VACCULOID THEORY

sunofindia · 10-27-2004

VACCULOID THEORY

Hi guyz!!!! think u remembered me.(murthy is my name and nani is my nick.im 15 and doing 12th grade)long time past since i posted my forum.this time im up with vaccuum.there is a general beleif that vaccuum doesnt contain any particles. i opposed this from the beginning.we all know the disapproval of "ETHER THEORY".though my theory has the same point to prove but i neither read that theory no know its flaws.all the below points are my ideas.well, all i want to prove is that "vaccuum does contain particles."

Starting with, we all know that light can pass through 5metres think glass slab but it cant even pass through even ^^5mm thin tin foil.though we can answer that by saying "glass is transparent and tin is opaque." but the point which requires observation is "why is glass transparent and tin opaque?" well i was thinking about this since a long time.i got an answer when i considered that vaccuum contains particles which i coined as "vacculoid" particles.we all know that glass contains more intermolecular spaces relative to that of tin. since the spaces are more the particles are more which act as carriers of light.where as in tin those particles are less and the light is negligibly carried.

LASER TEST

If vaccuum doesnt contain particles then the following test should give negative results but thats not the case.lets have a look on the details of the experiment.

APPARATUS REQUIRED:

1)VACCUUM TUBE(*it should be very long)
2)SOURCE FOR LASER
3)RECEIVER OF LIGHT
EXPERIMENT:

Send the laser from the source point into the vaccuum tube.note the intensity
of the light sent.also note the intensity at the end point of the vaccuum tube
where the receiver is placed.you would find the difference in intensities which
makes us think that there is a loss of intensity in the vaccuum tube.

INFERENCE:

If light doesnt contain any particles then why is there a loss of intensity of light
in vaccuum.i observed the reducing factor which i shall tell you later. this
experiment alone strongly convinces me that vaccuum does comprise of some
particles.so i termed those particles as "vacculoid" particles.

ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE:

We all know about the "absolute temperature".it is the temperature at which
molecular motion ceases and particles doesnt exist.but the scientists failed to
attain it even in vaccuum which made think that vaccuum consists of some
particles which i termed as "vacculoid" particles.

NOTE: ^^--- 5 millimetres

Thats all for now.shall come2 u with my new ideas soon.hope u likd this one and im waiting for ur valuable critiques and opinions.tormod i have a doubt can u pls clarify.how can i have a copywright of my ideas.pls tell me how.thnx for all for patiently reading this and investing ur valuable time for my sake.
waiting for ur responses,
NANI

Aki · 10-27-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by: sunofindia
.im 15 and doing 12th grade

sunofindia, did you skip a grade(or two)? you're supposed to be 17 when you do grade 12, right?

sunofindia · 10-27-2004

u r right aki.but the thing was when i was in 3rd grade the school promoted me to 5th grade.
also when i was in my kindergarten i was pushed to 1st grade. thats why his difference.thanx for examining even that point

BlameTheEx · 10-28-2004

Sunofindia

Regarding loss of light, I suspect failings in the conditions of your experiment. Laser beams can be very straight indeed, but over a long distance there is bound to be some divergence. Also it is impossible to create a perfect vacuum. Are you sure that all such effects have been accounted for?

As for absolute temperature you must be careful of your terms. Heat can be transferred both by conduction and radiation. A vacuum can't transfer via conduction (unless your "vacculoid" particles exist) but radiation is still there. A thermometer placed in a vacuum would measure a temperature due to that radiation. It would, perhaps very slowly, reach the same temperature as the walls of your vacuum flask. At that point radiation to the thermometer would balance radiation from it. Are you sure you have eliminated the effect of radiation from the walls of your vacuum flask?

sunofindia · 10-28-2004

ey happy poster(blame) i was wrong not to menion those conditions but when i meant vaccuum tube i thought that i would mean a perfect vaccuum tube which as u mentioned is devoid of radiation.

but thats practically next to impossible(not impossible though).i think the better place is space itself wha do u say

BlameTheEx · 10-28-2004

Sunofinda

If your results are correct, then we do indeed need to look for something like your vacculoids. However is this the results of genuine experiments, or thought experiments? It is beginning to look like the later. Frankly I am surprised by such results.

If they are thought experiments, why do you expect the results to be as you say?

If they were actual experiments, could you give details, so I can consider if they are valid.

sunofindia · 10-29-2004

well blame, they are not thought experiments. they r real. i did it. thats how i got the thought but i have to repeat it again and find its validity and the "loss factor".u can check its validity.

im anxiously waiting for tormod's and free thinker's critiques.

IrishEyes · 10-29-2004

I'm sure that Freethinker will chime in soon, but you'll have to wait a few more days for Tormod. He's on vacation and probably won't be back until early next week. I'm sure that when he returns he will give your post a rather detailed going over though. I could tell from his response to your last post that he was quite impressed with the way your mind works, as were we all.

Good to see you back again!