material on the surface of the planet, not to be confused with starlight.

Mass has gravity.

A proton has gravity.

An alpha particle, and an electron, has a charge - but no gravity.

I can't tell you the difference between an electrical charge, an electromagnetic charge, and gravity. They are all forces. We can detect them, we can measure them, just as we can detect and measure a magnetic field. But define the difference in the forces? Can't go there, cuz we do not understand what exactly the force is. It is as elusive as defining God. We detect his presence, we even measure the gift of the holy spirit, and yet, we cannot define God. Damned if I can tell the difference between angels any more than I can tell the difference between forces. Magnetic forces only act on magnetic materials, while gravity acts on any material, but try to define the difference between the attraction/force of magnetism and gravity... all you can say is there is a force there, there is an attraction there. You can measure the force, but how can you define it? There is nothing there to define, there is no mass with characteristics, which we use to define elements, but we have nothing to discern between the gravity of one element compared to the gravity of a different element, it is just an attraction, a force.
 

Days

Commentator
The resonation of an electromagnetic field emits (broadcasts) an electromagnetic wave. It contains no mass. Particle physics is measuring electromagnetic waves as if it was a particle. That's okay for measurement, but don't get caught up in the idea that light has mass, it doesn't. Light is a wave, light is not a particle... but we measure it as a particle.


Reality: the more you chase it, the more elusive it becomes. I like flat earthers because they have the courage to make their own observations, but they fall susceptible to their own religion, become true believers, and of course, that always leads to idiocy. But still, our whole root knowledge is a collection of good ideas made by people who were mostly idiots, so you have to hang onto the good ideas, while walking around the idiocy. Take Einstein, he went off the deep end with matter and anti-matter, and the space-time wrinkle ideas. Like the girl said, "100% complete bull shit". But still, that doesn't mean we have to go all out religious and throw away gravity, I still believe in gravitational waves, I just don't believe they are wrinkles in space or time.

I'm hoping my reader has some idea what I am talking about. There are those who believe gravity is a farce and that we live in a purely electrical universe, and they are not freaks, they are the best of the best, at least they see through all this dark matter bullshit. But they stumble where everybody stumbles, because the truth is, man does not understand particle physics. We have pieces to the puzzle, but we can't see the whole picture. We keep making mathematical formulas to explain what we are seeing, but it is like this huge pile of formulas that collectively makes no sense. Einstein spent his whole life trying to make sense of his formulas, and you can't make sense of them because they are not drawing from a common core of understanding, they are unconnected observations, far flung theories, when the very model of the atom is still not understood, how in the hell is it possible to make sense of a "god particle" and its associated field?

Look, gravity is real. I understand that like forces repel, but dammit, if protons and neutrons pack together to form a nucleus; then they are attracted to each other, and that just cannot be reconciled with electromagnetic charges. But this whole ridiculous bullshit of dreaming up the equal and opposite force for every single nucleus that exists and assigning that force to the containment of every last nucleus of every last atom; that whole idea is bunk. So, if the foundation is crazy, what happens next is bound to be crazier. At the same time, you can't throw everything away and start over, the whole field of physics relies on electrical charges... and you can't give up on gravity or gravitational waves, because they obviously exist, just not in the same way that Einstein's theories say they exist.

Space is truly empty. Space is the absence of matter, it is not itself made of matter. Light and gravity travel through space, and matter can pass through space, but space is not itself matter, it is just space, there is no matter there. Like-wise, time is a measurement of occurrence, but it is not a dimension, it doesn't take up space. So, Einstein got space and time wrong. But that doesn't mean he got gravity or relativity wrong, he just went off the deep end with his theories. We just recorded gravitational waves, so he got that much right, but were those gravitational waves truly ripples in space and time? Hell no, unless we all died and don't realize we are just ghosts, or unless you can ripple through the matter in a human body and it all comes back together after each ripple, and trust me, the gravitational waves are still going through us, so how are we still existing? If the matter that we think of, in atoms and molecules and cells, is being rippled in space and time, the very atoms themselves are being torn and stretched, how the hell are you going to live through that? And it is happening non-stop your whole life? No, it isn't, life would not exist if that was what a gravitational wave does... but thankfully, gravitational waves are just waves of gravity, they don't ripple space or time. Time is not a dimension so it can't be rippled. Space is the absence of matter, so there is nothing there to ripple. capice?

SamIamNot had an argument with me about Solar Particle Events. (solar flares; the big ones are Coronal Mass Ejections) So, I asked Sam, how did he think the particles (charged protons and electrons) were moving through space? Sam gave the answer that agrees with what science tells us; because those particles do not begin to move at the speed of light, after all they have atomic weight, these are huge boulders compared to the neutrons and quirks that fly around at the speed of light, it can take hours and sometimes days for those particles to reach earth from the sun (light travels from the sun to the earth in 10 minutes) - so Sam answered what science tells us; kinetic energy, the explosion on the surface of the sun that we observe as a flare propels the particles out from the sun and they travel to the earth. Only thing is, it isn't true, and science knows it isn't true, even the biggest flares that kick huge wallops of material out into space; Coronal Mass Ejections, sure, those explosions eject the mass outward, but then the Sun's gravity sucks it all right back to the surface, nothing is escaping by means of kinetic force, in fact, it doesn't get very far. So how does a flare kick a stream of charged particles out into space(?); because that does happen. What I told Sam is the particles are part of the sun's rays and they move the same way sunlight moves; reciprocating electrical charge; aka, induction.

Now, Sam just left after I wrote that, he vanished for whatever reason; I think because he didn't want to go into that rabbit hole (DITRH = Deep Into The Rabbit Hole) because after all, solar particle events are moving at millions of miles per hour but nothing close to the speed of light, so how in heaven and earth can I say the particles are moving through space by induction; IOW, traveling by means of reciprocating charges, if the particles are not traveling at the speed of light? Sam didn't want to ask that question, he was already beat when I went to the definition of a solar flare which is an explosion of light; so if the light itself is exploding, it is traveling as light, even if that makes no sense for a particle as large as a proton and especially if the particle isn't traveling at the speed of light. So right there, that's a good time to walk away from the argument, because if you have to ask all those questions, then you have to admit you was wrong when you said you understood solar particle events better than I do. But explain it, how was he going to explain it? No one can explain it, so there's the dilemma. That's why you don't come and challenge someone in physics and pretend to have all the answers, NO ONE has all the answers.

What I do is work with the problem and make observations and try to conjecture what might be happening there. I always say, I could be wrong, some times I have to admit that i was dead wrong, big deal... no one has it right, so let's keep trying at this, eh? The strongest explosions are still not strong enough to kick mass free of the sun, so the particles are not being thrust away from the sun purely by fusion's explosions, but they are being tossed out there, and the explosion is freeing a lot of particles, but something must take over to keep those particles traveling away from the sun... what else is traveling away from the sun, that could push those particles along? Only answer: light. But the particles are not light, which is pure energy, the particles have mass, but the mass is charged; that's the key, the electromagnetic wave is interacting with the charge in the particles and it is the electromagnetic charge that is pushing the particles; so in one sense, this really is induction that is carrying the particles, but the particles are not themselves rays of light, traveling at the speed of light, even though they came out of explosions of light, they have mass, but they are tiny enough to be carried by the charge they obtained from the solar flare explosion and the waves of radiation from the sun pushes them and propels them along; electrical charge is what moves them out into space; they get their start from kinetic force of the fusion explosion, but they travel by electrical charge; the induction of reciprocating charges that moves sunlight through a vacuum is bumping those particles along, like a log being pushed by the current of water in a river.

I might be wrong, but I'm probably correct, cuz, this is the obvious answer. At least, it becomes obvious once you analyze all the forces present there.
 

Days

Commentator
Now, let's look at Einstein's general theory of relativity. Einstein bridged Newton's gravity with the particle definition of space (aether) to give us a working model of mathematics for the force of gravity. What does that mean? It means he assigned space the definition of particle physics, he viewed space as an aether of sorts, except without saying it was filled with mass. In other words, he defined space as composed of particles without those particles being particles of anything.... a kind of theoretical existence as particles; he named that theoretical existence "matter". This gave forces a quasi-solid form, it made numbers and measurement into real things, except, it was theoretical... not quite the same as something as real as a cow or the moon... what Einstein did was make the cow jumping over the moon equally as real as the cow and the moon. Einstein defined the gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields as the space they inhabited; so space itself became the forces that pass through it and inhabit it.

Let's slow down and think about this for a critical moment or two, shall we? If it took between 1905 - 1915 to make the math work for this theory, what was Einstein really working on? He was working on defining the force of gravity - something Newton never really did - Einstein turned gravity into something real, something tangible, after the general theory of relativity, mankind thinks of gravity as if it was something that exists, like a wrench or a screwdriver, we envision gravity the same way we envision electromagnetic waves. The difference between gravity and electromagnetic waves is stark; electromagnetic waves are contained in frequencies, they are real vibrations in a magnetic field and they can be produced or absorbed, they really do exist... meanwhile gravity is just a force, a measurement of force, there's no way to create or destroy or manipulate gravity, it is the direct consequence of mass. Gravity doesn't exist the same way an electromagnetic wave exists; although they both are forces, electromagnetic waves are transmission of energy, they have construction, they exist in a certain form, they are way beyond abstract measurement... gravity is merely a force of and between mass. Gravity is a different animal from an electromagnetic wave; gravity has no form, it doesn't exist in any real way, it is abstract, it is theoretical, it is measurement, it occurs as a force but it doesn't take up space or fill space in any way. Electromagnetic waves are energy, they pass through space, fill up space, they are real, they exist, they have form and substance.

Let's look at the space between the sun and the earth. It is a vacuum. And yet, it contains electromagnetic waves and various forces. The sun is sending out a magnetic field and so is the earth. The sun projects a gravitational radial, while the earth has mass and is therefore exerting and reacting to the force of gravity. The black hole in the center of the Milky way is also projecting a gravity radial that contains the space between the sun and earth... so there's lots of forces and energy present in the vacuum of space between the sun and earth. If we define the space as the forces present (gravity or magnetic fields) ... which force is the space? Is the space the gravitational radial of the sun? Or is it the magnetic field of the earth? Or is it the gravitational radial of the galaxy's black hole? It can't be a combination of all forces present because those forces are not the same nature; the magnetic field of the earth does not mix with gravitational forces; they are separate forces. So you have to conclude that the space contains the forces but it is not itself those forces.

I'm not saying there is no such thing as gravity - I believe in gravity. I also believe in God. I'm just saying that space is not particles of matter, it is the absence of matter. Matter is not the building block of space, it is the definition for all things that exist... but the force of gravity or the space it inhabits is not matter; because they have no form, they only exist as measurements.

And yet, I will contend that the general theory of relativity holds true, because it measures the force of gravity between bodies of mass. Even if it makes definitions for the purpose of that measurement that are flawed, the measurement itself was accurate. Think of it this way: Einstein worked for 10 years to measure the gravity force present between the earth and sun; even if he did so by defining the space it inhabits as the force itself, he still managed to come up with the math and measure the force present in that space. So the theory works because he got the math right. But the definitions were wrong. This is why Einstein could never tie together all his theories; they had flaws that were like loose ends that would never be tied together. But Einstein couldn't see where his math was correct and where his definitions they worked with were wrong. In 1905, man still thought that space was an aether. Today, we have forgotten what an aether is, so we don't get it, we don't understand what the thinking was, we adapt the idea of gravity to our understanding, we don't really understand what Einstein was thinking when he dreamed up the general theory of relativity.


Fast Eddy

Some people believe that everything is a wave, particles just being concentrations of waves.
They now feel that space is not empty, but consists of particles popping in and out of existence. The amount of energy in the vacuum is huge.



Days

Even if particles really do exist as solid chunks of matter, everything that takes form is a result of forces. The different elements are altogether the product of force relationships between sub-particles in the atom and especially atomic bonds in molecules. Without these forces that hold together mostly space, we would not have anything, force is the building block of matter. No one really knows what those forces consist of; if indeed they exist at all, maybe the best way to understand our existence is to say "all things consist of and are held together by the power of God" ... that certainly describes quantum mechanics better than Einstein's theories; and I'm not sure Einstein wouldn't have agreed. It seems the closer we look at the stuff that we think is solid and real... the closer we look, the less we see. Matter is mostly space. The nature of reality is a massive network of bonds, forces, and yes, electromagnetic waves. It is real easy to see why Einstein labeled space matter; an atom is 99.999999% space, it is easy to see why Einstein settled on calling the forces present in space the same as the space itself; both are void and empty; it is real tough to point at any difference.

Then there's the crazy nature of particles; like you say, particles pop into existence and pop out of existence, they break all the laws of physics even as they form them. You have to love the strict constructionists of the 19th century, they keep us sane... once you dive into theoretical physics and search the realms of sub sub sub particles... sanity becomes more and more precious. Could particles simply be concentrations of electromagnetic waves? I guess so. That takes us full circle from electromagnetic waves being treated as particles. The best theories in physics are the ones that stare long and hard at electromagnetic waves; they truly are the source of all life, the conveyors of energy, and the rhythm of the universe.
 

Days

Commentator
Okay, the four posts above this post recompose the thread into a paper. I did some editing, mostly grammar, but made some changes, and let the writing flow together as if it was written that way. (It was written in posts over a 16 month period, so it is kind of cool to have it fit together as a single paper on the subject).

I haven't done a proof read yet, and I might not get to it before the concrete sets (what do we get? 24 hours? ... after that, no more editing) So, there is likely still a few bugs in it - maybe not - but it should be good enough to be considered a paper on the real world application of particle physics.

Because these were original posts made from whatever came to mind ... not from re-reading the thread ... the main idea of the thread gets repeated a lot. That's the best part of the paper, it re-enforces the central view over and over until it sits with the reader, then at the end;
fast Eddy lets the cat out of the bag; theoretical physics is totally theoretical physics; no one even knows what sub-atomic particles consist of; hell, we don't even know that they are particles, we have pictures of atoms, but that's it; we have no pictures of protons... you can't see a proton, neutron or electron through an electron microscope, all you see is this:







my understanding of what you are looking at ......

what appears as a tiny ball is actually the outer electron shell; the electrons are moving so fast, they appear as if it was the outer skin of the atom. The electrons that we think of as a particle, are one millionth the size of the atoms in these pics. It comes down to a layer of light; there is no particle there, you are looking at light created by the electrons moving at the speed of light.

Even the idea that the electrons are moving at the speed of light ... is theoretical. We don't really know that, is there any way to measure their speed? Not really, not in that setting, for all we know, those electrons could be moving twice the speed of light... for all we know, there are no particles zipping around, forming the shell, maybe it is pure light?
 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
well, I missed my chance to edit by 3 hours. In the 3rd post of the paper; in the 4th paragraph that begins, "SamIamNot had an argument with me about Solar Particle Events." ... the 3rd sentence in that paragraph begins... "Sam gave the answer that agrees with what science tells us; because those particles do not begin to move at the speed of light, after all they have atomic weight, these are huge boulders compared to the neutrons and quirks that fly around at the speed of light, ..."

that should read "neutrinos and quirks"

... up to that point, it was pretty clean; after that, there is some more obvious typos to clean up. I also changed "real" to "very" in this sentence...

It is real easy to see why Einstein labeled space matter; an atom is 99.999999% space, it is easy to see why Einstein settled on calling the forces present in space the same as the space itself; both are void and empty; it is real tough to point at any difference.
 
Last edited:

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
Flares are concentrations of light. And light has no mass, it isn't a particle, it is, however, a wave. Radiation is a wave of magnetism. It is energy, but it is pure energy, and what is energy? Again, what is magnetism? What is gravity? What is the strong force and the weak force in an atom? Can we say it is the measurement that corresponds to a proton and an electron? Invisible forces or just mathematics? What's the difference? Mathematics is itself a purely theoretical exercise. There is no dividing line between gravity, magnetism, mathematics, and energy... they are all measurements, they are all theoretical... they have no mass, just as space has no mass and light has no mass, space is a vacuum; which is the quality of having no mass. (no particles)

So the next time you read that a solar flare emitted a particle stream, a particle storm, of charged particles, ions and whatever else theoretical particles they want to claim is traveling through space; hurling through space at millions of miles per hour, filling the vacuum of space with mass, creating an aether, oh shit, is that what that means? (yep) It is the old math of particle physics. It isn't real. It doesn't exist. It was just math, people, there is no particles, if there was, space would contain mass, and star light would be raining carbon and gold, and lithium down on us.... and by the way, they pretend that is happening too. DNA does not come from space. Nothing comes from space, or space is not a vacuum. Because... light is a wave and is not, nor ever contains particles.

So what is captured in the earth's magnetosphere? Do the Van Allen belts actaully contain protons? Or is it the charge of protons? And does that charge slowly fade away (over ten years)? If it was a particle, where does the particle disappear to? Protons have mass, they have atomic weight, how can mass just disappear? the charge of an ion dissipates over time, slowly fading to black, but if the ion was really a particle, the particle can not just vanish, that's against the law of physics, only God can do that, physics does not allow it, nothing can be created or destroyed, just changed from matter into energy and back... which is another way of saying created and destroyed, but that's a different problem, at any rate, if the particle became enrgy, the charge should have increased not faded to zero, so there was no particle, only the charge, the magnetic force, the energy that we associate with a particle because we like to use units when we measure stuff, but we never stop to ask ourselves, is light really a particle? Does it contain protons, neutrons and electrons? Are there atoms hurling through space? Or is light an electromagnetic wave? Do radio waves transmit particles? Does your receiver get clogged up with atoms? Empty any carbon, lead, magnesium, copper, hydrogen, etc out of your tuner lately? When you gety an x-ray, are they shooting you with lead? Or is it just an electromagnetic wave? See any elements forming in your microwave oven? Probably not. Electromagnetic waves are not, nor do they contain particles, mass, atoms, elements, they are energy, not mass. Particles absorb energy, that does not make energy a particle.

So, how does an ion stream from the sun move slower than the speed of light? Maybe it isn't the same type of magnetic field as visible light? An electromagneitc wave is a transmission, so maybe an ion stream has a different composition and therefore moves at a different speed? Can light slow down, can it move slower than the speed of light? Theoretically, we are told "no, light always moves at the speed of light" (heh) In a vacuum, that is. which doesn't contain particles, like glass or water, which we know slows down the speed of light, light travels slower through water, but it does travel through water, because light does not use an aether, it is an electromagnetic wave, it is a reversing magnetic field, so it travels via induction, and it will therefore travel through anything, that is, until mass absorbs it, which water will do.

Ever stop and ask yourself what "radiation" is? How about, a wave of energy? Sun rays are energy waves. No particles, people. Do we rip apart atoms with atomic bombs or are we merely collecting a certain element that happens to tear itself apart? Is there any reason to believe that mankind couldn't have gathered that element in ancient times? According to our measurement, a particle is missing afterwards... now remember, the measurement was just a measurement of force to begin with, so the resulting measurement of particles and energy released is also still a measurement of forces. no one actually can see a proton or neutron, hence, all you have there is math. e = mc2 is a formula for measuring forces, it doesn't verify that a particle has changed into energy... that's just a theory. Same as those charged particles trapped in the Van Allen belts... measurements of energy; not real world particles, not atoms, not elements, not actaul mass. Matter does not bend, light does that, because it is a wave, but light has no mass.

capice?
A photon of light actually does contain a very small amount of mass. It is therefor a particle and also a 'wave.'
If photons were indeed 'mass-less, how then could they be bent by traveling near a massive object? Most of your information contained in this post is such an outlandish stretch that it becomes awkward to even attempt to sift through it.
 
Last edited:

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
well, I missed my chance to edit by 3 hours. In the 3rd post of the paper; in the 4th paragraph that begins, "SamIamNot had an argument with me about Solar Particle Events." ... the 3rd sentence in that paragraph begins... "Sam gave the answer that agrees with what science tells us; because those particles do not begin to move at the speed of light, after all they have atomic weight, these are huge boulders compared to the neutrons and quirks that fly around at the speed of light, ..."

that should read "neutrinos and quirks"

... up to that point, it was pretty clean; after that, there is some more obvious typos to clean up. I also changed "real" to "very" in this sentence...

It is real easy to see why Einstein labeled space matter; an atom is 99.999999% space, it is easy to see why Einstein settled on calling the forces present in space the same as the space itself; both are void and empty; it is real tough to point at any difference.
The universe actually is nothing but space. The fields that all matter are created from can be broken down to zero actual size that's why it is said that a singularity (like the point of infinite density contained in a black hole) can actually contain the entire universe (immediately preceding the big bang).
 
Top