Existence

For your math, I did "touch" it. The problem with it is that you don't tell which frame of reference you use and to which frame of reference your results apply. In order to be correct, your math must have some connection to reality. In fact I adressed this point several times already. Your math is wrong by definition if you don't use a reference frame.The problem, as I've noticed, is that you don't know what a frame of reference is(which is high school physics). For example, if your car is at rest, you would tell me that it's current speed is 0 mph but it would be only true in Earth's inertial frame, not in Solar's. By definition, any object's speed is 0 mph in it's own frame of reference because at any time, it's coordinate will be (0,0,0) in a three dimensional space.You don't seem to know how we use a reference frame in physics, that's why your math when related to it, will be wrong or incomplete most of the time.

When we say the speed of light is constant we mean that if you are on the train both light sensors come on at the same time. We measure the distance the light has travelled relative to us (half a light year) the time it takes (half a year) and determine relative speed to be c.The person on the platform also determines the distance the light has travelled relative to them and for all the reasons you just they get different relative distances but the same relative speed, cIf we did the experiment with bullets, the person on the platform would get different relative speeds for the bullets than the person on the train. The speed of bullets (even bullets that don't slow down (fired in a vacuum)) is not constant in the same way the speed of light is.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't believe there is any observed emission from black holes that needs explaining. The emission is theoretical. And what is this dogged electromagnetic field? Did you skip some steps in your explanation? Air at standard temperature and pressure is less dense than water at the same temperature and pressure. I don't see the connection. This makes no sense to me. Perhaps you haven't set things up yet. What is the aggregation of photons and electrons you are describing.Edited by NoNukes, : Delete comment re saturated matter

Space time is curved in the vicinity of matter. We use General Relativity to handle those situations, and the math is much more complex. Where space time is flat, or nearly so, Special Relativity is enough to handle the physics, and the math is more simple. Uh... Light is not photons and electrons. Electrons have charge, while light does not. A photon is not the building block of mass. Is this stuff necessary to whatever conclusion you are trying to reach? If so, perhaps it's time to drop it. What assumption?I'm comfortable with the idea that photons don't swirl around, but perhaps you might be interested in that helical wave theory that belongs to that Gaasenbeek fellow ICANT cited earlier in this thread.

You should've read more on gravitational lensing, as was shown to you in Message 504

quote:

---

In general relativity, light follows the curvature of spacetime, hence when light passes around a massive object, it is bent. This means that the light from an object on the other side will be bent towards your eye, just like an ordinary lens. Since light always moves at a constant speed, lensing changes the direction of the velocity of the light, but not the magnitude.

---

FromWikiprdiaHow would it do that?

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

The Speed of Bullets
1. A bullet is fired, it travels at exactly b (Where 'b' is a value for the speed of bullets in a vacuum).
2. A rocket is launched chasing the bullet, it travels at exactly 0.5bObservation: As far as the rocket is concerned, the bullet is travelling away from it at a speed of 0.5b The Speed of Light
1. A photon is emitted, it travels at exactly c (Where 'c' is a value for the speed of light in a vacuum).
2. A rocket is launched chasing the photon, it travels at exactly 0.5cObservation: As far as the rocket is concerned, the photon is travelling away from it at a speed of cI take it ICANT doesn't agree?This is reality. It is fact. It has been tested, retested, verified and confirmed many, many times by many different scientists around the world. Disagreeing with this is like saying (as someone else already pointed out) "3 apples + 2 oranges = 5 apples".Light does not behave as things like bullets and other mundane objects do. Repeated observations of reality show that light behaves under significantly different rules. If you ignore those rules, or think they are unnecessary for reality... you are simply wrong.If you are okay denying reality, and simply being wrong, then no one will be able to show you the light.

Just a moment..."The rotational energy of a black hole surrounded by a torus is released through several channels. We have determined that a minor fraction of the energy is released in baryon-poor outflows from a differentially rotating open magnetic flux tube, and a major fraction of about /2 is released in gravitational radiation by the torus with angular velocity 0.2 to 0.5 relative to that of the black hole. We associate the energy emitted in baryon-poor outflows with gamma-ray bursts. The remaining fraction is released in torus winds, thermal emissions, and (conceivably) megaelectron-volt neutrino emissions. The emitted gravitational radiation can be detected by gravitational wave experiments and provides a method for identifying Kerr black holes in the Universe." WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE"The amount of water vapor in the air also effects the density. Water vapor is a relatively light gas when compared to diatomic Oxygen and diatomic Nitrogen. Thus, when water vapor increases, the amount of Oxygen and Nitrogen decrease per unit volume and thus density decreases because mass is decreasing.The two most abundant elements in the troposphere are Oxygen and Nitrogen. Oxygen has an 16 atomic unit mass while Nitrogen has a 14 atomic units mass. Since both these elements are diatomic in the troposphere (O2 and N2), the atomic mass of diatomic Oxygen is 32 and the diatomic mass of Nitrogen is 28.Water vapor (H2O) is composed of one Oxygen atom and two Hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen is the lightest element at 1 atomic unit while Oxygen is 16 atomic units. Thus the water vapor atom has an atomic mass of 1 + 1 + 16 = 18 atomic units. At 18 atomic units, water vapor is lighter than diatomic Oxygen (32 units) and diatomic Nitrogen (28 units). Thus at a constant temperature, the more water vapor that displaces the other gases, the less dense that air will become." I think I need to take this up with my physics department.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

The same way a bubble goes down a drain.I would love to run an experiment in a tub with many drains. And watch the paths of bubbles.The surface run of bubbles going down a drain can sling shot around the same way bodies near the center of the galaxy will do.But: To be a true test the bubbles would have to be under the surface of the water, draining into other bubble pools manipulated by current.The creation of heat (when photons are absorbed) may make the universal model different to bubble and water behavior, but still has some striking similarities.It is beyond my ability to explain very well. But my Idea is that the electromagnetic spectrum is the water of space-time and that there are currents.The math is what I lack. If an equation followed circles before landing on mass and correctly matched what relativity would predict, then I could get more excited.
Since that is beyond my current education and abilities, I’ll just have to wait and see what the physics department at APSU, or NASA or someone else has to say that may find the idea potential in some form or fashion.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi tesla,What does this have to do with ICANT's topic?You realize there is a difference between water vapor and liquid water? What you have provided above has to do with relative humidity, dew point and temperature density, all very important to a pilot, but I just dont see what it has to do with anything being discussed here.I dont think you understand what you are reading, saying water is less dense than air is ludicrous, and your explanation of why has nothing to do with your statement. Your explanation is talking about water vapor making air less dense.Please elaborate some in order for us too see where you are trying to go, slow down and think it out.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Very good, when I am in doubt I always research it well, hell i called the air force just to make sure they use relativistic corrections on gps, they do. They even provided my with lots of good resources to explain it all, ICANT ignored all of it, these people operate the system, I wouldn't guess they are lying? There are some real smart people here too, its just hard to see where you are going, thanks for trying to provide clarity.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Percy told me to hash this out here. Then my professors are ludicrous.http://scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/bg/moles.html"To go from moles to mass, multiply the moles by the formula weight of the compound.Example: 0.50 moles of H2O
Answer: The atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.0079. Oxygen is 15.9994. So the formula weight of H2O is 15.9994 + (2 x 1.0079) = 18.0152g/mol. To get mass of water, multiply moles by formula weight. 0.50 moles x 18.0152g/mol = 9.0076g."and: DENSITY COMPARISON RIDDLE
"The average atomic weight of air is 28.97 atomic units"So do the math:
Water: 18.0152g
Air: 28.97

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Mass is not density.

You are not defining the state of water, ice, liquid, vapor, 3 separate states. You need to state which one, you cannot think liquid water is less dense than air?

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

I never said it was. Density is not weight.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Then why did you write about determing the mass of water and oxygen when the question was about the density? And weight isn't mass.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor