[Jerry]

Hi Kasim! Sorry about the slight delay. Quite intriguing thoughts you’ve written. I hadn’t yet heard of the actual interaction of protons and positrons, except only to theorize. Some of what you’ve written I’m unfamiliar with. Why would positive and negative annihilate? Is your hypothesis currently testable? Have you had any experiments yet? I had only recently heard of how protons and electrons, could turn into neutrons (through a process I don’t understand. lol)

[Jerry]

Oops! I think I didn’t “word” clearly what I wanted to say in one of those sentences. lol I mentioned how the idea is often accepted, that all “standard” particles have the exact same size, mass, charge, etc. What I meant to ask was if “could the Particle Model view account for how even <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>planets (within the macroscale) also exist at different size, mass, charge, and such?” Or does this scenario bring too much in mind of the “solar system model” of the atom? This “outdated theory”, to me, does continue to seem somewhat understandable. Is Quantum Mechanics said to have disproved it? I’m also quite skeptical about Quantum Mechanics! Anyway, sorry about the mix-up!

[Jerry]

Thanks for posting this, Laura! This highly fascinates me!

[Jerry]

Hi Laura. I agree that “time is a human construct that measures rates of changes of things compared to one another.” However, that is only one definition. Time is also the inevitable feature of reality which is examined. And even if time is only a “human construct” without physicality, at least it does “exist” in that particular way. These two separate definitions somewhat remind me of how the word “science” doesn’t only apply to the vast accumulation of the most accurate knowledge possible. There is also the scientific approach itself (often called “science”), which is used to examine reality, to arrive at the most accurate knowledge.

Anyway, just a thought.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi Laura. I tried to view the images there, yet without luck! Were you responding to my previous post there in particular? Considering what you have said, isn’t the question of whether gravity pushes or pulls, without a definite conclusion of if gravity “travels” or if it’s “instantaneous”? Does the “maximum possible velocity” apply to gravity, as well as light? Does gravity travel, except slower than c? Also, is it a constant?

The thought that gravity is either a push or a pull, to me, seems possibly misleading. Maybe that’s sort of only a guess. What if gravity actually isn’t either of them. I’m also skeptical of the idea that light is a particle or a wave.

Have you heard of the Dinu effect, of the experiment with the under-water spinning cylinders? It seems to illustrate the effects of magnetism.

Also, that was quite intriguing, the idea you had that zero gravity exists within the center of the earth. I hadn’t considered that. What about the earth’s orbit around the sun though? To consider that the sun and moon appear from our earthly perspective as around the same size, there was one principle of motion that Newton had expressed for the effect of gravity, as to the size of a given object, and its distance away (or something similar to that.) 🙂

Anyway, here’s a quote I found online, “The inverse square law proposed by Newton suggests that the force of gravity acting between any two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance between the object’s centers.”

Though, that is slightly besides the point. lol

There’s much I could write about the ether. Would you possibly want to meet over in the ether group? I just thought the ether is possibly too much of an extensive topic to discuss quickly, or maybe I’m just seeming “nit-picky”. lol Whichever way is fine with me though.

Anyway, thanks for your response!

• This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi. I’ll start with a quote by Stephen Hawking (some of which Pink Floyd actually recorded on their last album).

“For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind’s greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn’t have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.”

I thought this seemed a somewhat appropriate place to start or continue. This above quote seems quite intriguing. However, is it actually that simple, or completely the truth?

To consider again, other animals often have a high level of awareness, though, of course, don’t seem to compare with the same capacity as human beings.

What about Koko the Gorilla? (here’s a quote I found online) “It was reported that Koko understood approximately 2,000 words of spoken English, in addition to the signs.”

Also, dolphins have been known to have a variety of sounds, within their complex meanings of words. However, the language they use is possibly limited only to their interactions with fellow dolphins, instead of for the purpose of internal dialog, or personal understanding.

These seem examples of how other animals use concepts to understand and express to others, their ideas, thoughts, and emotions.

Franklin did ask the question of “what is human consciousness”. His first sentence here, also described the problem “of identifying exactly what you are talking about“. A highly valid and important truth and approach. I would agree with the idea that human beings have a more advanced system of reasoning, and conscious thought, than other animals. I would guess that most of us agree with that. It seems there were possibly a few different definitions of “consciousness” that weren’t completely agreed-upon. If we could adequately define them, and narrow down each variation individually to know “what applies to what”, that could possibly seem a good starting point to finding agreement, or at least to find understanding of our different viewpoints.

I also tend to agree that studying and comparing the capabilities that other animals have with human beings, would seem a valuable approach to find out more of “what consciousness actually is”. Maybe we could arrive at some profound conclusions the more we consider various other forms of consciousness.

Anyway, just a few thoughts!

[Jerry]

John-Erik,

Have you read or heard of The Particle Model (TPM) ? It sounds quite compelling, though I’m unsure if the theory is completely accurate.

When you speak of the MMX and the “transverse arm” and “Potier in reference arm”, were you referring to the “arms” of the interferometer? That they’re somehow affected by the invisible and undetectable “aether”? I’m unsure if you accept any of the theory involving the MMX and the “arms” of the interferometer. Could you please clarify? Thanks.

[Jerry]

Good point, Laura. This does seem a complex problem.

Whenever a given object is “at rest”, or “stationary”, if the object or frame doesn’t accelerate, it is inertial, and could serve as a reference of “exactly how fast” another given object exists or travels. Of course, with Special Relativity, gravity and acceleration were ignored or considered irrelevant specifically for the purpose of solving this given problem.

And there’s also a much larger question, “what is everything within the whole universe relative to?” The answer considered by many over a century ago, was the aether, which was said to have been the ultimate valid frame of reference within which all objects exist or travel.

[Jerry]

Hi Ken.

Maybe time for a lithium clock in a high orbit does run slower than one on earth. Why to compare this to a clock at the north pole? Is it different from how time goes at the equator? Anyway, what is your view of why there is time dilation within the plane? Is it to account for the velocity of the plane, or the time dilation caused by the gravity of the earth compared to (at least slightly) outer space?

[Jerry]

John-Erik,

Also, what is your viewpoint of exactly where physics went wrong 140 years ago? Was that caused by specific, yet mistaken, ideas of some one or many scientists? Of course, there have been countless other scientists at many other given times through the centuries who weren’t necessarily contributing valuable ideas. That there were even many detrimental ideas throughout the history of science, that were accepted by some or many others. Anyway, just a thought.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

With Michelson and Morley, were you referring to their experiments with the interferometer there? And also “length contraction”?

[Jerry]

Ken,

I would say that I don’t believe the twins ages would differ, so 🙁. Though I wouldn’t want either of the twins to seem so sad!

Also though, I’m highly skeptical (almost complete disbelief) about the “a clock on the plane and one on the ground” experiment, with Hafele and Keating, and from what I’ve heard, many others.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Thanks, Ken.

The first answer you provided for my inquiry, seems to agree with the same view I had previously expressed with what seems my “rhetorical question”. That is, (in statement form), “to know the position or velocity of a given object, requires a direct reference to another object or frame.”

To consider your answer a bit further though, if a spacecraft were in outer space, far away from anything observable, such as planets or stars, to know its position or velocity definitely is impossible to know. At least, it could appear that way, since there isn’t anything else around to compare it to. If the spacecraft isn’t accelerating, it could seem to exist as “stationary”, or it could travel at almost the velocity of light at a <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>constant velocity. That each scenario is virtually indistinguishable to the other. This, of course, is essentially the truth that Galilean Relativity (and the first postulate of Special Relativity) states.

<font face=”inherit”>I would definitely endorse the view that critical analysis is most valuable and necessary to advance the sciences. Of course, physics is a vast field, with countless interconnected instances of accurate knowledge. However, theoretical physics, over at least the last century, </font><font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>has often accepted multiple </font>unverifiable<font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”> hypotheses, many of which there isn’t any possible way of which to provide adequate evidence. </font>

<font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Of course, mathematics is highly necessary within the field of physics. I personally tend towards the idea that words and concepts have also had the capacity to convey accurate ideas, and to increase our understanding of our world and universe. </font>

<font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Just a few thoughts. </font>

[Jerry]

Hi Ken. Please forgive my mathematical ignorance. 🙂 I have to admit that most of what you wrote I didn’t understand. Perhaps I could if I were to learn the definitions to the technical terminology and symbolism, and how they correlate with each other within the scientific and mathematical “framework”.

I had asked a slightly different question that is added in italics, of “How can we determine the velocity of an object within an inertial frame?”

Here’s a similar question, that seems to answer the first, “How to know the position or velocity of a given object without direct reference to another object or frame?”

Aren’t all inertial frames equally valid? If a given object travels at a constant velocity at almost the velocity of light, couldn’t we technically consider it just as “stationary” as all other objects throughout the universe that don’t accelerate?

Thanks for responding, Ken.

Did you agree with much that I had written at the top of this conversation?

[Jerry]

I definitely agree. You could even say the same without the scenario of outer space. The process of observing or accounting for motion or light, takes time. It is done by using or acting within the abstract concept of time, which refers to the order of events, past, present, and future. Also, time refers to the ongoing “now”. Of course, time isn’t a physical structure or occurrence. Actually, if physical reality didn’t exist at all, why wouldn’t time inevitably continue? Anyway, just a thought.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  Jerry.