A universe with no beginning or end, where its matter has always had mass and occupied space—in a system that recycles since more can't be added nor what exists be destroyed.
following six-part set—three sheets printed on front and
back—was produced from April 15 to September 2, 2015. It's also available in printed form. Posted here 9/3/2015.
Because of differing monitors and resolution settings, the circle in the following drawing may appear oval. The next one below it may look correct if that happens in your case.
Gas ices condense—their molecules attach—without needing to become liquids first; the colder the better. Their globules are also attractive to the larger irregular shaped objects that we call dust. Provided that your nucleosynthesis concept can afford gases and dust without requiring supernovae to lead to them, this is the most natural mechanism possible for inducing solar and planetary coalescing.
Gas and dust will continue to settle on the surfaces of a building star, also on its planets, much as how dust settles on the ground and ice precipitates here, which is a centripetal process. Yet as the planets build enough mass they will leave those nebular tracks when their momentum starts generating too much centrifugal force, which initiates their orbits—with greater velocity nearer to the star and lower velocity farther away since gravitational force is lower (thus produces less velocity) the farther out a planet forms. The orbits that three of the planets shown take (the three on the left) are indicated in the drawing. Higher velocity / lower mass planets subjected to greater gravitational force nearer to a star need less mass to begin to orbit since that extra velocity grants them the required momentum to orbit that close. (Instead of the lines in the picture leading to each planet from the star straightening out as shown, they should actually be longer and retain more of the same curvature throughout, which can be better depicted in the future.)
Posted on 3/26/15:
This next drawing shows was how I imagined Mercury's orbit before I learned how little it actually precesses.
Posted on 3/20/15:
Posted on 3/18/15:
Posted on 3/17/15:
Next three posted on 3/15/2015:
Posted on 2/10/15 (also appears on the Pivotal Experiments page):
Posted on 2/1/15:
Posted on 12/20/14:
Posted on 11/25/14:
Posted on 11/23/14:
Posted on 10/9/14 (also appears on the Emission and Absorption Lines page):
Posted on 10/3/14:
Posted on 9/27/14 (also appears on the Pivotal Experiments page):
Posted on 9/16/14:
Posted on 9/11/14 (also appears on the Nucleus Configurations page):
Posted on 7/27/14 (also appears on the Pivotal Experiments page):
Posted on 7/13/14 (also appears on the Electricity Mysteries page):
We have to tolerate quite a few unnatural explanations in science right now, like last night Morgan Freeman saying
that matter isn't substantial, that it's basically an illusion (Religions must love that). That's quantum physics for you
(written in 2014).
Not seeing gravity in the simple way it's explained below is another one of those.
Buy a copy of Religion, Sex, and Philosophy for $7, which expresses the early stages of a former Evangelical Chistian finally allowing himself to think freely about many different things.
Shipping is included to locations within the United States. Click the button just below to order a copy.
There seems to be some confusion about the word, intuitive. It looks as though people consider it intuitive to think those in another race are inferior. Or rather, would it be intuitive to think, based on lots of observations and many good reasons, that people in other races are equal to us? That sometimes people in one group have fallen behind those in another group, but since they are essentially equal they can always catch up?
An intuitive interpretation can of course be wrong, too, which testing it well enough should reveal. But an intuitive hypothesis should arise from what are constantly repeated observations and experiences, which the tenor of those, or their nature, should carry over into other areas. That's what the word, intuitive, should mean to us. And what's intuitive to us will gradually change as well.
For example, some may have once considered offering sacrifices to something that may or may not preside over humans on Earth—as a way to improve crops and ward off various potential disasters—to be an intuitive and well reasoned practice, sort of like covering your bases when you're not yet sure how things really work. But it's intuitive now, given the large amount of data that's been gathered and carefully reviewed about this, that such efforts have nothing to do with successful crops or the occurrence of natural disasters.
Here are some more examples of what an intuitive hypothesis should look like:
It should be intuitive that death is final for each human like it is for all other living things on Earth.
It's intuitive that sunlight bounces from the moon; meanwhile sunlight does bounce from the moon.
A round, not flat, Earth would be intuitive by extrapolating from how the moon is round.
It's intuitive that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, that some had personal reasons to say he did.
It's long been intuitive to humans that fog is water vapor, even before more scientific proof came along to explain that.
It's intuitive that each fundamental particle has mass and can't share its occupied volume with another.
That gravity is an attraction arising from matter, not from the space that surrounds it, is intuitive.
It's intuitive that time passes at the same rate across the entire universe.
No shortcuts existing, which are less than the distance of a straight line drawn between two objects, is intuitive.
Collided particles breaking into smaller pieces, instead of being annihilated from existence, is intuitive.
It's intuitive that gravity from a central collection speeds up galaxies, i.e. galaxies w/ angular tracks, not dark energy.
Endlessly Cycling Universe Returns to Each Particle Having Zero Charge
The only way I can see to get an eternal cycling universe back to a state of having all uncharged photons once again is by many more times the mass than what's presently located in this area of galaxies eventually coming in to add their mass. For me, there would have to be a finite number of photons out there or else not even... one could be a unique individual—an individual by not being able to share the exact same volume of space with another one simultaneously. Other than that they would be identical in their uncharged state.
Let's say that over time more and more photons, photons that are very far away right now, show up and donate their mass to the cycle here. If so the frequency of eruptions would greatly increase. Then gradually explosions, instead of periodic binary eruptions, would occur. Explosions would send out uncharged particles—uncharged from having been in such a collection's outer layers for a long enough time; as the required time to uncharge them decreases when the collection becomes exceedingly large. Explosions would send uncharged particles far away, while those able to regroup soon after would tend to uncharge as they collect again. For if such a rebuilding collection is massive enough still, which it should be, instead of gradually recharging its layers (which takes a lot of time) they only flex in a bit (however, many times more of them than what's in the collection right now) without accruing any lasting charge; then flex back out simultaneously, this time exploding them all outward without having accrued any charge... so that the system would need to begin again from scratch. It's sort of like the chicken before the egg question. (2/17/15)
You can claim anything is verified if you look long enough and hard enough trying to make it so. Just like the Higgs Boson. It's supposed to appear in a collider, as if colliding things is like massless stuff expanding (when massless stuff is an oxymoron), at 114 Gev. So CERN found a spike in photon emissions, at least what are thought or interpreted to be photon emissions, at 125 Gev. That spike means things without mass are being created at 125 Gev. Therefore the Higgs Boson has just been confirmed.
Numerical values that happen to work when broadly applied are too often linked to wrong ideas, as if those proven numerical values also prove those ideas. It's similar the king of Spain once speaking with a lisp and soon the entire country thought the lisp was part of the proper pronunciation. (2/10/15)
Celestial Body Interior Warming is Typical w/ No Tides Required
What causes Enceladus, moon of Saturn, to spew jets of warm water into space? So what's warming its watery interior? Is the cause gravitational tides? Or is it highly compressed atoms/molecules, surrounded by other atoms (that form molecules), residing inside a celestial body with enough mass, therefore gravity, to produce that effe...ct? The reason is the same as why the Earth's center is hot enough to be molten: Compression.
Compress a gas into a liquid and it will heat up. Why? It's due to compression of radio particles and beta type electrons (when beta types, which are larger, are also present in larger atoms). Electrons and radio particles should and would behave much the same: They are attracted to a nucleus while their surfaces repel one another. For if their surfaces didn't repel one another they would keep attaching and making larger and larger composite particles. Therefore, since their surfaces mutually repel they try to avoid one another when compressed, which results in higher speed orbiting (sometimes just more vibrating of hovering particles since both orbiting and hovering occur in warming and/or heating depending upon the structural situation), as higher speed orbiting is one form or way to raise temperature, since temperature is the activity/friction experienced between particles, which typically propagates heating out toward other things in the form of outward spraying particles. Since gases like hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, and oxygen, when those are compressed into liquids, aren't compressed anywhere close to the extreme levels that some atoms would be within a star, they regain an equilibrium in their liquid form inside
their containers, as the energy levels of atmospheric gas atoms moderate their temperature by convecting their energy level through the container's walls so that those liquids, even though they remain under the compression level that causes them to be liquids, take on the ambient/surrounding temperature of the atmosphere's gas atoms/molecules. Meanwhile, the extreme compression inside stars won't allow that kind of cooling down.
Ocean tides/waves on the Earth is a rather mild effect exerted on a material subjected to very low pressure, i.e. a material that isn't being held down under lots of weight and unable to move. Tectonic plates do slide and can cause some melting of rock through friction, therefore many of the world's volcanoes, yet certainly wasn't the cause of the Siberian Traps which continued for a million years and covered a massive region across Asia. The Earth's deep interior is molten due to highly compressed atoms. Star interiors
are hot for the same reason. That looks fairly obvious and straightforward to me. (2/7/15)
A mathematical equation, contrary to popular opinion, can't verify the existence of anything perfectly, only firm up a set of evenly applied values derived from something measurable related to something interpreted to exist in a particular way. Getting some values correct, or applied evenly so those work, which Einstein (and a number of others) achieved in his (their) time(s), doesn't verify his most exotic ideas. Einstein's best equations only verify the way certain measurable values have been applied. Measurable values require interactions with the world—ways to measure some palpable form of magnitude related to an interpretation made or held—when an interpretation can still be off in some respects. (2/20/15)
Good math requires that people be consistent more than anything else, as they are held to that consistency quantitatively, by its verified forms and established relationships between its applied values.
We should be consistent in our overall philosophy also, so that we can effectively address the world's worst problems. So what are the worlds worst problems?
2. Religious Radicalism
3. Loss of Optimum Climate Cycling
4. Hunger (includes Housing w/ Clean Water)
5. Cleaner Energy
6. Preserving Oceanic Ecosystems
7. Political Corruption
8. Financial System Corruption
9. Maintaining/Expanding Cures for Illness
10. Potential Asteroid Collision
If these are the world's ten worst problems, and religious radicalism has now risen to number two, then the intuitive type thinking which would eliminate it needs to be consistently applied across the board to everything else, which includes it being applied in physics—instead of what is “counterintuitive” now constantly being praised—so that the overall human perception of what reality is can make a needed large shift. This requires consistency, using much the same kind of thinking in physics that we use to free our minds from false religions. (2/20/15)
A Coulomb is 6.241 x 1018 electrons transferring. An ampere is 6.241 x 1018 electrons transferred in one second. If twice that many electrons were transferred through a certain amount of material (usually wire) in one second, that would be two amps or amperes.
So why is a Coulomb 6.241 x 1018 electrons? That was a chosen number, affixed to a set point within quantifying procedure, from which point an increase or decrease can be measured, in this case a needle attached to plunger in a coil, which needle moves either to the left or to the right incrementally—increments which have been quantitatively calibrated. In other words that serves as a standard to measure things so that innovations involving the quantity or magnitude of electric current can be carefully applied and successfully used.
We don't really know that 6.241 x 1018 electrons, times however many amps, are being transferred. But this was thought to be an appropriate representative number for that given our best understanding of atoms in relation to electric current. In reality, there may be several types of electrons, and electric current may actually involve tinier charged individual photons that are smaller than a typical electron. (2/20/15)