Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

freeztar · #**201** (**permalink**) 05-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Electrons ARE elementary particles that contain the coulomb negative charge (force).

And hence, are not zero-charge.

Quote:

wrote an article on the Creation of Photons. I transformed these fields as composed of Real Field Partcles rather than the current theory that portrays them as 'virtual particles'.
The reason is obvious. The fields that surround the electrons are REAL
I wrote that the photons are 'condensed negative field particles'.
So they have charge as well as momentum. Proof?
They can BUMB an electron into outer orbits as happens in the hydrogen atom. This could NOT happen if these photons had no charge. Their charge is the 'condensed' field particles.

From what I understand, it's the energy of a photon that bumps the electrons. No mysterious charge needed.

Quote:

Of course, these are my own opinions but they are based on real basic physics.

Real physics does not involve opinions. As Craig stated a few posts back: "As has been pointed out to you many times in these forums, science is not a debate of opinions, but a process of supporting and refuting hypotheses with objective experimental data."

Pluto · #**202** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008

G'day

Moontanman said

Quote:

Pluto, I want to ask a question to try and understand your ideas here, you do understand that the jets associated with black holes does not represent matter being ejected from a black hole, right? The matter being accelerated from the vicinity of a black hole is matter torn apart by the intense gravity and electromagnetic effects associated with the black hole not by matter actually being ejected from a black hole. If a black hole doesn't have an inflow of matter it cannot have the jets emerging from it's poles.

Mainstream agrees with you.

But! bottom line is nobody knows.

If all matter is collected into the so called black hole than we have a problem. Black holes get bigger and bigger, than what happens to the evolution of galaxies that are directly related to the size and activity of the black hole.

I'm of the opinion that matter in combination with infalling and black hole activity is ejected.

The other question is , what drives the jet at close to the speed of light and why is it not effected by the gravity of the black hole.

I'm looking at the potential of the Z-pinch, to explain the driving force.

I will have to come back to you on that and support my ideas. Until than go with mainstream.

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

[CM1.004] Theory and Simulations of the Origin of Astrophysical Jets

R.V.E. Lovelace, P.R. Gandhi, M.M. Romanova (Cornell University)

Quote:

Powerful radio, and in some cases optical and gamma ray, emitting jets are observed to emanate from many compact accreting objects, from stellar mass black holes to super massive black holes in galactic nuclei. The jets are widely thought to arise from the twisting of an ordered magnetic field threading a differentially rotating accretion disk which acts to magnetically extract angular momentum and energy from the disk. Two main regimes have been discussed, hydromagnetic jets, which have a significant mass flux and have energy and angular momentum carried by both matter and electromagnetic field and, Poynting jets, where the mass flux is small and energy and angular momentum are carried predominantly by the electromagnetic field. Here, we describe recent theoretical work on the formation of Poynting jets from magnetized accretion disks. Further, we describe new relativistic, fully-electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations of the formation of jets from accretion disks. Laboratory Z-pinch experiments promise to further our understanding of the origin and nature of astrophysical jets.

Theory and Simulations of the Origin of Astrophysical Jets

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

What is the unkown factor?

CraigD · #**203** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigD

This is an easily testable prediction. Just shine a laser pointer on your wall, and hold an ordinary bar or horseshoe magnet various places near the beam, and see if the dot on the wall moves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

I have had this told to me before.
My conclusion is that the velocity of light is so great as to avoid any detectable bending because of this.

The speed of light and energy of photons is precisely known, so this claim is an (moderately

) easy one to design and conduct an experiment to test.

The electron gun in a typical CRT accelerates its electrons to about 0.1 c.
The mass of an electron at this speed is about the same as its rest mass of about $9.11 \times 10^{-31} \,\mbox{kg}$ .
The equivalent relativistic mass of a photon of a typical red laser pointer is $\frac{h}{c \cdot 650 \,\mbox{nm}} = 3.4 \times 10^{-36} \,\mbox{kg}$ .

The lateral velocity given to a one-electron charge particle passing though a constant-voltage deflection field of a CRT is directly proportional to the time it spends between the deflection coils or plates, so inversely proportional to its speed, and inversely proportional to the particles mass. The deflection distance from the center of the screen is directly proportional the its lateral speed and the time it spends reaching the screen. So the deflection amount is inversely proportional to the square of the speed of the particle and its mass ( $d = \frac{k}{v^2 m}$ ). Using the ratio of mass and speed of a laser pointer photon and a typical CRT electron, we can find how the distance a photon would be deflected if it had the charge of an electron compared to how far a CRT’s electron is deflected without calculate $k$ .

$\frac{d_\lambda}{d_e} = \frac{v_e^2 m_e}{c^2 m_\lambda} = \frac{0.1^2 \cdot 9.11 \times 10^{-31}}{1^2 \cdot 3.4 \times 10^{-36}} \dot= 2680$

So we’d expect a typical photon to be deflected several thousand times the distance of a typical CRT electron.

Relating this to the materials I have on hand:

A red laser pointer
Some pretty strong magnet, estimated 0.001 T as closely as I can position 2 of them around the laser beam, compared to about 0.1 T for the magnetic yoke of a typical TV.
Lots of available distance between the magnets and the wall – about 2 m without moving my table, compared to about 0.2 m between the yoke and the screen on a typical TV.

All together, I should expect to be able to deflect my laser about 30 times the width of a TV screen - completely off the wall.

Doing the experiment, however, I can’t detect any deflection at all, other than a slight jiggle that occurs when I lean over to adjust the laser pointer, magnets, paper and tape holding them all together, which disappears when I hold still. I’m on a plywood vs. a massive concrete slab floor, so such jiggling is common – jumping up and down in the middle of my floor can visibly shake various decorative hangings around the room, and my laser pointer on a table is much more sensitive.

For Mike’s “photons have charge” hypothesis to survive this simple experiment, the charge of a photon would have to be a very small fraction of that of the electron. Mike, is this the case?

There are many good sources outlining the calculations needed for this experiment, such as this one.

Mike C · #**204** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

Conclusion? Based on what? Shouldn't a conclusion be based on conclusive evidence?

My conclusion is that the light beam in question is a series of photons. So the visible photons are very short (about 5^-7 meters) that they would not be passing through a field that could/would bend them and because of their velocity.

Mike C

Mike C · #**205** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008

[quote=freeztar;220786]And hence, are not zero-charge.
?
From what I understand, it's the energy of a photon that bumps the electrons. No mysterious charge needed.

Energy constitutes motion. So what is in motion? To be in motion, you need mass or as I said, 'field charges'.

Quote:

Real physics does not involve opinions. As Craig stated a few posts back: "As has been pointed out to you many times in these forums, science is not a debate of opinions, but a process of supporting and refuting hypotheses with objective experimental data."

The fields surrounding the electrons are real as I said.

Can you tell me what Einstein based his mass/energy formula on? That is an opinion, IMO.

Mike C

C1ay · #**206** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

My conclusion is that the light beam in question is a series of photons. So the visible photons are very short (about 5^-7 meters) that they would not be passing through a field that could/would bend them and because of their velocity.

Mike C

You're making assumptions based on an opinion. That's not science. Do the math (if you can) and then post it for discussion.

Mike C · #**207** (**permalink**) 05-28-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigD

The speed of light and energy of photons is precisely known, so this claim is an (moderately

) easy one to design and conduct an experiment to test.

The electron gun in a typical CRT accelerates its electrons to about 0.1 c.
The mass of an electron at this speed is about the same as its rest mass of about $9.11 times 10^{-31} ,mbox{kg}$ .
The equivalent relativistic mass of a photon of a typical red laser pointer is $frac{h}{c cdot 650 ,mbox{nm}} = 3.4 times 10^{-36} ,mbox{kg}$ .

The lateral velocity given to a one-electron charge particle passing though a constant-voltage deflection field of a CRT is directly proportional to the time it spends between the deflection coils or plates, so inversely proportional to its speed, and inversely proportional to the particles mass. The deflection distance from the center of the screen is directly proportional the its lateral speed and the time it spends reaching the screen. So the deflection amount is inversely proportional to the square of the speed of the particle and its mass ( $d = frac{k}{v^2 m}$ ). Using the ratio of mass and speed of a laser pointer photon and a typical CRT electron, we can find how the distance a photon would be deflected if it had the charge of an electron compared to how far a CRT’s electron is deflected without calculate $k$ .

$frac{d_lambda}{d_e} = frac{v_e^2 m_e}{c^2 m_lambda} = frac{0.1^2 cdot 9.11 times 10^{-31}}{1^2 cdot 3.4 times 10^{-36}} dot= 2680$

So we’d expect a typical photon to be deflected several thousand times the distance of a typical CRT electron.

Relating this to the materials I have on hand:

A red laser pointer
Some pretty strong magnet, estimated 0.001 T as closely as I can position 2 of them around the laser beam, compared to about 0.1 T for the magnetic yoke of a typical TV.
Lots of available distance between the magnets and the wall – about 2 m without moving my table, compared to about 0.2 m between the yoke and the screen on a typical TV.

All together, I should expect to be able to deflect my laser about 30 times the width of a TV screen - completely off the wall.

Doing the experiment, however, I can’t detect any deflection at all, other than a slight jiggle that occurs when I lean over to adjust the laser pointer, magnets, paper and tape holding them all together, which disappears when I hold still. I’m on a plywood vs. a massive concrete slab floor, so such jiggling is common – jumping up and down in the middle of my floor can visibly shake various decorative hangings around the room, and my laser pointer on a table is much more sensitive.

For Mike’s “photons have charge” hypothesis to survive this simple experiment, the charge of a photon would have to be a very small fraction of that of the electron. Mike, is this the case?

There are many good sources outlining the calculations needed for this experiment, such as this one.

The condensed field charge of a photon could possibly have an equal charge to an electron.

Your formula above portrays a photon as having mass by using classical physics that cannot be applied to the photons that are 'massless'.

Also, I described the the 'negative field particles' as transmitting the photons by just wobbling in their local line of transmission.
In other words, they do not move through space as a 'bullet' would.

So I do not know how these NFP's would be influenced by any experiments.
These particles are still a mystery as far as I know regarding whether they have any mass or their strength in their charges.
However, I think I give the best description of how these photons are generated.

Establishment science has no solution for these photon creations.

Mike C

C1ay · #**208** (**permalink**) 05-28-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

I described the the 'negative field particles' as transmitting the photons by just wobbling in their local line of transmission.
In other words, they do not move through space as a 'bullet' would.

Can you prove this? Yes or no? We expect you to support your claims and what you "think" or your "opinion" is not support.

HydrogenBond · #**209** (**permalink**) 05-28-2008

The assumptions of the BB and the red shift is what gives us the size and age of the universe. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the BB, the size and age of the universe are defined by the BB theory. If we change theory both the size and age become inconclusive unless one has no problem mixing apples and oranges. We can't rid of BB theory and leave the boundaries defined by the theory. One would have to take the fence down and start from scratch if the idea is to do it properly. I am not suggesting this, but pointing out BB is what is defining the boundaries.

If we keep the BB boundaries of universe age and size, every tiny change we make to the red shift makes the universe smaller and younger. I am not saying these extra affects are real or not, but if any are proven real, it subtracts speeds of expansion. If you extrapolate this all the way to eliminate all the expansion (hypothetically) or cancel doppler shift, you don't get the same size-age but without an expansion. Bigger is better so there is some resistance to this.

There is also another consideration. If we assume an accelerated expansion doesn't this also shrink the size? The original doppler shift worked under the assumption of constant velocity or even deceleration to calculate size and age for the universe. What appears to have happened is we left those old fences in place and add from there. Does this mean the original fences were biased high, since the opposite of acceleration means the velocity had been slower than originally assumed? I never saw any age-size revision. Does this mean we are still in, the wait and see mode, about acceleration?

An additional conceptual problem is assuming 15B year old events are happening today. That light took 15B years to reach us and only tells what was happening at that time in history 15B years ago. In other words, if we find an artifact from the pyramids from 2000 years ago we don't assume it was manufactured the day we find it. Is it possible when we start from the perimeter this is the first chapter in the book of universe history? In the beginning the universe was the most red shifted as it hurled through space. By the middle ages (8B light years ago) the red shift declined. As we look deeper and deeper we just add chapters to the beginning. If instead we add the latest data at the end of the book we get an acceleration.

Another conceptual problem has to due with the expansion of space-time. If space-time is still expanding does than imply we are not at zero reference? In other words, as long as it keeps expanding, zero reference keeps changing no matter what point in time we decide to call zero reference. What is significant about this is if we define our time and place on earth as zero, then if the universe is continuing to expand the bulk universe is moving into negative reference relative to the zero point chosen. The only way to avoid expansion into negative relative reference is for space-time to be fixed with only matter is moving. But if the zero point is changing does that mean the solar system began with slightly more time dilation? And does relativity decreasing with time explain dark energy?

modest · #**210** (**permalink**) 05-28-2008