User talk:WFPM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Speedy deletion of Real physical nuclear models[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Real physical nuclear models requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Oore (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Real Physical Model[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Real Physical Model, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Real Physical Model[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Real Physical Model requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. WikiZorro 23:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper use of wiki[edit]

Please, please take some time to use this wiki edit tool properly. Your inputs are all malformed. I recommend starting with the Help link along the left.—RJH (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm an old dog and it's hard to learn new tricks. I thought maybe the article setup person could help me but I'll work at it.WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I picked this up at 50, so it's not that hard. =)—RJH (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait till you get older but thanks, WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my dad did his first edit at 68. Getting warmer? —Tamfang (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a young squirt.How about at 80?WFPM (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

PS I cant believe you guys would have an article on astronomy without reference to Dr, Asimov. WFPMWFPM (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The preference is for primary sources, such as scientific journal articles.—RJH (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Hello, WFPM! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on [[User talk:Wwheaton (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)|my talk page]], or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Wwheaton (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous
Hi, seems to me you've not been properly welcomed. Hope you find the links above helpful (I have by no means digested them all myself yet). This kind of a weird place, but still a noble effort, in my opinion. I got slightly beat up myself a few months back, trying to improve the "2001" article section on interpretation, which had essentially only a link to a really pathetic Wiki article the subject. That ended OK I guess (almost entirely due to the efforts of other editors who stepped into the fray; the separate article is not perfect, but much better), but I was quite astonished to learn that it was impermissible under the WP:NOR rules even to state that the novel was relevant to the meaning of the film. Anyhow, hope you don't get discouraged.
I'm a physicist also, currently working in IR astronomy, but earlier did a term in experimental particle physics, and then some years X- & gamma- ray astronomy. So I may be even older (66) than you. Anyhow, I have consulted a bit on RJHall's Cygnus X-1 article, which was how I noticed your interaction with him.
All the best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at your User page, & saw your plea for help on RJH's user page, and I guess I should add that I probably can't help you with your nuclear article if it involves a radical rejection of special relativity or QM, even though I mostly think of myself as a classical physicist still struggling with the post-Maxwell issues. I am also not at all expert in nuclear physics. I am most uncertain about (and interested in) the interpretations of QM. But per Wiki rules, you cannot get a new idea out here, except maybe informally, in the talk pages. There is some more freedom for discussion there, but of course you lose all intellectual property rights to any ideas mentioned. Wwheaton (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm curious enough to be interested in what your point is, but I don't know enough nuclear physics to have the concept. I remember going to a talk Pauling gave at UCSD on a "sphereon model" (? I think it was) that argued that alpha particles significantly retain their identity in at least some nuclei. I guess the Ne was 5-alpha's. Anyhow, I have almost no idea what you are talking about, so don't get your hopes up.... Have you got the article somewhere in your user space where I can see it? (I think that tends to be permitted when it is not abusively excessive. I believe you can get a copy of a deleted article e-mailed to you if you want it.)
Asimov was my favorite after Clarke, maybe tied with Stanislaw Lem. Good minds, all. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I like Asimov a lot in general, and he was often brilliant, but I hated the Foundation series. Kept thinking I'd learn something and never did, gave up after #3. Clarke did some pretty undistinguished stuff too, and I do think we mostly need to be judged by our best, not our worst work.

Wish I had more insight to offer on your nuclear model problem, but I think you basically just have to get it published in the mainstream literature. Right or wrong, Wiki has to wait for that. It's frustrating at times, but the necessity for it seems pretty clear to me, to keep us from getting endlessly mired in trying to settle disputes. I believe Pauling probably did have some intelligent things to say about the core halo structure you mentioned, but my problem was I'd gone two days without sleep when I tried to listen to that talk. (What a fiasco!) Best, Wwheaton (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Weird[edit]

For reasons that are entirely unclear to me, I can see notices re the material you have put on my talk page in the past few hours, and diff's showing them on the talk page history, but I cannot see the stuff at all when I just go to my talk page and look. The last thing I see there is clocked at 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC), but in the page history I see three later messages from you. No idea if this is Wiki software's fault or something here, or what. Anyhow, I can read your messages OK on the diff pages, it's just clumsy.

Aha! I see it! There is a dotted but empty box at the bottom of my page, and it is extremely wide, and goes off the right side of the page. The part I see is blank, but if I scroll far far right I start to see your text. There is something about the formatting I do not understand, do you have a space at the beginning of your line? I have had a similar thing happen to me occasionally in the past. Anyhow, I believe I can reconstruct your text from the diffs and put it into my page so I can see it, but hold off for a bit, and don't be surprised if you see some weird things happening there for a bit.

Oy!  :-( Computers !! Wwheaton (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I got it. For some reason, there were very long lines of blanks pushing your stuff off to the right. I deleted them, and now I can see your text. I have no idea how they got there. Let me now read over it and think a bit. Meanwhile, you can return to normal "welcome mode" over there. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Black holes[edit]

In the chronologic history of the big bang theory of our universes expansion from a point source to our present chaotic condition I have two questions about the point in time when the volume (presumably spherical) of the universe exceeded the volume that would be the singularity size of a black hole with equivalent mass value. The first one is When? and the second one is Why?WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. First thing is, if you have a question, it should go on the article discussion pages, not in the main article pages. We are supposed to be "encyclopedic", you know? I've copied your text above, as I expect it will get deleted from the article space pretty quick.
Re the subject, if the universe is expanding fast enough, it never gets the news that there is too much mass (way over there on the other side) for it to be able to escape, because the news can only travel at the speed of light. This situation is called a white hole. The older discussion, of more than ten years ago, as to whether the Universe was "open" or "closed" boils down to just that; in the closed case, we would be, now, inside the event horizon, and thus doomed. There is clearly not enough normal matter to do that, I think we now know. But we also know that the geometry is nearly precisely flat (within about 1%) and that there is a lot of mass and energy unaccounted for, maybe 20 times what we can see. See shape of the universe, and stay tuned....
Re "why", all I can say is "Whaaa??" Good question, but nobody has a clue. Cheers, B Wwheaton (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for trying to help me. But my comments were only pertinent to the article category section Black hole sizes and they can delete them or move them as they see fit. But I'm amused that you didn't answer either one of my questions. First there hast to be a time when the proposed size of the universe is equal to its "equivalent mass singularity size" and I'd like to know when that is. Then at that point why cant we apply black hole physics rules? Is there too much kinetic energy? No force of gravity? Whatever. But if we're going to use black hole physics rules to expound now on the future of the universe why cant we be willing to start with the singularity problem which to me is even worse than the Hubble red shift problem. Incidently I've got a book called "The Pictorial Atlas of the Universe" By Kevin Krisciunas and Bill Yenne (Mallard Press) which in both writing and pictures discusses these subject matters. I hope you have access to one. Regards WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Let's say that the history of the universe is that of the movement of matter from a point of origin (within a 3 dimensional volume of space) on a one way journey to it's ultimate destination and over an indefinite time period. Now there is a lot of latitude for choice of scenarios within this but I like to worry about the sun and its solar system. But I have to develop concepts from the top down in the hierarchy and they have to be logically consistent to avoid problems with inconsistencies. And when you say that the geometry of (possible spacial locations?) is basically flat I think maybe you mean flat at the bottom but I'm not at the bottom, I'm up in one of the 100 billion galaxies that is being moved around by the force of local gravity and it seem to me that the exit to that galaxy would be to the flat bottom with no inclination to move towards any other galaxy. This fouls up the concept of the existence of a universal force of gravitation attraction and makes me sceptical of black hole physics if it cant be applied in the first place. WFPMWFPM (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC). Furthermore I dont like the idea that the original point of location would be at the bottom of a black hole or any other type of singularity. How about the rainstorm analogy where you start with a diffuse cloud of particles (water molecules) and throw in a few Van der Wals forces and a lower temperature and wait ro see what happens. Any programmer will tell you that's easier to program than the big bang concept. And dont worry about how the atoms got up there in the first place because after all, who cares?WFPMWFPM (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Re your first question, the answer would depend on whether or not the universe is open or closed. If closed, then it is and always was a black hole, and its radius was always less than the event horizon radius (only there has still not been time for us to reach the future singularity. If open, then it has never been inside that radius, and never will be. However the question, while still open, has been overtaken by deeper problems about the cosmological constant, dark energy and such; about which we know even less. The second question is teleological and I have no idea (without prejudice...) what it even means. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hullo! Sounds like we are on the same page re teleology. If you go to the Particle Data Group website, Particle Data Group, you will find that the mean lifetime (to 1/e, not half-life to 1/2) of the neutron in free space is claimed to be 885.7±0.8 s. I don't know exactly how they do that experimentally (maybe with ultra-cold neutrons? I believe they can have such long wavelengths that they are scattered coherently [by many nuclei together, that is] from the walls of some materials with almost 100% reflectivity, so they can be contained in a box for long periods. You may know more about these than I do—it is very interesting, for both "just scientists" and "just engineers"!), but the 110 sigma confidence value makes me naively believe they are pretty sure whoever did it, done it right. High energy solar flares can produce neutrons on the Sun, and both the neutrons themselves (ie, near Earth) and the 2.2 MeV n+p => D capture gammas produced in the solar atmosphere have been observed—I was even involved with an instrument (HEAO 3) that contributed to that. Few make it to Earth directly, because most decay on the way. I doubt these observations constrain the lifetime very well, but the decay does have to be considered (as a function of n energy—the very high energy ones must even live a bit longer due to relativity). Anyhow, that is (a little more than ! ) all I know about the stability of neutrons in free space.
I also do not know if this has any relevance to dark energy etc, I just think we are almost totally clueless about the subject, a little like the days between the Michelson–Morley experiment and 1905, waiting for Einstein. But, clearly, we are far from being able to answer even your first question, never mind the second one. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

philosophy, ideas, and reality[edit]

I noticed your comment on the Philosophy talk page, I think on 5/23? The problem with the suggestion to define philosophy as the "study of ideas", as I see it, is that the definition you suggest is already in the definition, or rather, in the expanded qualification of the definition in the following section. Your particular suggestion, I think, is reduced to how ideas come to be formed, and that seems to be covered a lot in the study of language, which is sort of the area of Analytic Philosophy, and the logical relating of concepts to one another in a "rational" fashion.

In cognitive psychology and language there are philosophical points of view which go back to the basic definitions found at the beginning of the article. See the works of Noam Chomsky and his critics.

In terms of your suggestion of contributing, you might have a place in the metaphysics division (what is the nature of reality?) That is a particular interest of mine. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, none the less. Richiar (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Periodic Tables[edit]

Hi! could you please tell me what's wrong with my attempt to edit Alternative Periodic Tables. I cant get my references to go to their appropriate locations??????Thank you WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such page. I have no idea what you did.—RJH (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay, the page name is lower case. I put in a lower case. Other than that I'm not sure where you were trying to put in references or what they were.—RJH (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Dear WFPM, Thank you very much for your support in regard to Left Step Periodic Table and the ADOMAH PT. You are absolutely correct. These two tables follow electron configurations better than the IUPAC standard table. In fact, ADOMAH PT is very helpfull when it comes to deriving electron configurations. Have you seen this? Drova (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I left another message for you on my talk.

Drova (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

fixed[edit]

I fixed your image links, complicated ain't it :-) Vsmith (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

proposed electrons[edit]

Just look at these guys, no one could actually answer to there not being an electron. Science is supposed to be open to question, and when its not, it is not science. The periodic table is good as a suggestion, but when its not open to question anymore, its not science. This sounds silly, but I dont have a model, for the electron. This is a computer. do I need a model for what it is, I just know what it is. This also sounds silly. I believe in every electrochemical cell and in every electrical motor, you blatantly violate the law of mass conservation. The electron, does not hold out on an experimental basis, which is why they cant have a physical model for it. when you set up copper plating, or electric welding, this is somewhat of a radiative effect. You are ignoring this, by saying there electrons , and you have protons and nuetrons, and you only get radiation, if you disosiate the protons and nuetrons. But if you understand that there is no electrons, then you must look at this as a radiative effect, and your totally in viotation of mass conservation. And you know if you look up faradays experiments, he really experimentaly demonstrates this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Once we developed the concept of mass energy equivalence, it becomes possible to design the entire universe without mentioning real physical particles, but I'll quote you the following from a book "The evolution of matter" by Dr. Gustave Le Bon to explain my thoughts on the subject, which is "It would, no doubt, be possible for a higher intelligence to conceive energy without substance, for there is nothing to prove that it necessarily needs a support; but such a conception cannot be attained by us. We only understand things by fitting them into the frame of our thoughts".WFPMWFPM (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC) His quote should have said "We only understand things from what were told." . Every student who is shown the scientific method, and then graciously accepts the electron, is already ruined, from ever being a scientist. Every electrician is ruined from ever understanding electricity when he says V=IR. If he just picked that he is going to be practical, and stick to it, it would work out.

I'm a graduate EE, but I learned electronics in the navy, before I took EE. I remember that the formula V=IR meant that there was a linear relationship between the measured current in a circuit and the measured voltage accross a resistor in the circuit. But the current was tricky and at very high frequencies (vhf) it didn't want to travel inside the metal conductor but only on the surface. So if you rubbed the silver plating off a copper conductor you could create a high resistance in the circuit, which skin effect was explained by the properties of electron flow and convinced me that the concept of electron flow was a reasonable proposition. And of course we also studied the stairstep storage of electrons in capacitors and the concept of magnetic inductance. And I am interested in basic chemuistry/physics considerations in the interest of better understanding the working principles of the universe, but I cant see any reason to abandon my electron concepts; particularly since I can see that the atom consists of a fairly simple combination of accumulated matter, combined with the ability to interact with small amounts of matter (or energy?] for energy distribution and other thermodynamic purposes.WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reason to abandon the electron concept: there is no linear relationship between current and voltage. This is only what you are measuring your voltmeter. If you are a good electrician, you do not use a dignital voltmeter. There are not two but three properties of the voltage source:

  • 1) current draw
  • 2) current
  • 3) voltage

To measure the current draw, it is the speed that the voltmeter goes to its spot. Current draw is an accelerative force. Here is my way of look at it. The bernuli equation says that the three forces are pressure + gravity + change in acceleration. The three currents are displacement + conduction + convection so here is my way of looking at it:

  • Electricity | Fluid flow
  • Displacement | Accelerative force
  • Conduction | Pressure
  • Convection | Gravity

Tell me what you think about that. That would mean you need a fluid to explain electricity. There was a fluid in fact that is how vector calculus was invented, that is how we came to know electricity. all of the discoveries that were made in electricity were mad 100 years ago when we viewed electricity as a fluid. That is the correct method of looking at it, and every good electrician and engineer know this but do not talk about it, for fear of being viewed as a quack or someone who has an unconventional view, but that is the conventional view. It is textbooks , wikipedia, and the universities, that are the quacks, and the practitioners are the real deal and they are the ones that really came up with the theroes and their theories are being misrepresented.

I just bought and am reading a book at the local 1$ book store. It is " Electric Universe" by David Bodanis (Crown Publishing 2005) And it traces the history of the electron from Joseph Henry in Albany New York in 1826 through Volta and Henry and Morse and Bell and Edison to present. and I think you should read it. And if you want to deny the existence of a small electrically energized particle in the face of that evidence why be my guest. I'm more interested in its function in the accumulation processes of the atom where I think it is necessary to explain the energy distribution properties of the atom which are needed to accumulate nucleons and achieve dynamic stability and I'm having a hard time rationalizing that.WFPMWFPM (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your having a hard time rationalizing it, because it is not real. I am not denying the existance of small energized particles, I am denying the existance of electrons. I am also saying that you are not a scientist, for accepting them, it is against the scientific method. There is no observation of electrons. PERIOD. You somehow come to the conclusion that because small energized particles might exist in some cases that that, turns into the thing that explains ALL electricity and they are electrons. That is a bold statement to make, you are acting as if I am the bold one. You should read history of chemistry by I. Asimov. All of these so called discoveries of the atom were made by shooting, radiation into matter. Electricity, is a radiative effect, PERIOD. It is called electromagnetic radiation. If you have a nuclear reactor, why are you just using that to heat steam, in these age old ineffecient turbines. There is an entire spectrum of radiation, that is being ommitted. If you didn't have to think of electrons to explain antenea theory, you wouldnt be so bogged down, as to put a really big antenea, right near a nuclear reactor. Why do you need a model, why not model reality with reality? Go flush your toilet, there are not two but three curvatures. The first is going straight down. That is the gaussage flux, what you measure with your voltmeter. The next is going around the toilet, as if there were no toilet the water would spill everywhere. thats what you mistakenly call the current. The next is the water, curving inside the donut hole. That is what you are missing and that is what proves there is no linear realtionship between voltage and current, because there are 3 properties. But this thing you are missing is called the current draw, and its what you measure when you use a amprobe. There is current, voltage and currentdraw, but all of these terms need to be re-evalutated.

Ive got over 200 books by Dr. Asimov and I think he's one of the greatest explainers, But I still believe in the existence of a real physical electron; but not necessarily in the electrostatic charge concept, which I'm still trying to rationalize.WFPMWFPM (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)In science there are only facts and opinions. And when Dr. Asimov said stated that when you electrically charge an electroscope, the leaves separate he was 1:stating a fact, (that the leaves separate), and 2: stating an opinion, (that the leaves repel each other). And when it comes to Rutherford's Alpha deflection experiments, I just cant make myself believe that an impinging charged alpha particle approaching at c/10 velocity, can be stopped in its tracks at a distance of 1.7 fermis from the nucleus, and then accelerated directly back in the sane direction it came from.WFPMWFPM (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I was just looking in my copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (9th edition) and I notice that they have a 102 page article on Electricity and there's no mention of "electron" in the index and I dont think there's any in the article. So that ought to be a good reference for you.WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the idea of forgetting about electrons, and putting a really big antenea right in the cooling bay of a nuclear reactor, and absorb "electricity" right from the radiation? This would not make sense if you think about atoms and electrons, but all practical knowledge says it would work. I also have a copy of the 11th edition of the EB in which Ernest Rutherford wrote an article about "Radioactivity" saying among other things that Beta rays have been shown to be "negatively charged particles projected with a velocity approaching that of light and having the same small mass as the electrons set free in qa vacuum tube." WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC) My dream is to be able to do two things: 1,Move from uranium to thorium fueled nuclear power reactors for electrical energy generation; and 2, figure out some way to modify the lithium6-deuterium fission process so that can only be used for boring tunnels and stuff like that. I think that if we dont blow ourselves up, the problem with fresh water management is bigger than the electric power generation probklem.WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting... Do you really need to think of all of this in terms of electrons? I do not believe your stubborness is scientific, more religeos, that your just told this at an early age, and it becomes apart of you. Isotopes dont make sense either, why do you die if you drink heavy water? Chemicly it is not different than H2O. All of this does not make sense. We only really need water and refrigeration, that is what really made the human life expectancy to raise so much in the past 100 years. Cuba has the cleanest water because they used technology from the Russians. Europe has clean water, in terms of bacteria infestation but it is dirty in terms of metals, and bad chemicals. But America does not use the Russian superior technology even today because of tensions still left from the cold war. Alot of places in Asia Africa and south america all have really bad ways of treating water all because of the bad americian science. If we could generate power and use all of the radiation, and directly use it to "radiate" electricity, we would not need as big a reaction, and we could have a much safer system. This could be employed for wastewater treatment, and refrigeration, which would help third world countires including the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Well my interests are to worry about Physics and the atoms work. but part of my work is to worry about water>WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC) When you turn on your shower, and you smell raw sewage, you can thank wikipedia, textbooks, and people who blatently did not listen to science, but in turn promoted dogmatic theories like electrons, for their own political endevor. When you say V=IR like it is some kind of phrase that is not to be questioned, you are not a practioner, or a scientist, but an idiot because, you are misusing the word voltage and current, and there is a third thing coming from the power source, that you do not even have a word for. This theory, doesnt even fit together, to even explain how electrons are tied into this, and you are not a scientist if you accept them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostkey (talkcontribs) 04:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Gee! Surely do thank you for the compliment.WFPMWFPM (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you even need a model? Is that apart of the scientific method? You already have the differential. Why do you have to let Maxwell interpret the differential for you, when his theory is not even accpeted anymore? The theory that is proposed now, is not even logicly coherent. Is this your science or theirs. If it is theirs, then why dont they just say you have to do whatever your told, and you cant think at all. If it is yours, then why are you not at liberty to accept this or not, and have to memorize this on a test? why is this presented as if they interpreted the scientific method (which they have not) and you have to accept it as if they have? isnt this your scientific method? I got ripped off 3 times

  • 1) math is seperate from physics. so you cant interpret it as fluid flow.
  • 2) physics is first taught as low level algebra bastardizations of newton then intergral calculus bastardizations of maxwells-newton theory, then only the graduate students who took vector physics understand any of it, and they dont tell you
  • 3) circiuts is taugth without physics. This is terrible. this is brainwashing. and there is no electron. if you have a 6 volt motorcycle battery, is it really less than a 9volt duracell? II did a canned "experiment" that measured the amount of electrons using the voltage from a battery. So there are less electrons leaving the 9 volt duracell than the 6 volt motorcycle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.30.229 (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how this is my talk page I'll try to answer your rather off topic contribution. First, Math is separate from physics, so I try to keep the concepts separate. And thus if I can develop a reasonable physical (or chemical) concept about a real physical phenomenon I can then use agreed on concepts of math to determine and communicate the information to others as being one of two sets of types of information (not necessarily mutually exclusive). And to determine about electric current flow, I need a unit of electric current, involving an agreed quantity of same, and that unit is presently defined as an electron. And to further discuss electricity I need defined units of electrical power (volt-amperes or watts) and energy (Joules). Now these units may be arbitrary with respect to certain modern day theories about matter and /or energy) But it is axiomatic that if you're going to play a game successfully, you've got to learn how to play by existing rules. unless maybe you're infallible in fortelling the future, which nobody has done yet.WFPMWFPM (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me say this again: The units for CURRENT ARE WRONG. For starters, the units for charge are wrong. The formula, F=q1*q2/4pir^2 is misplaced. The 4pi comes from the unit for charge. If I just said F = k * q1q2/r^2, then i would just make k = 1, and the units for charge encompass the rest. That being said, there are not two but three CURRENTS in a circuit. The first current is the conductive current, which you call the voltage, on your voltmeter. V=IR is not ohms law. It is not a law, its a statistic on a voltmeter. But voltmeters dont measure voltage. Maxwell never said V=IR. It is wrong. If you do not believe me try this. Connect 100, 10V car batteries in parallel. They are in para so the voltage is still 10. Now connect it to a relatively large load, (say 1k ohms). V=IR says the current should be 1/100 of an amp. So touch it. I dare you. You believe in V=IR, thats what they told you for "safety" in your navy training school. So touch it. It should only be 1/100th of an amp. If you believe in real physical models, the FIRST thing you should ask yourself is why math is separate from physics. you cant prove anything in math without physics, because the numbers need the physical meaning. you cant prove anything in physics because you are just making mathematical models and without address new ones, you are just investing yourself in old physical theories. Let me say this: ELECTRIC FLUID FLOW, it was a concept that was removed from vector calculus, and thus making it not make sense. If maxwell is dead, why are you still using his theory, you have the differential, you can make any mathematical formula you want for any physical experiment and any units you deem nessesary. who is governing you to not do it. you could say there is no conservation of mass OR energy. When the rules dont even make sense and the game, is that you infrastructure is falling apart, and we cant even get clean water, and all you can do is DIE, what kind of game is that? and if there is anyone who is going to kill you if you dont play by the rules, you die anyway, and if they are at liberty to kill you, why do they have science, why not just tell you what to do? and if in fact, all they have use for you, is to kill you, why dont they just do so and get it over with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.28.181 (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Well I tried. But conveying information involves the communication of understood units. And if we cant agree on units, then we cant intelligibly discuss subject matter with each other. So, have a nice day.WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC) You said "conveying information involves the communication of understood units." Im going to use that quote against you. YOU DONT UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN GODDAM UNITS. you are not comminicating anything. nothing. a couple of idiots who have confused units, talking to each other, like idiots about their own confusion. That is the scientific commnity. is a volt really what you read on a voltmeter? Is an amp really what read on an ammeter? what about an amprobe? What about a golden leaf? Why do you get different results? What did your great maxwell say, did he say anything about V=IR? Is that part of electrodynamics? Electrodynamics says there are THREE CURRENTS. Im using your methodology. You have the differential. You can conceieve your own units if you build your own physical models, and as long as you communicate to others what those units are, in a clear mannor, they have to accept them if they are scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostkey2 (talkcontribs) 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I remember power as being V2Superscript text/R. So a 1000 ohm across a 10 volt supply would be only a 1/100 watt load and I should have no trouble touching it. because I remove 50 watt light bulbs all the time. But I recommend the new 13 watt bulbs because they dont waste so much energy on heat.WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) If you touch it you die. I put 100, that is 100 batteries, in paraell. they are car battieries, 10 volts. You will die, because the current, as calculated by ohms law, is low, but their is a CURRENT DRAW coming from the battery. This current draw will kill you. This experiment where you die, demonstrates that there are three electrical components coming from a "voltage source." If you read your navy training manual, you should know, its not the voltage, but the CURRENT, that has an impact on how dangerous electricity is. If voltage is a measurment of power, then how come, this current is what kills you? V^2/R, is not right, and ohms law is not a property of electrictro magnetism, but is a statistic of conductors, under very specific circumcstances. If it is a statistic of the conductor, how can it physically measure the physical power discipated in the circuit? ANSWER: IT CANT. If you run an electric generator, or have a chemical cell, most of the heat is discipated, not in the circuit but in the generation. I believe in measuring energy as a physical property, the energy is discipated in the source. The heat is lost is the source. The load, is not what is drawing the energy, just like a windmill, spinning, the wind is the source of the energy. how many windmills can you put under this much wind? If you dont put enough windmills and you generate too much wind you blow up. That is the equation the power company has to face. If you have too many windmills but not enoough wind, your wind mills dont go. "they just dont go at all" So if that is true, why in electronic circuits do we learn that the power, is dicipated in the circuit? Well some power is lost in the circuit, but the majority is lost in the generators. Batteries, die alot faster once they get hot. so all we have to do is keep it cool. and focus more on the generation, not the result. or look at them both as the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.209.107 (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC) I've finally fugured out that when you say 100 batteries in "parallel" you actually meant 100 batteries in SERIES whuch would then provide a power supply voltage of 100 x 10 = 1000 volts and would make the 1000 ohm resistive load be a 1000 watt load, which of course be too hot to touch. This illustrates which it is necessary to agree on the necessary physical values in a discussion in order to understand each other.WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Physical values must have physical meaning. BTW, I when I said paraell, I meant it. In the solar energy business, solar energy cells can be connected in series or paraell. If they are wired in paraell, the current draw is doubled. This is not discussed in physics or circuits textbooks. Solar cells are actually more dangerous than powerlines, because they are DC. One could connect solar cells in paraell, as discussed in any solar installation manual, that is the same paraell as connecting a resistor in paraell. By doing this we increase the current draw, this unit is not adressed in physics. We need to adress this unit, and thus dismantle circuit theory. Current draw, is what will kill you if you touch it, not voltage or the other current. This I read in Basic Electricity, prepared by the US Navy. So even for safety reasons one should avoid V=IR. So this unit doesnt keep you safe, doesnt help you design circuits, its pointless. and power is also measured from current draw, not the voltmeter voltage, or ameter current. SO YOUR NOT MEASURING THE POWER, WHEN YOU SAY V^2/R. SO YOU UNITS ARE BOGUS. READ MAXWELL, HE NEVER SAID V=IR. IN FACT OHM NEVER SAID IT EITHER. OHM SAID THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT IS ACTING LIKE A FLUID inside the wire. so ohms law is the right intention of comparing electricty to a fluid, and not electrons. it is bastardized, as justifying electron thoery, and mass/energy conservation theory, by saying that VI is the power and the amount of electrons traveling in the wire. are you just playing dumb with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.28.166 (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Any power supply voltage source, be it batteries or solar panels, has to be wired in series for the power voltage source to be additive. Which is to say that the power supply current has to run in series through each power supply which adds its voltage to the overall supply voltage.WFPMWFPM (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Ok, I ran a solar powered air conditioner. When I ran it with a single 6 volt solar cell, it didnt go. But when I put it in PARAELL with four other 6 volt solar cells it ran. When I checked the voltage coming from the four 6 volt solar cells, it read 6 volts, the same as a single 6 volt solar cell. So clearly there is more energy coming from the four 6 volt solar cells in paraell, but the voltage reading is the same as the single 6 volt solar cell. and it is common practice to wire solar pannels in paraell, in which case the voltage does not increase as if there were just one. so voltage sources, do NOT have to be wired in series and the DO produce more POWER when wired in PARAELL even though the VOLTAGE is the same. So there is more power but the same voltage. there is moer power but the same voltage. there is moer power but the same voltage. There is moer power but the same voltage. there is more power but the same voltage. There is more power but the same voltage. there is more power but the same voltage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.28.186 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I'm foreced back to basics. A power source puts out a certain Electromotive Force (EMF), which we will call V, which then supplies resistive Power, (which we will call VI), to the total resistive load of the circuit. And the power to the particle load in question gets power in proportion to its relationship to the toral resistive load in the circuit. So if multiple parallel solar cells are required to power your proposed resistive load I can only cfonclude that the solar cells have an internal resistance that detracts from their ability to supply the load in question. That,s what happens when your car battery gets too weak to start your car, and most probably in the wintertime when the internal resistance of the battery increases. WFPMWFPM (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC) This is my real physical model. Ohms law, is a statistic of the resistor. So its not real. Ohm never said V=IR. So all I can say is what is your source, when you say it. Who said V=IR? Ohm did NOT say it. Who said it, and tell me how it is scientific. I am now making you explain yourself. In my real physical model, the electron is a physical stress on the ether, and the charge is just apart of the mass and is apart of gravity. And in my physical model, gravity, and mass and charge are all one and cant exist without each other. and V is only = to IR, when you make a circuit that is low power. If you just hook up a resistor to something like a car battery, V is not IR. And if you have a non ohmlic material, even if your voltage source is of lower power, V is not IR. (example FET transistor material) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC) It is intriguing talking with you because I remember 60+ years ago when I didn't know ohms law and tried to learn it in connection with an "Eddy test" being condocted by the navy to find candidates for electronic school. And I went to the library and didn't learn it and missed it on the test. But the Navy took me anyhow and taught me up to the level of DC Power, ACPower, Radio transmission Power, and Microwave Power. And now I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and an interest in Nuclear Physics and Technology. And you're telling my concepts are all wrong. But I have 3 sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and a copy of the "books of the Western World" that I have studied on this subject matter and except for some reservations on the existence of 4 different force fields and ilological extrapolations of mathematical equations with relation to physical prediction phenomena, I cant any better explanation of natural laws of physics than I have now. But I wish you luck in your persuit of same. WFPMWFPM (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you keep saying it. Let me say this again: V=IR is NOT a law of physics. It never was. It is not in Maxwells equations. It is not in electrodynamics. It is a statistic on a meter, that isnt physically measuring voltage or current. And voltage is usefull on a big sphere, or big capacitor where you have a stored charge. IT IS NOT USEFULL IN CIRCUIT ANALYSIS. When you make a circuit you have THREE CURRENTS. Thats right three. The voltmeter, is only measuring the relationship of one of the curretns to another one. So your terminology cannot emcompass the third current. And I am talking out of any electrodynamics textbook, There are three currents. So never say again that ohms law is a property of physics. It never was. and never will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Maxwell originally thought that electricity was the fluid that provided the 100 percent efficiency of motion of the components of the atom. But you're talking about three different "Currents" while denying the existing of the electron, which is the only entity that I can conceive of that is energetically "loose" enough in the atom to transfer energy down the electric voltage gradient. Actually, I like the BCS theory of double electron entities of current carriers because it makes sense in the theories about "Superconductivity" Phenomena. But Some entity has to carrying the energy (current) and I'll stick with the electron existence theory and wish you luck. WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You stuck up on energy. Mass is charge is gravity. You cant have mass without charge. When you have a vaccumm tube, the so called space charge, is ON THE GLASS. The charge in a vaccum, is coming from the glass, like getting shocked when you touch the glass on your tv. You cant have a charge in a vaccum there is no vaccum. there is mass around the vaccum where the charge coming from. Maybe the three current thing is bullshit. but it makes sense to me, to explain how electrical power generation works, becuase there are three entities, of radiation pressure, which is what electricity really is. Talking about it as if there are two things, only current and voltage, leaves out something big. the trouble is everyone is brainwashed, and you cant explain the difference, between the current is generation and the current in usage. These are separate entities. This termonology is a dogmatic religeon. There is no energy coming from the atom. It is radiating from it, just like a piece of uranium radiates into you and gives you cancer. There is no difference, is terms of what is atomicly happening, when you have electricity, then when you have nuclear decay. Its all radioation, just electricty, happens to be prodcuing less of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC) The units for charge are wrong, and the units for conductivity are wrong. How does charge travel across a long glass rod? This is the same phenomon in a vaccum tube. With bogus units you cannot convey any understanding of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.28.149 (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC) ===I disagree with you. I believe we can have mass without charge because there's lots of them within the atoms and probably loose around, and we're now busy trying to round them up, and there's where the problem is. Because they're loose and have a lot of variation of location and velocity and direction and don't have a handle to get ahold of. And I think that's where electromagnetic and electrostatic forces come in. Because we have to equalize those variations and minimize them (law of increasing entropy) in order to reaccumulate them as evidently the purpose of nature. But we don't need charge to have mass. WFPMWFPM (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Look at what you just said "I believe we can have mass without charge because there's lots of them within the atoms" There is lots of charge within the atoms. you cant have charge without atoms, or mass. You also said to me, that maxwell didnt know about the atom, but then you say he did. You just contradicted yourself. The source of light on earth, is not from the sun, because there are times when it is still birght but I see no sun. When I drive at night, and there is a car, coming towards me behind a hill, I see the light, before I see the car. That is light does not come from the so called "light source." There is a displacement, created by the mass. Anyways you DO need charge to have mass, based on YOUR definition of electrons, and atoms, that means all mass does have charge , and I AGREE with that postulation that all mass has charge, I dont agree with the definition of the electrons, and I beleive in the higher order definition of that mass is charge(which is what the idea of electrons point to), and it is also gravity. The so called static charge on the glass, and in a vaccumm tube is the same thing, its not a "space charge" but the glass is trapping the displacement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

When you do not make a current loop, (A circuit) the voltage, is what is important. Then there is a convection from the voltage. This is the first current. This current does not deplete the voltage. If you take a glass rode, and put it next to another glass rod, there will be a convection current, and they will repell each other, but no voltage will be lost. The voltage will just determine the strenght. Maybe if we just made technology using the prciples of stephen grey, we would never need to discuss the other two currents, however, all of the currents create each other. When you have a lead acid battery, there is a convection current, inside the battery, this does not deplete the voltage. The voltage is from the difference in the metal. There is a convection between the two metals. Then when you make the circuit loop, the time 0, when you first make it, there is a displacement current. This is the seccond current. The convection, is then harnessed against the displacement, and is fighting it. This generates heat. Then the displacement minimizes. There is still a small amount of displacement, from the fluxtuations of heat, but it is very small. Then the primary current is the conduction current. You dont need to talk about voltage anymore, you can just talk about the three curretns. When you have conduction, you get this "resistance" it is the inverse. but this is MEANINGLESS, in a convection setting( V IS NOT IR). then the conduction is fighting against the convection, and making heat in the battery, (primary energy loss) and then there is heat in the resistors. That is where the energy is lost. There are three currents, that is what is physically happening. This relates to the atom, because, these three currents, exist in mass itself, and are apart of mass itself. it is radiation pressure. that is what is making gravity. gravity is also apart of mass itself. Thats my real physical model. you dont need voltage, it only indicates the stregh of the convection current. if you know the convection current, and actually measured it(by going inside your battery, or power generator), it is what you really need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.28.148 (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC) ==Well I'll try again An electrochemical cell (battery) starts with two electromotive force (voltage) originating probes (usually metallic) inserted into an Electrolytic medium usually liquid). This results in a net electromotive force (voltage) trying to move the electricity (electrons/fluid/?) away from the most negative probe. The electric circuit consists in 3 electrical components, 1 and 2: The electrical resistance in the probes, and 3: the "ionic" resistance through the electrolytic circuit. An additional factor in this system is that the chemistry of the electrochemical activity of the probes can be modified by materials that cover up the area of exposure of the probe material to the electrolyte and thus "passivate" and add additional resistance to the electric circuit. But anyway the result of the closing of the circuit switch is for the cell to start two electrochemical processes that produce a net electrical voltage (V) which provides electric power (energy/unit time) to each of the resistive components of the cell in proportional to their electrical resistance values. Then, as the probes become depleted in their electricrochemical energy producing materials, the passivation factor gets big enough to not let the battery deliver the electrical energy to the intended load. In Lead/Acid batteries for example, instead of the probes being lead and lead oxide, with sulphuric acid in the electrolyte, The sulphuric acid ultimately becomes permanently rather than temporarily bonded to one of the lead probes, and the electrochemical energy producing capability of the cell is considerably reduced. Nonaquious cells involving ionic conduction are, of course, different, but the two probe/ electric power distribution principle remains basically the same. WFPMWFPM (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC) My mom's crackhead electrician was a nuke tech in the US army. He made a salt water battery, power an array of LED lights. He was blatently on crack and did not understand the importance of this discovery. Power is lost in the batery, from the heat. FARADAY SAID, that the reading on the galvnanometer, is propertional to the CHEMICAL CHANGE IN METAL when there is no heat. When there is HEAT the chemical change from the heat + chemical change from the galvnanometer reading = total change. So heat is the WORST thing you can get. Plus, FARADAY was against electrons, because the galvanometer reading IS NOT THE TOTAL ELECTRICITY. So we need to actually minimize, the so called voltage, and minimize the heat. We need to use something corosive, to but not heat forming. Answer: SALT WATER. then we need to actually MINIMIZE the voltage, but MAXIMIZE, the output. Yes it is get more output, without increasing your galvnanometer voltage. in sum, these are the three things you need to change in your THINKING, to get a "Free energY" LED lighting system.

  • 1) Minimize heat loss in battery, by changing to salt water
  • 2) Make an array of cathode annode cells, and wire them in PARAELL maximizing, output without increasing galvananometer "Voltage" or circular gaussage as heaviside coins it(faraday said that "voltage", actually makes your batteries go bad)
  • 3) Make it accessable, to putting probes, in this battery, as well as being able to CLEAN IT. then this will never die because the salt water can be replaced.
  • all the "chemist" who made batteries for the past 300 years, did not use salt water, because it would mean we dont need "chemistry" to get electrical power. that is why no one has thought to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.55.9 (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The company I worked for made a silver-chloride/magnesium electrochemical cell which would power a flash light bulb when dropped into water (or beer) plus for other water activated applications. WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Electrochenical batteries for space applications have been made to be pretty reliable, as indicated by some of the Nasa Space programs. However they do have their failure modes as dont we all. So the best battery systems usually involve a capability for monitoring and maintenance as in the Submarine battery technology business. WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What you need to do is to figure out a system of accumulating energy that can be extracted from a given square area of the ocean and then design a platform that will stay located in the oceans environment and that will extract the solar, wind, physical motion and any other source of energy and then change it into a store of hydrogen gas, which can then be collected and used on shore as a hydrogen powered energy source. That sounds possible and after all. 70+ percent of the planet is covered by the ocean. WFPMKWFPM (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What is interesting, is that most lead acid batteries produce gas, that is not used. I was thinking of making a superarray of cells, wireing them all in paraell, that minimizes coorosion, then also collecting the gas. That would be really good. You could run it, and get electrical power, + get the gas. Moving fluids tend to increase coorosion and voltage, but is that really what we want? Maybe we want to decrease the voltage, and increase the array, so that we have a strong Irish current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.55.12 (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

  • An overcharged Lead acid battery will certainly create hydrogen gas. But you need to utilize waste energy, like wind and solar energy. I was thinking about what a nation could do to utilize waste energy, like the USA in the caribbean or Australia in the Indean Ocean. There's a book called "The Hysrogen Economy" That you ought to read for its implications about this. WFPMWFPM (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You can refer me to many books and I am sure they are all good, but I do not have access to a library right now. I am sure you are well read too, but you cant give me one book, that resolves the Irish Current. You know what I mean when I say Irish Current, you just do not want to admit it. I would like to suggest, that your real physical model, incorporate the Irish current, as well as the differential. Once we set up the differential we can model it physical with anything, but I think electricity is most easily modeled with fluid flow. We should stare at square one, we have the differential we can model, electricity. The main reason the atom is so screwed up is because the atom, is very much effected by electricity, and our electrical models, are not good, because of the Irish Current. If we fix the Irish current, we can resolve the atom, and ultimately resolve gravity as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.142.6 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Oh yeah here is a book you should read regarding the "Irish current" http://irishchm.white.prohosting.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.142.6 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC) The only thing I know about ether is that they gave it to me when they took my tonsils out over 70 years ago. But I'm listenong, and I'll see what I can find out about your "Perpetual Ether Machine". WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Maybe there's a way for the thing to make atomic oxygen and then nitrous oxide. But I think you'ld need a higher cell voltage for that. WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I really don't think that there is an ether either, it was a joke, that you were supposed to get. That Robert Boyle actually thought, that mass was not conserved in gas expansion, and you can say that even easier, when you have gasses coming from electrochemical sources. This ether, is what most scientist believed in. You can say that mass is not conserved, even easier, if you are detecting the gas with your nose. And you were also supposed to get the joke about the irish current. That people cant define Irish, because the english school system defined the word anglo-irish, and the english school system also defined the word electron, and current. It says in basic electricity, NAVPERS, that the total force, that will KILL YOU is not the voltage but the CURRENT. So the total EMF is the CURRENT. and Farday said that the decay in the battery is propotional to the VOLTAGE READING. So the total emf is the current, and the loss of power is from the voltage. and if you dont believe me, get a low voltage source, and put it so it has lots of current, and go kill yourself. Those were two jokes, that you did pick up. Laugh haha funny.------------------ Well I'm sorry that I didn't get the joke. But I've been tickled by high electrostatic voltages, and had sparks jump to my finger from antennas and almost been struck by lightning. So I know about Electric Energy (Volt Coulombs) and Electric Power (Volt Amperes). And I've designed Electrochemical Batteries, and and run parallel electrical power generating plants, and found all of that very interesting. But now I'm interested in the Atom, and what it is made of, and I need any additional I can get that will help me improve my Real Physical Models that I showed in Talk:Nuclear model. And I'm pretty sure it has proton/neutron pairs (deuterons) plus excess neutrons, plus electrons. And as I have explained to you, I don't know exactly how the electrons function inside the atom and I'm trying to find out.WFPMWFPM (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)' This is why, what im saying matters:

  • 1) Faradays Law: The voltage (REading on the meter) is always propertional to the amount of decay in a battery
  • 2) The emf, is proportional not to the voltage but to the current: as in the current that will kill you if you touch it, not any current that you measure with a meter.
  • 3) These two things, state that batteries wired in paraell, will produce more power, but actually not have as much decay.
  • 4) This needs to be incorporated into a real physical model to incorporate what charge really is.

Your not paying attention. They say i have attention deficit disorder, but your the one that has got it. Faradays law of electrolysis, is that the decay in a battery, is always proportional to the voltage. But the EMF is not the voltage it is what is know as the draw current, and it has nothing to do with the load. I dont know how to else to say it dammit. EMF is not VOLTGAGE. EMF is current, and its got nothing to do with a voltmeter, galvnanometer, or ammeter, its physcially measured by what your running (or if it kills you or not). It can also be physically measured by looking inside your voltage source. This needs to be incorporated into the atom. I cant say it any different. I am a EE too. Most EE's these days cannot even use an osciliscope, they dont even know circuits, they dont even know the difference between digital and analog. This is totally destructive both moraly physically and spiritually, to have this level of brainwashing, and i am calling it what it is. 60.234.28.20 (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


I guess I'm not good at acientific jokes. That's because in science I try to keep my ideas about facts and agreed opinions as rational as I can and as organized for memory purposes as I can. So when I wake up each morning, and notice that the world continues to exist, I dont have to spend too much time getting it's rules of behavior in my mind so that I can function. I am amazed at your grasp of terminology and am trying to understand your ideas about electricity and electrons. But if you're playing games with me, I'll probably have to look for information elsewhere. If you have a checkerboard, why dont you make nuclear models. Just work on what the nucleus of 4Be9 must be like if it obeys the magnet accumulation protocol. With cylindrical neodymiun magnets you learn even more. WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I use magnets, round magents. I had round neodynem magnets. I got them on ebay. some were about 1/12th inch diameter and some were 4/12th inch. I made micky mouse, with two small and one big. I was playing with it alot, until i cracked it. Then I made myself bleed, and got the iron in my blood. Now I got my electron model in my blood. I also had 16 small neodynom, square magnets and i madea rubix cube. It was really cool and interesting. I tried to make it defy itslef in teh rubix cube, so i could give it so someone, and then they would all come crashing out. but failed. anyways, im saying that you need to put the IRish current in your model of the atom. That is your missing link. The irish current, is the current that faraday talked about: Fardays law of electroylsis, is that the "voltage" is always propertional to the decay, but Faradays law of induction, is that the EMF is not the "voltage" and is a seperate current, known as the IRish current. So there, I had your magenets I thought about the same dam thing you thouhgt about, and im problably related to you, maybe your my lost uncle. anyway, im saying this on wikipeida, because the irish current, can be referenced, to micheal fardays experimental research, and sourced, in articles on wikipedia. so pay attention. Voltage is not emf. Voltage is bad, that means decay. current is good, that is emf. That is what faraday said, that is why he was opposed to the electron. this is all sourceable, referenceable material that could be put on wikipedia, but i am too much of a troll to do it now, but you could. --I'm not a mathematician, just an Engineer. And I visualize electric power on paper as being an area on a V versus I chart. If you Plot your voltage (V) versus current (I) point on a Cartesion VI chart and then measure the area of the rectangle created on the chart by the VI point you have an area which is proportional to V times I, which is in VoltAmps Which is in Watts, which is in Joules per second. Then as the time goes by that area rises in time to create a volume of (watts times seconds) or wattseconds, which is Joules. So Power is an area and Energy is a volume. And the current I is concieved as being as so many electrons per second. So maybe if you can explain your "Irish current" in those terms I could understand it. WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Irish current is what I have been trying to explain to you, for about 4 months now. Close your eyes, and imagine, what you thought electricity was before any ever told you anything. Just forget everything anyones has ever told you. Forget every word relating to electrcity that anyone has ever said. Can you do that? You are knocked out, on ether gas. It knocked you out. You forgot everything, about what anyone ever said about elctrons current, voltage, and everything. Now there is an Irish leprecahn. He is going to make an irish current for you. He gets lots of glass jars, and puts salt water in it. He gets zinc and copper metal. You dont know what zinc or copper is, you just see, a grey metal tinted slightly green and a Irish reddish metal. HE has about 100 glass jars, and puts 1 redish metal in each jar and 1 greenish metal in each jar. then he connects all the redish metals and all the greenish metals. he takes a meter, and measures a reading, it is really really low. he says that the reading is the total amount of corosion in all the jars combined. He says that is some quack who said that, faraday. then he connects it to a motor and boom, its really really powerful. he says that is the irish current. the irish current is completely independent on the amount of corosion you have. Just that if you make your irish jars, a certain way, the irish current will have a statistical relationship to the amount of corosion. but that is a statistic, and if you do it the way the leprecahn does it, you get so much more irish current, and you have very little corosion. ok now come back out of your ether sleep. we could now run are cars on hydrogen, extracted by the irish current, and we could run all our home apliences on the irish current. now that you know what the irish current is. make a model of the atom, that incorporates it!!!! damn it.

Irish current[edit]

I start with water (2H + 1 8O16), and salt (1 11Na23 + 1 17Cl) + 29Cu and 30Zn. And in each of 100 glass jars there is an interconnected copper/zinc electrochemical couple within the salt water solution, plus an external connection to first a (presumably) voltmeter and to get a low voltage, and then to a motor? (or maybe a generator?). Now if to a generator you would no doubt start electrolyzing the salt water and probably getting gaseous hydrogen plus oxygen. But if you could make some atomic oxygen, you might be able to create some nitrous oxide (N2O) Which is an anesthetic gas that could make you high. Maybe you could ask a chemist about that. And I wont get unto the herb part because you said you were kidding about that. WFPMWFPM (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Electrical phenomena will do that for you. I was once near a lightning strike and could smell the ozone resulting from the atomic oxygen creation. WFPM60.234.55.59 (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

just close your eyes, and forget everything any ever told you about chemistry, mechanics, electronics, electrons, and just go with what im saying for a little bit. then build the model, and lets compare this model to the current model, whatever you think that may be. The atom, is made up of a very very gelatinous substance. JJ thomson was right. think of an ant stuck in water. The water is very sticky and gelatinous up close. Imagine that times a factor so large... Its got 3 parts to it hydraulic, electric and mechanical. It does not have a very strong driving force. It is in fact very weak inside. but the geometry, of it is, is that it has alot of paraell connections. Now hydraulicly, your head loss is from teh pressure drop. Its liek voltage is the amount you lose, but current is what you run your motor on. Well, pressure is what you lose, but mass flow is what you run your turbine on. So its got lots of irish connections inside it. It does not drive very much, but the irish current, has a magnification effect. the hydrogen atom, is a circular circuit, and most of the elements, up to group two on the periodic table are circular, whcih is why bonding makes sense for those, with the valience electron theory. That is because the valience electrons are actualling linking in series to a paraell circuit. these elements up to group two have a spiral fracteline geometry, which energies itself through the irish current. its like a recursive function of itself. it keeps calling itself multiple times. ok now, for the other elements, they have a more complecated geometry. i dont understand chemistry beyond the group two elements but maybe someone who did could use this model to explain it. anyway, so the atom is mechanical too, this hydralic circuit is moving a very gelatinous substance, generating an electric circuit, and both of those combined are generated mechanical noise which is all aperant in the atom. And yes , all of this could be modeled, physically by building these circuits. but before you can leap into any of this, you have to come to terms with the irish current. that paraell connections generate more power than series connection. and if you dont believe me, just try it. there is nothing to debate, either it works or it doesnt. and from my experience it works. the so called electron, only is aperent in the atoms up to group two. that is because these are paraell circutis that have a spiral recursive fractiline geometry, where on the outer part of it, they link to each other. but that is totally irrevent for the other elements on the periodic table, and there are vast amounts of elements that could be created and exist that we have absolutely no understanding of. but if you are just going to argue with me as if the irish current does not exist.... well i just want you to try this. Run every electrical applience in your house at the same time. all your vaccum, all lights on, all tvs computers on, and all your aircon on. when your power blows out you will get a bill, for over 1000 dollars. that is because using more electricty at one time, is more costly than using the same amount of electricity over an extended time. This is just a simple fact of nature. if you go party when you cant afford it, and you have more on your plate, it cost you more. its a simple logical construct that defeats energy balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.77.53 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC) ==I studied Electrical power generation and transmission in college an know about demand load factors etc, and am fascinated to notice that the people that now run the industry dont know or care about what an electron is. But I've spent my adult life trying to build a set of rational concepts about natural phenomena, And I'm not going to let you or your Irish leprechaun foul me up. For example, I know that the origin of things began long before the occurrence of people so people had nothing to do with it. And I dont know why the universe originated, but now it is being reaccumulated and the process involves the existence of two distinct but interchangeable particles, namely the proton and the neutron. And if you energize (heat up) an atom in a vacuum with an electrostatic charged field gradient the atom will emit particles that move from the negative cathode to the positive plate, so they respond to the electrostatic charge, and can also be deflected by a magnet, so they respond to an electromagnetic field. And Stoney called them "electrons" and that's good enough for me. So now we have this process of "reaccumulation" going on. But it is evidently not a single phase process. But if you look at images of the Whirpool Galaxy , you can see a part of the intermediate process where real physical matter (neutrons and small atoms) is being accumulated into larger atoms. And since we see a lot of radiation energy coming away from the accumulations we must assume that the radiation of electromatic energy is part of the process. So let's call the origin of the original particles a phase 1 accumulation process and the observed Whirlpool Galaxy accumulation process to be phase 2. And finally, behind of and in the center of the whirlpool galaxy we can clearly see that most of the matter in the whirlpool galaxy is about to be swallowed up into a Black Hole or so called singularity. So let's call that swallowing up of the whirlpool galaxy to be phase 3 of the reaccumulation process. And I can't buy your gelitenous matter concept. Because the density of the atom's nucleon components is too high, and it's process of creation must have involved accumulation forces greater than those operating in the phase 2 process. But let's say that in order for matter to be accumulated in the phase 2 process that some of the accumulated nucleons in the small atoms had to have a way to get rid of excess kinetic energy and/or angular momentum as a means of maintaining physical stability. So nature created a particle that was attached to the nucleon, but that had the capability to emit radiation and thus carry off the excess. And this particle normally functioned to emit radiation, but was also so loosely bound to the nucleon that it itself could be removed from its bond to the nucleon by excessive physical forces. So the atom is conceived of as consisting of two kinds of nucleons plus these excess energy emitting particles that you dont want to call electrons and where do we go from there? WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Oh yes, I momentarily forgot our problems with the SR and GR relativity theories, and with the reddening of the radiation emission spectra and with the Big Bang Universe creation and inflation theories. So I guess my neurons are getting old and worn out and unable to handle the complexities of all this stuff. Oh for the brains of a computer. WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC) And another thought, which is that when you next run this Irish current experiment, you ought to get a bottle sample of the evolved gas and get it chemically analyzed to see if there is any N2O or else maybe some patentable gas being created by the process.WFPM (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You got to get rid of the energy concept. Did you do what I said. When you blow your power out by running every electricl thing in your house at the same time doing it for only about an hour or so your bill is about 1000 dollars. That is becaue you use more power by running things at the same time. Try having 5 girlfriends, mayb you will find ot that way how exhousted you would be. Anyway the nucleas is not massive, and im sticking to my geletin theory, because, there isnt much energy in the atom. Let me repeat that for you: there is not much energy in the atom. It is the geometry in the atom that has a high crystal lattice, that when you put a little energy in it alot comes out. that is because there are many paraell connections in it. Simple put, having lots of paraell connectins, is like duplicating yourself mutliple times to take care of your many girlfriends. so if you have 5 girlfriends, and 1 you, its like running yoursef in series. but if you have 5 copies of yourself and only 1 girlfriend its like running yourself in paraell. So you do less work, when you are in paraell, then when you are in series. As a battery exert, you do drain a battery more when you run many things at the same time. you shoud know that. if you had 5 batteries and only had to run one thing, it would be really really easier, then if you had 1 battery and had to one run thing. That is why, there isnt much density in the atom. As for the electrochemisy behind it I have one word Kinetics. Running batteries in paraell, produce the same reaction/decay, but the rate of decay is much much less. This is so simple. All I can ask you is can you believe the Bold textarogance that someone would make you sit in prison for 6 hours a day, and say "I know more than you." And I would call school prison because I was in the new york city public school system, the once prestigous schools are now prisons, can you believe that? well when they were prestigous, it was still brainwashing, it just meant you could actually get a job when you left. I dont play checkers I play 5 stones. It is like tictactoe but you have to put 5 of them in a row. geometry matters more, than how many stones you have. So i think there is a gelatinous like substance, would not call it ether because im still laughing at it, that is making up the atom, and the irish current, is arising and greatly amplifing, the very little energy inside it, because of the atomic crystal lattice. Here is another experimnt, make jello and put it in the fridge, take it out. The law of thermodynamics say it should go back to liquid. Draw me an Tempature enthalpy diagram. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.142.6 (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Irish current arises, because electricity is viewed as a two phase current and voltage scale, when really its a triple phase. Maybe we actually need tables, to actually understand this. The triple burner, in the atom, is a nuclear reactor. It is in a three phase region, it is gelatinous, but moving. That is the first phase. The seccond phase, is that its moving, it creates a drag, which generates the so called electric effect. The third phase is heat. That is the displacement. It goes, motion => drag => displacement. Electricity is the same. The there is a three phase, and a tripple point. You could exasperate the tripple point, by putting much of the phases pushing against it, or you could just make tables, or even better yet a map of it. If you just knew where the triple burner was, inside the nucleus of the atom, and how it operated, you already have a nuclear reactor, it is the atom itself! AC current uses the displacement effect, but there is also motion and drag. you want to get the most drag(drag is actually what is making your electrical things run not voltage), and the motion is the loss (the voltage). The irish current, is the phantom current, because you are only look at two phases(current and voltage). There are three phases, just like solid liquid and gas. Just having two words, for the three phases (current and voltage) is like having two words for the three phases (solid liquid and gas). So its like lets pretend there is no word, for solid. So sometimes when comparing solid to liquid, i call a solid a gas, but when i compare solid to gas, i call solid a liquid. And then there is no way to compare all three. So, I call the three phases of electricity, current, voltage, and irish current.


A suggestion to home electrcity users: dont run many things at the same time, and wire your lights in series. Make it so, you have just enough juice to make it go, but dont use more juice. Put as many power generators: Batteries and motors, in paraell, and as many things you use: Lights: fan, aircon, in series. Put your AC-DC converters in series. Make use of the irish current. do not run many things at the same time, as that will make your power bill go up. Wire your lighting in series. Paraell drains more, from the gauge that your power company bills you. (But if you are the power company, you lose less, if you supply things in parallel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaveEtherSniffer (talkcontribs) 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Isotopes of Samarium[edit]

Replied here; please continue any discussion at Talk:Samarium, for the benefit of any other interested parties. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion[edit]

Hi - I've continued the discussion at this page if you want to continue it there. Regards, --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Power[edit]

Hi, and thanks for contacting me on my talk page. I've responded there. It's clear from the above two entries that you're attempting to make similar edits in other nuclear related articles and running into similar difficulties. You may wish to slow down on making edits while you work to sort out why these have not been accepted. Hope the wikipedia guideline links and continuing discussion in the nuclear power article are helpful. Cheers. Mishlai (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Superscript textSuperscript text== Big Bang ==

Hi again! I see you have been busy, having fun I hope. I think there is really no need to assume the Big Bang came out of nothing; we just do not know. It is very clear that the universe was once very small and very hot, but we cannot go back too far. Thirty years ago Steven Weinberg's excellent introductory book The First Three Minutes (which I highly recommend) laid out the original BB model with beautiful clarity. It simply tried to extrapolate back as far as possible using known physics, and assuming the universe started hot and dense and then expanded nearly in thermal equilibrium. It seemed too sweet, simple, and elegant (considering its explanatory power) not to have a lot of truth in it, but it only went back to the first microsecond or so, beyond which we just did not know the particle physics. So that is back about 30 decades (dex in time) from now, ~1017 sec after the BB. Now we can go back a little further with accelerators. But that is still many dex after "The Beginning"—an infinite number, in fact, if there really was such a t=0 moment. I'm glad the ISS info was helpful; I'd been away from Wiki for a while since we last talked, and had actually forgotten who WFPM was. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) == Yes but it impacts on and results in a set of standard model nuclear concepts related to the atom and results in independent force field theories and atomic structure theories that could be discussed under alternate theory concepts because they aren't permitted to be discussed and organized due to the "prevailing opinion" reporting concept. In the May 1985 issue I called the graphic artist concerning the pioture he had in the National Geographics magazine of the supposed nucleus of EE6C12 and asked him where he arrived at the picture concept. His answer was "That's the prevailing opinion consensus" And of course the Buzz Word use requirement system hurts the ability of people to explain things in simpler grammatical concepts. And of course I dont know the POV of others but I realize that my ideas are part of a process of trying to remain sane an avoid dilemmas in ideas about the subject matters that I care about. That's why I like Computer logic, and think it should be applied to more subject matter. WFPMWFPM (talk). 17:28, 13.WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC) October 2008 (UTC)For a while I thought I had a concept of a spherical volume of space that would contain 10E11 galaxies and that could created by a c value expansion rate velocity. And now I'm told that the space volume expansion rate is added to the c value velocity rate and the universe must be much larger than that. But maybe there are still only 10E11 galaxies plus 10 times as much other matter. WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC).WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As I say, I am no expert on general relativity, but given the mysterious acceleration (which we seem to observe, and are thus stuck with for the time being), these weird things can happen. One situation I do sort of comprehend is in special relativity, when a bank robber takes off on his super escape rocket with the loot, accelerating at a constant rate a in his own accelerating rocket's frame. Then if the cops don't start off after him pretty quick (depending on a, I think it is about a year if a = 1 gravity), they can never catch him (as long as he keeps accelerating), no matter how much faster their super-duper rockets are. He goes through a kind of event horizon. Replace the rocket with a cosmic acceleration, due to who-knows-what, and you seem to have a similar situation. The product of his "proper acceleration" (measured by his accelerometer, in the ship frame) and his proper (ship clock) time is known as the "rapidity", u. At 1 g for 1 year, it approximately equals c, and it is simply additive, so it can obviously go on increasing without limit, if he has enough fuel. His velocity, seen by an un-accelerated observer, increases asymptotically to c, and v = c*tanh(u) I believe it is. I think essentially the same idea is what allows inflation to blow up the universe to huge size early in the big bang, if I understand that, which is doubtful. Rapidity is simply additive, though velocity is not. That may be part of an answer to your question. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
= Yeah I get it, except that I dont get it. My concept of the paradox didn't even involve the "a" of the initial mass but but merely the problem of getting his v up to c by throwing things at him with velocity c. I think that's a "thrust" problem that you're familiar with. And thanks.WFPMWFPM (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
=But I've been thinking about this and if you combine Einstein's E=McSquared equation with the SR Mass expansion equation, you get that Msubv increases to infinity as v increases to c. This kind of casts doubts on the escapees' ability to achieve c velocity by 1 hour of constant acceleration, as well as the theory that the universe consists of matter rushing away from us at the velocity of light. There best plan of escape would therefor be to initially establish an escape velocity v and then wait and not make any detectable emissions until they got far enough away to get lost in the general expansion characteristic of the universe they lived in. Thus the moral of the story would be "you can hide but you cant run!". WFPMWFPM (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC).WFPMWFPM (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't answer your questions, because I am not sufficiently expert in general relativity (GR). The special relativistic "perfect escape" example I proposed above shows that there can be observers who can never communicate with each other under the rules of special relativity (SR), which does have a phenomenon very much like an event horizon, but in a flat space time. The bank robber never goes faster than light (so none of the infinities and problems with faster-than-light travel appear), but he can never be caught, no matter how much more powerful his pursuer's rocket may be. In GR the spacetime is curved, and although I think I comprehend the principle, I do not really know how to talk about the relative velocities of two observers separated by a curved region of spacetime, or how the flat space concepts (like kinetic energy and especially its associated mass-energy) carry over into the GR regime. To understand all this I would either have to re-invent Riemannian geometry (which would be stupid to even attempt) or else plow through the texts (which is obviously the thing to do, but would take more time than I have available, what with work and all). Alas!! I do encourage you to push forward as far as you can. The Wiki articles on GR & SR probably have the answers, at least implicitly, but they may not be very easy to find or disentangle given our entropy problems here.
Good luck! -- Bill
PS: Note the Escapee never achieves velocity v greater than c, watched from an unaccelerated frame, at rest w/r the Bank, say. If he has an inertial guidance unit with an accelerometer on his ship, and integrates his indicated ship a*dt for about a year (not an hour) with a = 1g, he will get a reading of c, but that is in his local frame which is moving very fast, though less than c. That reading, u, is the rapidity. Since he can keep on accelerating as long as he likes, u can keep on growing without limit (in this fantasy world of SR physics without economic or engineering constraints). Wwheaton (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I think I've got him, because his space vehicle, which I designed, started of at a low velocity and acceleration, and I know that it's thrust fuel velocity is such that it will never get his vehicle's velocity up to the speed of light. So when I plot our courses on a single dimensional Minkowski spacetime chart, after 1 year or whenever, I see that we're even in time and he's ahead of me in space, but with my new vehicle moving at the velocity of light I am sure to catch up. WFPMWFPM (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I take that back. He will be behind me (in time) and ahead of me (in space) when I take off. But later,(to him) when I catch him, we will all be together in the same time and space, which is when I took off. Is that clear? WFPMWFPM (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope, if he accelerates at constant a in his own instantaneously at rest frame (which he can always do, by the principle of relativity, and my [absurd in practice, of course] hypothesis that he has a super rocket), then his worldline trajectory in the Bank Frame will be a hyperbola asymptotic to a 45 degree straight line (in units where c = 1 — see Minkowski diagram). He will never cross that asymptote if he keeps accelerating, so if the Cop at the bank waits too long to start after him, he can never catch the Thief without exceeding c himself. Wwheaton (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
==I'm not worrying about his super rocket, it's your math I'm worrying about. When I design his rocket. I design it with propulsion fuel velocity=c which is the best I can do. And he can use as much of the fuel mass as he needs to accelerate his vehicle up to the desired velocity, which in this case is c. And after he uses half his fuel, his velocity is not quite c, but his mass is infinite, or not quite infinite. So how does he get it on up to c. Maybe there is a converging series in there somewhere, but I dont see it. WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
==I understand about the hyperbola, but he starts from at rest (going straight up) then his chart trajectory bends toward the asymptote but I dont see how it ever gets there, when the c velocity implies that his ship has infinite mass. WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
==You can argue that my new rocket wouldn't be able to do better, but you didn't argue that, and maybe I'll just shoot him down with a ray gun or something. But at least I can see him, in my one dimensional universe of course.WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
My Thief never gets to c of course, but his rapidity u obeys the non-relativistic rocket equation, because he is always at rest in the instantaneous rocket frame. The mass of fuel required (for a given payload mass) is exponential in the ratio of u to the motor exhaust velocity, which kills it in practice, but not in principle. This is worked out in Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler's text, somewhere around p 100 to 110 I think. Wwheaton (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
==Non relatavistic rocket equation!? Now I feel like the guys with the Universe Inflation Theory. Its too bad the Atoms dont know about that theory , to solve their radiation problems. Or what about SLAC problems with accelerator energy requirements. But maybe it ties in with a theory I had that the radiation velocity was always c, but the direction was always at right angles to the direction of motion, kind of like some of Newton's descriptive drawings. Oh yes, I asked a talk question about the Michelson-Morley experiment. Maybe you could help me with that. And Thanks!! WFPMWFPM (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki formats[edit]

None of your edits, at least in the past week, has avoided damaging display of the page edited. Please do not use dozens of non-breaking spaces followed by := again. If you do, it's like your edit will be reverted without comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see it here but I have used non-braking spaces to try to get my contribution on a new line and not be an extension of a previous contribution. and I apologize and would appreciate knowing how to start my contribution on a new line. WFPM (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Simply use a colon or more than one to indent your comment in reply (as I did to your response above). Or to simply start a new "paragraph", hit enter prior to adding your comment. Hope this helps. Vsmith (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you and hello. have you asked any of your students what they thought of my models? WFPM (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC) ````
Actually, to be precise, the usual talk page convention is to start a new line with one more colon than the preceding line. Equal signs at the beginning of a line are only used for headers. I apologize for assuming that you were given a welcome message which includes the appropriate indentation conventions. WP:TALK is a good start, but, and if you are confused, you can add {{helpme}} on this page, followed be a detailed question, and someone will come by to answer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Abolish electrons[edit]

Every man at age 13 should get:

  • 1) a woman
  • 2) an ass
  • 3) a horse

we dont need

  • 1) cell phones that cause brain cancer
  • 2) school where we are told electrons exist
  • 3) cars, that polute
  • 4) a stock market that crashes
  • 5) negative energy
  • 6) laws of conservation of mass energy
  • 7) to be told what to do other than get food to feed your woman horse and ass

We can pump water, using pressure that is already in the ground. That can give good drinking water. We dont need nuclear power. If you understood that in the ground, its the current, that forces the water, and as long as you dont drain the pressure, you can give enough water for everyone by just channeling the currents. then we dont need to worry about kim jong ill assholes who want to blow up the world, and we can have enough of the crap we need, just from nothing, and all of this is total bull. school is prison and the work force are made up of a bunch of scared children procrastinators, who couldn't do in a week what a farmer could do in day. Damn it abolish school abolish electrons. Stop telling people that you know, when you dont, and leave me alone, i dont need your phony electron bullshit.

samarium[edit]

If you want you are welcome to start working on the article. Nergaal (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont have anything against your present article on Samarium. except that I'm trying to pursue any unexplained irregularity in data regarding the stability of isotopes, and particularly EE isotopes and I see that you have joined the crowd in reporting ambiguously about the stability of EE62Sm146. You call it a "synthetic" element, which I think means that it cant be created by nature, or maybe doesn't exist in nature; evidently because nobody has succeded in finding any; and say further that all of any synthetically created EE62Sm146 isotopes will be long half life alpha particle emitters. And I'm still trying to find out how anybody can say categorically that a long half lived element, like for example OE93 Bi209 is 100 percent an alpha particle emitter, (with a 10E19 year halflife). But in the case of atomic number 146 Scientists seem to like EE60Nd146 better than EE62Sm146 even though the Nubase stability data shows a lower Q value for EE62Sm146. And I'd like to help you but in articles I'm like Audie Murphy and I feel like a hen at a hawk's convention.WFPM (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Troll feeding[edit]

I saw that IP pushing for electrons as made-up fairytales on the electron page. May I suggest that we collectively ignore him/her?Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 13:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes Except They are so persistent and consistent with this "Irish Current" concept that I thought there might be some legitimate lore attached to it, I'm not enough of a chemist to figure it out.WFPM (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The real fairy tale is that about electrons. You keep the fairy tale going by saying that people who try to stop the fairy tale, and get people to think, are big bad angry trolls. Anyway, if you know about the three phases of electricity you already know that current and voltage, only explains two of the phases, while the third phase is the irish current. This should be applied to chemistry, and could simplify chemical bonding, get rid of those dam pi electrons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.186.130 (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good fantasy: The substance in which matter is on is niether solid liquid nor gas. you could think of it as gelatinous, or a plasma, or other things that you may know which are not solid liquid or gas. the atom is not just a nuclear reactor,it is a nuclear power plant, it needs no pipes, becuase the substance, which was formerly known as ether, is very adhesive, and it takes so much energy to get it going, that onces it is going, it is almost has a pipe of its own. The three currents, make up the three phases of matter, liquid, being what we know as the electron or corpesular motion itself, solids being hard, as taking part and form, from the drag force of the liquid, and gases, being a displacement current or AC current, in which they expand. The frame work, of it as it is different, determines what atom it is, and the majority of current perpetuating inside it, determines the phase. It is much as hydralic as it is electric.... OK now that you know this fantasy is not true,you come up with something else, but then you seem like just as fantasy too,. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.114.66 (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

At talk:number line, you wrote:

How come we have a big long history of the Pythagorean theorum and none on the Number line. The Number line must have a reportable history, (I learned about it about 40 years ago), and use it and the Pythagorean theorum to visualize how to find the square root of any integer number. WFPM (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please: The correct spelling is "theorem"; the letter "u" is not there. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that information about the spelling and how about the computer is smarter in spelling than I am. Now we come back to the question about the history of the number line. Or did I mispell that too. Asimov said you cant have a number line without a concept of zero. Is he correct on that?WFPM (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cube diagonal and spacetime[edit]

We read on your user page

Am trying to develop a physical concept of a 4 dimensional continuum by analysing the properties of the diagonal of a cube as a 4th dimension which is not orthogonal but equal angled from the other 3 dimensions (let's let it be the time dimension) and am interested in ideas re this subject matter.

You have also left me a note on my Talk regarding this ambition. I don't know how you're going to get 4 dimensions into 3, but the diagonal of a cube idea has a pleasing symmetry. For a three-dimensional spacetime you might consider a version of the hyperboloid model which uses xyz = 1 to establish a standard moment future from the corner of the cube representing the origin. Now the three edges of the cube extended are asymptotic to the hyperbola, but the three of them only span a circle of directions. The kinematic geometry of velocities is expressed by Lobachevsky geometry for points on xyz = 1. Rgdboer (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you for replying and what I've been thinking about is a 3 dimensional Michelson-Morley experiment. After all, if we can divide a coherent light ray into 2 orthogonal light rays, I see no reason why we couldn't divide it into 3 orthogonal rays. So if the rays originated at the corner of a cube and if mirrors were placed at the 3 target corners we have the basis for a 3 dimensional experiment. And where would the reflected rays converge? Well I figured out that it would be at the 2/3 distance along the diagonal through the cube, because that's the point where the equal length return distances coincide. So if I had a stationary cube with the light rays on, I could go to the 2/3 diagonal distance and determine that there was no coherence distortion of the light rays. So far so good. Now the next question is to assume that the cube was moving with a uniform velocity in some direction. And that's where I bog down, because I haven't even been able to calculate what a translation in some direction should do to the light rays, but I see that the mathematics of that calculation would be different than that for the 2 dimensional experiment. And I would like to know if the appropriate Lorentz transformation would correct the distortion in the 3 dimensional case like it did in the 2 dimensional one. So I'm in over my head and looking for some mathematician to take the problem in hand and tell me what the answer is. I, of course, suspect that there will be no coherence distortion in the 3 dimensional case as there was not in the 2 dimensional case. But I would think that the experiment would be more convincing as a 3 dimensional test result than it is as a 2 dimensional one.

So what do you think of such an idea? I'm kind of sorry I had it.WFPM (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also while considering this matter, it dawned on me that if I plotted the location of the rays within a moving plane perpendicular to the diagonal, I would have changed the problem from a 4 dimensional problem to a 3 dimensional problem; whose complexity was that of properly locating the 3 dimensional volume locations within the 2 dimensional "flatland" area of the moving plane. I can see that the possible moving locations of the orthogonal 3 dimensional light rays of the 3 dimensional Michelson Morley experiment would fit into an expanding and then contracting circle in the moving plane, but I don't know how to calculate the distortion of the circle caused by a translation of the cube. So there you have it.WFPM (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)It is also to be noted that the Lorentz contraction equations only apply to one direction of motion, and that direction is the one eliminated when the location of the points is transferred to the plane. So the motion of the cube in the diagonal direction does not distort the circle but merely changes it's rate of expansion. And I don't see how that would affect the results of the 3 dimensional experiment.WFPM (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: removal Asimov's book on nitrogen[edit]

I'm not sure. I reverted you instantly thinking of the old age of the book (biology, and some other fields did advance much since then), poor reference formatting (though it probably doesn't have ISBN) and that the book is hardly scientific and hardly accessible. I respect Asimov as a writer and shouldn't judge a book I haven't read. Feel free to re-add if you're sure about the above. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. But I've been reading Asimov practically all my life and have about 200 of his books, and am sorry he's not still around to explain things the way he used to do. And too many of our references are like something I would write and therefore not very interesting as compared to the way he was able to do it. So will Ref him when I think he provides specific and interesting information re a subject matter.WFPM (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Gnats, and other ponderings[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WFPM. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whirlpool Galaxy[edit]

I may be as dense as a lead oxide glass lens, but I don't understand your point about the Whirlpool Galaxy at Talk:Photon. I imagine that an optics textbook would suggest a suitable calculation to determine the angular resolution of the telescopes used to gather the beautiful images that we both admire. I believe that the key is the ratio of the diameter of the objective to the wavelength of light.

Pilot waves are pretty much a discredited, or unpopular, interpretation of quantum mechanics.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll buy that!! But I'm still a hardhead about the idea of energy without tangible associated matter and I keep battering it by trying to develop a materialistic concept of the photon. And I get defensive when somebody tries to create a hypothetical mathematical property to explain an observable natural phenomenon. And although the panorama of the starlight is just as good an arguing point as the Whirlpool galaxy image, The variation of light intensity in the details is such as to better explain the necessity for a pretty straight?, or at least consistently bent line of direction of propagation in order for it to be registered on the image.WFPM (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that just what Huygens principle says? The wavelets superpose to create a journey by the path of shortest time: straight or consistently bent. (Quantum electrodynamics comes up with a similar result, afaict.) A straight ray propagates through megaparsecs of deep space, but a wavelike calculation is needed to predict diffraction in the body of the telescope that stops the detector from resolving two stars that subtend a small angle.
I suspect it is just convention that classifies light as "not matter". I read that string theory, as yet unverified but more popular by the day, says a photon is a string vibration, just as tangible as any other particle, so it appears that deep theory suggests that energy without 'stuff' is just as weird as you suggest. Meanwhile, the wavelike nature of matter seems to be unavoidable.
I think I am starting to understand your original point, though as you can see, I am limited to a high school knowledge of optics.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know what optics was in High School! In college I was taught that the Huygens principle taught that any position causing a bending of a light could be treated as a new point of origen, and therefor a light beam could be bent around a corner, maybe at a reduced intensity. In Talk:Photon I'm trying to develop a concept of a polarized particle and that you could use discrete (successive?) numbers of them to transfer energy. But the idea that light energy could locally modulate a wave front which could then be sent light years distances away and still retain its details boggles my mind.WFPM (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I will add that whereas I can conceive of a materialistic radiation particle and even calculate it's associated mass, There's now way that I can dream up a background grid on which I locate various amount of energetic matter as a means of providing visual detail information. I know there's programs that provide modulated grid information to Wikipedia, but I don't think that method of transmission is what nature uses to transfer light energy through space.WFPM (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but Talk:Photon is not for developing concepts but to discuss improvements to the article. There are other wikis and physics forums on the internet for discussing your proposals for a new particle model.
Optics is indeed mind boggling, but light (whether you model it as photons, rays or wavefronts) really does travel millions of light years to form an image on your retina or a CCD. For what its worth, my high school physics teacher emphasised that rays from two distant sources reach your eye at different angles. However, until I do the mathematics, I have to take it on trust that all that is required for a Maxwellian EM wave to retain its detail is for the vacuum of space to be a non-dispersive medium.

That is also shown in the center of the Whirlpool Galaxy image thus illustrating your point. And I certainly agree with your high school teacher. So why the wavefronts?

However, as you know, optics has recently become much more mind boggling than the question of retaining exquisite detail. What is most disturbing about the modern model, to me, is the idea that the photon, or the space it inhabits seems to be non-local. Quantum entanglement experiments, especially the weird quantum eraser, seem to suggest that a photon can be influenced by distant objects, even those a particle of light won't encounter for millions of years. If light knows where it is going before it gets there, my mind is well and truly boggled.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me refer you to what I just finished sent to User talk:Ldussan and see what you think about that. I'm too old to try to get involved in trying to describe in mathematical terms the things that occur in nature. I think I'll stick to Newton's first principle of philosophy, which is to only consider the most simplest explanations that is adequate to explain the situation. Of course his second principle is wrong, so where are we?WFPM (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Now you're getting into concepts involving material teleportation (instant or otherwise). And I believe in the law of casualty sufficiently to not want to violate the laws of permissable physical motion on an S versus T spacetime chart by a discontinuity in the motion line. So I can see instantaneous changes in velocity but not instantaneous changes in position.WFPM (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't theoretically impossible if you can manage the conservation of energy concept. But I agree with Newton that the simplest explanation is preferable, particularly if you don't have a concept of how it happens. And that keeps me from understanding the light interference wave paradox, unless it involves frequency doubling of some sort.WFPM (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize! Some other devices that give exquisite detail are electron and x-ray microscopes. Yet they they too are limited in resolution by diffraction and interference! (To get higher resolution images, you need more energetic electrons, with shorter wavelengths.) Again the mathematics is beyond me so far but the images are astounding, and it is indeed a little surprising that numerous wavefronts propagate from the nanoworld to the detector without destroying all the detail.
http://www-cxro.lbl.gov/BL612/index.php?content=research.html
http://www.planetaryfolklore.com/2009/05/microcosmic.html
Just food for thought. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There you go with wavefronts again!!!! How about just particles? Meanwhile I'm mulling over a newspaper picture I have of a girl with her head halfway within a microwave energy containing volume of space. And the hair on that side is standing up but the other side is down, and I don't understand that. Do you?WFPM (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC) It must have something to do with electrostatics, and I remember the words "skin effect". Thank you for the links.

How about just particles? Electrons and x-ray photons are indeed particles. I mention wavefronts because we don't (yet) have a consisent explanation for diffraction of particles that doesn't mention probability waves.
As for the girl in the newspaper, I am not sure, but I guess it is similar to the effect that allegedly lights up fluorescent tubes in the vicinity of high tension power lines.
*http://www.gorge.org/images/field/
*http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/FAQs8.html#q125
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It had something to do with microwaves traveling only on the surface, so there was no internal electrical energy. But that wouldn't explain the hair standing on end; or would it? WFPM (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Every time I hear a story about a UFO inspecting power lines I think about that and that we're missing something there.WFPM (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the photos, and I guess, unlike me, a high school physics teacher (or WP:RDS) could do the calculation. In principle it seems to be that the electric field generated by the magnetron causes electrons to flow to the hairs, which then repel each other, but I am a little uneasy, as the field will oscillate. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I'm trying to understand it. And not on the basis of electrons repelling each other, because I also want to understand the BCS theory of Superconductivity where electrons move in pairs. I studied the Magnetron while in the navy and my interest in science led me into an interest in science history. As a science teacher you might be interested in "The evolution of matter" by Gustave Le Bon, as well as Milliiken and Gale's "A First Course in Physics" to show how these ideas originate and evolve. Also the 9th edition of the EB has Maxwell on the "Atom" and "Attraction" and 100+ pages on electricity before the idea of the electron.WFPM (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it's related to the phenomenon of spacial storage of energy in space as in your Power line images. I'm at the moment getting shot down for trying to materialize the "Quantum" package of energy, and, of course if it were a material entity that we could work with we might be able to develop an explanation with that.WFPM (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You might note how ideas get distorted too. Consider Bohr's orbit theory. He argues that there shouldn't be energy emission in a circular orbit. And why should there be? There's no loss in either potential or kinetic energy, and the emissions are supposed to be related to a loss in energy.WFPM (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC) And in ellipical orbit there's still no loss in free energy, with the change in motion being due to a conversion of potential to kinetic energy.WFPM (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand recent pop science, we don't really know what space is yet (The Fabric of the Cosmos). So the phenomenon of spacial storage of energy in space seems to capture some of the issues. Notice that Greene doesn't try to suggest that the photon doesn't exist, or that it doesn't have a wavelike macroscopic nature. As long as your proposal doesn't challenge that, you might make progress, though without solid mathematics or the ability to make detectable predictions (in principle), I think professionals would regard your ideas as speculative. You would be treated worse than Bohm and de Broglie were! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be like Feynman's little old lady. It's particles all the way to the bottom. And Maxwell doesn't dispute that.

Aha! I see that I must read Feynman's Nobel lecture: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html Thanks! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it's pretty good and interesting and complicated for a nonmathematician like me. And when you get to the part about a mirror in the future reflecting back 50% the causative factors of a present event I become a dropout, because I'll buy a time dimension as a working path of action, but only in one direction. See Arrow of time. Just as I wont buy a concept of negative energy, as it was discussed in the Scientific American. And Asimov talks about the relationship of possible events in spacetime and notes that that relationship results in mutually exclusive relationships among the same time events. so that you can't be in 2 nonconverging events at the same time. But my imagination can extend to a much greater range of particle's mass and even of time intervals than that of the photon or even a planck particle, and I guess I'll keep working with that. You ought to read Maxwell's article about the "Atom" and "attraction" in the 9th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britanica.WFPM (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. When I find Volume 3 I will put it beside my bed. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No hands[edit]

I know that you can lean on a bicycle and cause the bicycle to turn without turning the handle bars. Is that explanable.WFPM (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if the front assembly is free to rotate about the steering axis, otherwise no. It is explained in Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics#No hands. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Your animated model shows it steering to the left as it turns to the left, and I think that is correct. But I think you do first steer to the right before you steer to the left, so now I'm even more confused.WFPM (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The animation is consistent with the description "this leftward lean of the bike will cause it to steer to the left and initiate a right-hand turn." In both cases when the bike leans to the left, it then steers to the left, and ends up in a turn to the right. The only difference between the two is the rider's motion relative to the frame. - AndrewDressel (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page chat[edit]

Information.svg Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Centrifugal force for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Questions[edit]

WFPM, Regarding your questions on my talk page in early April 2010, you can e-mail me at sirius184@hotmail.com David Tombe (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. What I am trying to do in Particle physics is to show by Maxwell's discussion od Boscowich's theory in "Atom" (EB 9th Edit), That there are such things as "Restrained Dynamic composite systems" That have dynamic force activities, but don't radiate because they don't lose any of their contained matter or energy. Like the stable atom for instance. If your conceptually inside, like Boscovich you can see all sorts of forces in action. But from the outside, it appears stable. I think that was what Maxwell was trying to figure out with his deliberations, and it's a lack of understanding of this matter that is now complicating our discussions of the subject. I'll try to work some more on the subject and get with you in the future.WFPM (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
And in Talk:Centrifugal force, DVdm has very generously provided a link to Newton's article and I appreciate that. See the subject matter discussion. And I would move the link to here if I knew how, but I don't.

WFPM, Maxwell is my speciality, but I am forbidden by the wikipedia arbitration committee from discussing Maxwell. If you want to discuss these matters with me, it will have to be off-wiki. That is why I have given you the contact address. David Tombe (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Boy!! you're really getting hemmed in. But you're knowledgeable, and with status. It's fools like me and Joyce Kilmer that are allowed to blunder around trying to find answers to questions. And I can't add much to what Maxwell had to say on the subject. But you might look at my contribution in Talk:Coriolis effect and tell me if I'm correct in that assertion.WFPM (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Tossed ball
But maybe you're in a position to tell me something about a book I have. It's "The Evolution of Matter", writen by Dr. Gustave Le Bon, and published by the Walter Scott Publishing Co. Ltd. Manchester Square, London B C. and dated 1907. And is noted to be "Translated from the third edition with an introduction and notes by F legge. And in his notes, Mr. Legge lists a number of papers published by Dr, Le Bon over a period from 1896 to 1906. And since in chapter 5 on "The properties of intermediate substances" he shows a chart indication the mass of particles increasing related to their velocity, and talks about the mass not being constant in magnitude, but varying with speed. And makes me wonder if he is writing (Pre Einstein) or (post Einstein) 0r what? Do you know anyrthing about this book? It's a reject from the Pittsburg (Kan) public library.WFPM (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WFPM, Unfortunately, if I even as much as hinted about my opinions on Dr. Gustave Le Bon, or your contributions at Talk:Coriolis effect, I would very quickly find myself the subject of an arbitration enforcement action, and I would be very swiftly blocked. I do have opinions on both of these matters, but if you want to know those opinions, you will have to e-mail me. David Tombe (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

diffraction vs interference[edit]

Hi, You wrote on my discussion page: "In your Single slit light passage image, you show an interference pattern. How do you explain that?" I think you may be referring to a photograph I took, or you may be referring to a diagram that schematically indicates the same thing. A single slit will produce a diffraction pattern. You can see a great variety of these patterns in Sears, Optics. On the page facing page 222 there are photos of both "Frauhofer diffraction pattern of a single slit...[and] Interference patterns of 2, 3, 4, and 5 slits." In the first photo on that page (he had a really nice physics lab at MIT) you can see a broad central band flanked by 3 progressively lighter bands on each side. This book was published in 1949, but it and its companion volumes are the original source for the "Sears and Zemansky" physics texts that are still in use today. You might find the same photos in the current version. P0M (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I never did learn what is supposed to happen to light passing threw a single slit, and guess I need to learn about that. But the emphasis about the double slit experiment was about the occurrence of patterns of interference due to the additive/subtractive wave properties of the two separated slit passageways, and I guess that I didn't expect that the light through a single slight would have an interference pattern. You know what they say about a "little" knowledge. I guess this doesn't amount to a complicating factor related to the double slit experiment?WFPM (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC) PS: I've got an excuse for my ignorance, because my Robeson Physics (1943), chapter on Diffraction-Interference shows the first slit of the Double slit experiment as not putting out an interference pattern. But what do they know?WFPM (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC) PPS: Also look at the animation image in the 2-slit experiment which is like in my Robeson.

I don't think you can get much better than Francis Weston Sears. Trust your senses. Do your own simple experiment. Following Huygens, Fresnel had the whole thing pretty well figured out by sometime around 1800. P0M (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I notice that he's not in the reference section of the Optics article. Where I went to get the specific book information. Does that happen to you often? Ah! where the pursuit of knowledge takes you.WFPM (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I just reread my Wiley "Atomic Physics" book 1946, by members of the Physics staff of the university of Pitteburgh, section "Planck's Radiation Formula, Where he got the idea about the emission of a quantum of light energy as a means of explaining the accuracy of the spectral energy curve. and then goes on to say that it was Einstein who developed the idea of the quantum absorption process including an accommodation for the work involved in liberating the electrons due to the photoelectric effect. But neither of them say categorically that a zero time interval was involved in the emission or absorption process, just that that involved a transfer of a unit quantity quantity of something. Kind of like if you used a container to package a "basket" unit quantity of something from a possibly continuous production line. But they did separate the discussion between the two light energy concepts into individual property discussions, and still left the final identity discussion up in the air.WFPM (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Physics for majors at my university used Sears and Zemansky. That was a very fat book that crammed the main stuff from Sears individual volumes. I did not like that book because it was not clearly working. Fortunately for me I had already purchased the Optics text before I graduated from high school, so I had it with me. It is a beautifully written book. I think they "cut out all the good parts" when they made the one-volume text. The optics article in Wikipedia probably does not mention the Optics because it was written in 1949. One problem with his original series is that these books were written at a time when classical physics was at the center of the curriculum for majors. So he writes primarily about classical physics, even in places where he could have said something about quantum physics. So that's another reason you won't see him cited by writers much younger than I am. His Optics wasn't even ten years old when I got a hold of it.
I'm not sure of exactly what you mean by the "zero time interval," i.e., I don't know which discussion you may have plucked this assertion from. One of the differences between Heisenberg and Schrödinger was that Bohr et al. thought that the electron "jumped" instantaneously from one orbit to another -- with nothing in between. Schrödinger could not imagine that so he tried for an alternative to Heisenberg's theory. But I think the truth is that nobody can watch an electron so it is all a matter of opinion anyway.
As for "transfer of a unit quantity," again I am not sure of exactly what you have in mind. Some people have a natural misconception about Planck's constant and what it represents. Some people speak as though Planck's constant is a unit of energy, and that you multiply the frequency of a photon by Planck's constant because you are in effect counting up how many of these little packets of energy are carried forth in that one vibration. But Planck's constant is a proportionality constant. It is used to modify the physical truth that energy is proportional to frequency into an equation that will work in the particular system of units used. (If you change systems of units, you will have to change the value of h.) If one makes use of a different set of units, then, in that system of units, energy can equal frequency. In other words, giving somebody the frequency in this set of units gives them the energy without the need for any further math steps. That's when you have a certain "natural units" system to work with. (And, as another indication of what is going on, the units of h are not energy units, so no multiple of h would give you an energy.)P0M (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for answering and let me continue. The energy emission graph re planck's theory plotted energy intensity level (ordinate) versus time (abcissa) so sometimes there was no emission and then sometimes there was an emission at one level with plus an instantaneous increase to one or more higher levels, (they mentioned 7 levels), so both the time interval and the discrete levels of emitted energy level were involved in the process. But that can be interpreted as the time of beginning of some event as the result of a process of non instantaneous accumulation of the required initiating energy, and the occurrence of a relaxation property of the target such that its integrative accumulative capability is time dependent.

And when I first learned about the Photon's function and energy content I thought, "Aha!, A unit of transmitted energy in a wave/or particle stream such that one seconds worth of reception of would give you the Photon value of energy!. But instantaneous accumulation? No way!!! So we need an energy container package concept such that in a very short time interval a target can accumulate a planck's value of energy, so let's just assume that for the particulate concept each of the particles is carrying a planck's value of translational energy. And since a wave length's distance is already involved in the concept we might as well guess that maybe the wave length distance is that length of the (planck wave frequency quantity) stream of particles that is required to be accumulated during the accumulation time period by the target. And that results in a concept of an approximately 10e-47 gram particle. I think. But that's just my guess and maybe there's a better one about the same concept.WFPM (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot follow what you are saying. I suspect it is because you are following the 1949 textbook. I suggest you get a current physics textbook because many things have been changed and corrected in our understanding over the last 50 years. For an overview, I would suggest Introducing Quantum Theory, by J.P. McEvoy and Oscar Zarate. They only screwed one thing up, and that was saying qp ≠ pq and leaving the impression that p and q were single values, i.e., ordinary variables, when in fact in the context they were working in p, q, and their products are all matrices.
Also, if I follow the general drift of your discussion, I think it would be useful to consider the generation of a photon of electromagnetic radiation in a radio transmitter antenna, or even what goes on when a wave is created by moving an electron back and forth on some kind of a shuttle system. The time needed for an electron to travel to the end of an antenna is definitely not 0. P0M (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! And I was discussing that while also promoting the Planck particle concept in User Talk:Wwheaton, About the antenna designs used for long distance communication, Because I cant understand A "modulated wave front concept of long distance electromagnetic creation and/or propagation", like in the visual details of the Whirlpool Galaxy images, and was discussing that with him. And he's like you and more sympathetically shot me down based on the mathematical descriptions related to the QM concept. So we'll just have to shuffle along on different and maybe parallel tracks toward the same understanding goal. And so you have a concept of an electromagnetic energy wave being created by the shuttle movement of an electron up towards the top of say a Marconi (Quarter wave length) antenna, whereas I've got a concept of a lot of planck particles being radiated out in all directions from the top. And of course your concept wins out with relation to the consensus of opinion criteria, and I'm pleasantly surprised that I'm being permitted to voice a few small objections as to the physical irrationality of some of the concepts.WFPM (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Signing comments within Wikipedia articles[edit]

I've noticed that at least 2 of your latest edits have been to articles and have included both comments and signatures. Please only add comments about articles on the relevant talk page. Thanks!- Wolfkeeper 15:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A book that may interest you[edit]

Since you are interested in building 3D models of atomic nuclei, the forthcoming 2nd edition of Norman Cook's "Models of the Atomic Nucleus" (Springer) (http://www.amazon.com/Models-Atomic-Nucleus-Unification-Nucleons/dp/3642147364) to be published next month should be of great interest to you. I found the first edition very readable. His analysis of the time-independent Schrödinger wave equation and its implications for the Lattice Model (which he favours) are especially interesting. The book also reveals that several notable nuclear physicists have published work on the fcc lattice structure of the nucleus, starting with Wigner in 1937 (Wigner, E., Physical Review 51, 106, 1937.), Everling since the 1950s (e.g. [1], [2]), Lezuo, Cook himself, Bobeszko and others. --TraceyR (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the info, but I built my 3D models 26 years ago and am not hep to the modern ideas and technology related to the Schrodinger equation's concept and details. If you're interested in some of the ideas related to the concepts of the atomic nucleus, you might look at the National Geographics article "Worlds within the Atom" (May 1985) which is a good article with a lot of historical and technical information, but at the same time shows how little we really know about the details of the atomic nucleus. So much for consensus. I notice that your interests is mostly in private aircraft, particularly British. I had an uncle who was in the USAF from 1930 - 1946 and was in England in the 453rd Bombardment squadron and we were interested in aircraft in those days. But you don't indicate your interests in Nuclear Physics, which is mine as an addition to Engineering and general science matters. So thank you.WFPM (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the National Geographic article you mention is not (yet?) available in the online archive. If you're suggesting that, 25 years later, mainstream nuclear physics is still not much wiser about the nucleus, it would seem that you're right (but I'm no expert). Cook shows that lattice model is consistent with the Schrödinger wave equation, thus bridging the gap between current theory and 3D representations, so it could relate to your models too. If you look at the second Everling link above you'll see illustrations of some of his 3D models and the magic numbers that they represent. Cook's book takes a refreshing look at many of the problems with current nuclear physics 'dogma' which have been swept under the carpet. I am interested in many areas of science but qualified in no specific area! As to the reason for my interest in aircraft, it is similar to yours: my father was a bomber pilot with the RNZAF in WWII. --TraceyR (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I hope that you can get a look at it because it shows what happens when an artist gets pinned down to making an graphic image about something that he doesn't understand (the nucleus of the Carbon atom). So he places 12 marble shaped nucleons inside what looks like a placenta and loosely grouped in 3 groups of 4, and that's it. And it's a big and informative article, and well worth reading and looking at the pictures. So that's where we stand with the triple alpha accumulation theory, as compared to the indications of my models. And I just discussed that in User talk:Sbharris. And I've studied Wave generation and modulation and propagation and Fourier series analysis but I can't get myself to believe that light energy transmission is a wave disturbance phenomenon. That's why I'm currently bogged down in Feynmans QED book. And I was just explaining to my daughter that the reason we need a base on the Moon is so that we can develop a reasonable and (comparably) economical way to get into and explore the space of our Solar system and you are probably interested in that technology.WFPM (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

CF[edit]

W, you seem to be suffering from the same confusion about centrifugal force that David Tombe suffers. It clear that this topic confuses many, but it's not really that hard. I recommend you start with some good sources. For each book you look at, figure out exactly what definition of centrifugal force they are using; you'll find three kinds: (1) like in centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), the main definition uses by physicists and engineers; (2) the reactive centrifugal force, equal and opposite to the centripetal force that is curving the motion; (3) confused mixtures that don't lead to any useful way to work mechanics problem. Once you know which one you've got, try to understand it apply it to some problems. See what our articles say, and see is you find errors or omissions that we can improve on.

I'll be happy to talk you through it here, but it would be best not to keep up the noise on the article talk pages until you have done your homework, so you can make intelligent suggestions, or ask intelligent questions, based on sources. So far, your comments have been largely uninterpretable, just distractions for people who actually want to work on improving the articles.

If the centrifugal pump is what you want to understand, say so; I can explain how to apply both types of CF definition to it. If you get to where you understand it, maybe you can fix that article. Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read it and am amused to note how you have managed to explain the centrifugal pump on an energy transfer basis and without much explanation of its centrifugal operation properties. I imagine that you will probably be questioned about that. So now we're down to zero occurrences of a real centrifugal force, which exceeds even David's aspirations to whittle it down to one subject matter. And I'm looking for an explanation of the principle of operation of the physical properties of the Whip, which I can't find in wikipedia.WFPM (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)I appreciate your idea that I could "fix" an article. But I'm more like Socrates. I'd like to have a discussion to try to find out.WFPM (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:82 Pb Lead 207.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:82 Pb Lead 207.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you please disable the MediaWiki email feature when you post to my talk page?[edit]

Nobody likes getting 6 emails that they have something on their TALK page. I'll get around to WP when I get around to it! Thanks. SBHarris 23:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Files listed for deletion[edit]

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 15 if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you. FyzixFighter (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

== I understand your frustration ==

I really do. I want everything to be explained in classical mechanics, because it's hard to accept that there are two sets of rules for everything. I have a very mechanical mind, and tend to look valiently for alternatives. Unfortunately, it's hard to debunk quantum theory when it has, so far, stood up to every test. One of my favorite quotes, besides Feynman's, is this one from Michio Kaku, "It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct." The only way to really think about light is both as a wave and a particle. I had to come to grips with that before I could ever get my first laser to work, even though I may not like it.

The only thing we can do is rack our brains and try to come up with a better theory. I'm like that with gravity. I find myself asking those questions that intrigue scientists and piss-off teachers. Unfortunately, the article talk pages are not the place to do that. There, I can only really provide sourced information which could be used to improve the article. Anyhow, it's been nice chatting with you, and I wish you a merry Christmas. Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!! I've reached beyond the existence of frustration to that of being philosophical. And so I'll stick with Newton and Lucretius. And I admire Maxwell, except for his equations, which I don't understand and Isaac Asimov, who gets along without them. He's like Fox News. He reports and you decide. In his book "Atom" which I just reread. He talks about everything concerning nuclear physics and his memories of details must have been fantastic. And I'm somewhat disturbed now because my effort to present a chart to better organize and determine the individual significance of the atomic isotope data got thrown out. See Talk:Isotopes of lead. but Se la Vie. So here in Joplin Mo. were recovering from the tornado and getting ready for Christmas and wish a merry to you too.WFPM (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're OK. We don't get tornados in Alaska, but we did have some hurricane-force winds the other day. Earthquakes and tidal-waves are what we usually have to be prepared for here. Anyhow, I don't now if you're very familiar with thin-film interference r not, but it is one of the reasons that this topic of light so fascinates me. Why do colors appear from a thin oxide layer on steel when it's tempered? I wrote the history section in that article, and find the history to be quite amazing. It is still one of the great mysteries of science. The simple question goes something like this: When a beam of light strikes the surface of glass, 4% is reflected off the surface, roughly 10% is absorbed by the glass, and the other 86% transmits to the next glass/air interface. If I add a layer of material that is of a different refractive index, making sure that the thickness of this layer is exactly 1/4 of the wavelength of the light, another surface is created from which 4% of the light is also reflected. When two of these photons reflect back, they are 1/2 wavelength out-of-phase, so they cancel each other out. In other words, they disappear, so that no reflection comes off the glass. This, in itself, seems impossible in classical mechanics, but it happens. Antireflective coatings can make a surface 99.99% reflection-free.
What's even stranger is this: Because these two reflective surfaces have cancelled out 8% of the light, I would expect that, after 10% is absorbed by the glass, only 82% of the light would transmit to the next side of the window. What actually happens is that 90% of the light transmits. The photons that were canceled out by the two reflective surfaces reappear in the transmitted beam. How does this happen? The first law of thermodynamics says it has to occur, because energy cannot be destroyed, but only quantum theory explains it.
Alright, it's getting late here, and I need to get home where there are no computers to distract me. Have a good weekend. Zaereth (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll give you my "fringe theory" explanation. Which is that light is a stream of particles, and when you combine 2 separate beams of light you're combining 2 separate beams of particles. And the question becomes as to how light receptors respond and interpret the received sensory information from 2 combined streams of particles. My guess is that if they are in phase, they get a stronger perception as to the intensity of the light source, which is logical. But if they are out of phase, then the sensor's perception properties get fouled up by the doubling of the frequency as concerns color perception, but not as concerns the beam's energy containment properties. And in thin film refraction phenomena the ability to enhance and dim the various colors changes with the angle of view such as to enhance and dim different colors at different angles. So there! So the interference cancellation properties of antireflectors must be due to their ability to result in the doubling of the frequency of the reflected disturbing light beam such that the eyes do not note it and let it obscure their perception of the other visual information with which they are dealing. I keep thinking that you ought to be able to test this theory by experimenting with light beams who's doubled frequency property could be visually observed, like in the infrared frequency range, but I'm not an experimenter, just a fringe theory thinker. Maybe you can set me straight.WFPM (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, that's not what happens experimentally. An Nd:YAG laser can be frequency-doubled by placing a potassium titanium oxide phosphate (KTP) crystal in the beam path. In this case the invisible IR laser beam turns green. The 1064 nm light has been doubled to 532 nm. I can easily do this with my laser, and have a couple of Nd:YVO4 laser pointers that operate off the same principle. However, when the laser is shined through an AR coated window or lens, no green reflection is observed. The other thing that negates frequency-doubling in thin-films is the fact that the reflected energy transmits, proving that it was never reflected in the first place. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the beam must be short of the reflected energy. If not, then the energy must not have been reflected at all. Quantum theory suggests that, because the probability of reflection has been eliminated by the coating, then the incident light has no choice but to take the most probable route, which is transmission. This is to avoid violation of the conservation of energy law, because the energy must go somewhere.
There are many other examples of the wave nature of light. The ability to form an image is one. Individual photons following ray-path will not form an image. This requires waves with curved fronts, which can be imaged by refracting through curved lenses. Another example is the laser itself. Lasers work by capitalizing on the constructive interference of light. When two mirrors are placed parallel to each other, the only photons that can oscillate between then are 1/2 multiples of the distance between the mirrors. Photons that do not meet this wavelength criteria are cancelled out by destructive interference. The waves that are allowed to interfere constructively form a standing-wave between the mirrors. In a laser like the Nd:YAG, the output is typically around 1064 nm, but can be fine-tuned in that area by adjusting the distance between the mirrors. Spatial hole burning is another wave phenomenon observed in lasers. The standing-wave produced leaves untapped energy between the crests of the waves. Only a ring-laser, which does not produce a standing wave, can stimulate emission throughout the entire gain medium. Ring lasers also have a greater freedom for tuneability, because the color of the beam does not depend on the cavity length.
I'm not trying to poke holes in your theory, because these are question that have puzzled me for years. Bringing classical mechanics and quantum mechanics together is something I would really like to see happen, but may require a complete change in our understanding of the universe. Some theories created to alleviate some of these problems include the notion that there are multiple universes coexisting. Another says that the universe itself must be solid, and what we perceive as matter are merely pockets of energy (which seem solid to us because we're made of the same thing) moving through the universe like holes through a semiconductor. There is also string theory, which is in its infancy and is more philosophy than science. Nearly every theory since Einstein requires that the universe be made of some unseen fabric. If you or I could answer these puzzles we'd be looking at a Nobel Prize! I wish you luck. Zaereth (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Experimental evidence already! Well let's see. First we have the evidence of frequency doubling, which says that a beam of light can be doubled in frequency. Then we have the illustrations saying that that is caused by what we can call the phase change amount using wave terminology parlance. And the amount of phase change is related to the length of the path through the transparent medium separating the two points of reflection. And if a visual colored light source is reflected from both sides of a thin film it's intensity will be practically eliminated. Now comes the question of what will happen to an IR light source if it is incident on and double reflected by a thin film. And the answer is that there will be a phase change but how much? If the phase change of the wave length is the same distance amount then the phase change "angle" would only be about half as much as for a visual light frequency, and that might not be enough to result in a light frequency doubling effect, which might be achieved by an increased film thickness. I.ll try that as a preliminary guess, along with a question re your statement that individual ray-path photons not forming an image, which I don't understand. I think that means that in order to make an image you have to have a minimum number of accumulated photons on a particular location. Don't let me get too far astray.WFPM (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to read about the state of the art in science and nuclear science matters, I suggest you read Asimov's book "Atom" where he has covered the gamut and more or less tied things together. What is needed now is a few breakthrough ideas about how the small "imponderable?" matter in the universe is organized and functions. I've got a 6 unit cylindrical magnet hanging by my desk that points north and dips slightly and there's no question in my mind but it's coordinating with some matter that is contained within a magnetic field. And when I swing a magnetized pendulum down through an arc toward an opposing magnet at the bottom of the arc and hear the chunk as the swinging magnet bounces off the repelling pillar created by the magnet I know that the magnet has capabilities to organize the magnetic field so as to do work and carry out energy exchange functions. And of course we have transformers and other apparatus to show how the magnetic field interacts with the electric current field. I'll bet that Edison was puzzled when he found out that nothing but an EMF had to enter a customer's house in order to sell them electrical energy. But light energy and light beams traveling at light velocity involve a different concept of matter. But it's still the motion of matter and we have to figure it out.WFPM (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My daughter just bought (at Sam's Club) a 2 liter plastic bottle of hand sanitizing gel (Glycerol + Ethyl Alcohol) that is a clear gel with thousands? of varying size stationary bubbles within it. And I note that the bubbles react differently in their sunlight reflection properties and with relation to the stereoscopic visual location of each eye in an interesting manner. I wonder how those same bubbles would react to IR light illumination. And the advantage of that material is that you have a large number of varying size stationary bubbles to illuminate and analyze. What Say?WFPM (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to take so long, but real life for me is often very hectic.
Yes, frequency doubling or even tripling is possible, but requires the use of non-linear optics. I'm not sure exactly how that works, but somehow involves a non-linear polarization-wave being formed in the dielectric, which interacts with the fundamental light-wave to generate the second or third harmonic. This phenomenon is actually how non-linear optics was discovered, because it does not occur in any other medium.
If the thickness of the film is \lambda/4 (wavelength/4 or 1/4 wavelength) the light travels through the film \lambda/4, and is refleced off of the other side, again traveling \lambda/4, for a total phase shift of \lambda/2. This causes destructive interference. If the thickness of the film is increased to \lambda/2, then the phase shift will be 1 full wavelength. This causes constructive interference, which causes bright colors to appear on the surface. Gasoline on water demonstrates this nicely. So does the tempering colors of steel; of which a photo of mine can be seen on the temperingarticle. The color of the steel is a direct indication of the thickness of the iron-oxide film.
The phase change will also occur for whatever light is passed through the film. If the thickness of the coating is only \lambda/8, then the interference will be partially constructive and partially destructive, and the total energy from both reflections will be equal to the energy of one reflection. The thickness of the coating is usually engineered to give minimum reflection for a particular wavelength, the "center wavelength," but the performance degrades the farther you go through the spectrum to either side of that wavelength.
When viewed from an angle, the center wavelength will change. This is why, when you look at a peacock feather straight-on, the spot in the center appears blue, but when viewd at an angle, the spot appears green. At an angle, the distance through the thin-film is longer that when viewed straight-on, and so the center-wavelength is also longer.
I can go on and on about this. The wave theory of light only came into being during the early 1800s, due to the work of Fresnel. It behaves just like any other wave, from sound waves to waves in the ocean. Depending on the medium, it travels at a constant velocity, and any change in energy input will only change frequency and amplitude, but not velocity. This is just like a wave. However, if light is a wave, the logic dictates that there must be some medium through which it transmits. Unfortunately, the Michelson-Morley experiment could find no such evidence of a medium. So how can energy transmit without a medium to convey it? By classical mechanics, this should be impossible.
So along comes Einstein with his theory of reativity. Einstein shows that light can be bent by a gravitational field. In the newly-forming realm of particle physics, a name is given to this particle: the photon. However, the particle has no mass. It is described only as a "packet of energy." Now we have a particle which transmits energy (speed), exerts pressure force on whatever it hits, but has no mass! This very idea defies common sense. Not only that, but that these photons are suppose to travel, not in straight lines like a speeding bullet, but in perfect sinusoidal wave forms also defies classical mechanical explanation.
The fact is that trying to explain light as a particle at all seems ludicrous, because everything else about it screams "wave." The one caveat that seems to support the photon theory is the laser, because laser light tends to behave more like a ray than a wave. This seemed to enforce the idea of the photon, but now new sound-wave lasers (sasers) have shown the phenomenon is possible with any type of wave traveling through a medium.
Personally, I tend to lean toward the idea that Einstein was very much on the right track, but not exactly right, and that before any of these mysteries can be sorted out we first need to figure out the very large. I've heard a theory which I think might help do this, but would turn our understanding of physics and the universe upside-down, and I'm not quite sure that the world is ready for that yet. I don't have time to get into this anymore, especially not on Wikipedia. I do try to keep in ming that, in Aristotle's time, the universe was pretty much as it appeared. Now, we relize that reality is far different than it appears. Everytime science has figured it all out, some new discovery comes along to smash everyone's misconceptions, and the whole process of theory-creation begins anew. Zaereth (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any question but a fact that there is an amount of "imponderable" matter in the universe, such that we can create a "ponderable" magnetic force and do work with it. However the idea that this matter is capable of transmitting a pinpoint source of light energy over a 10+ megaparsec distance without blurring any of the details is impossible to imagine based upon the light wave modulation principle. It's only when the concept of a particle beam is being considered that we have any chance of developing a theory as to a frequency principle related to the properties of the received light energy, and with the ability of optical devices to modify this frequency as necessary to cause the observed effects. This agrees with the determination of the Michelson-Morley no medium conclusion, although I wish that it had been carried out in the 3 orthogonal dimensions (Along the diagonals from the 3 corners of a cube). So I'll go along with Newton's concept, except that the particle that I can imagine would have to have a mass of only 10E^-47grams in order for the 1 seconds worth of photon energy value to be correct. And that 1 second's value would have to be crowded into a very short reception time in order for it to be accomplished within the exposure time frame of modern photographic recording devices. So where are we? In limbo! And I can't see that Feynman has helped much by telling us we are not going to be able to understand it after he explains it. And I studied wave principles and terminology in EE, but I always understood that what we were talking about was the relationship and EMF's and frequency of occurrence of the electrons within a circuit and not about any other physical entity in the circuit except the electrons. I'll bet that Edison was surprised to find out that you didn't have to push his DC current carrying particles through his customers' circuits in order to supply them with their required needed electrical energy requirements, but only to provide the needed EMF and electrical energy such as to energize the customer's electrical circuit necessities. And do you think that mother nature had all this in mind when the design of the entities of the universe was being developed? I doubt it! What was need by the larger particles of the universe was for a way to get rid of excess kinetic energy, so that the second law of thermodynamics could take effect. So in order to get rid of localized excess energy we need lots of small mass interactive particles. That's because in an interactive encounter between 2 mass particles, the equal exchange in momentum results in the majority of the (second order) energy transfer amount being transferred to the less mass particle. So in the intermediate stages of an accumulative process the system results in the existence and motion of a large number of small particles, and thus we have the electron and the photon in order to manage the energy transfer functions and resultant properties of the atom.WFPM (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand all that about the laws of thermodynamics. I don't doubt that photons actually exist, or phonons for that matter, but photons alone don't explain the complete nature of light. When talking about imaging, here is a simple experiment to try. If you hold a magnifying glass between a table and the light overhead, if your distance from the table is just right, an image of the lightbulb will form on the table. Next, turn off the light and shine a laser into it, to provide the illumination. If the bulb has a white coating, the laser light will diffuse and spread out in all directions, but will retain the properties of laser light. It will still be very sparkly, the way one would expect rays to appear. Now try to image the bulb with the magnifying glass. You will see the basic shape of the bulb, but it will be fuzzy with no defined edges, and very sparkly. The farther away the bulb is from the lens, the more fuzzy the image will become, until it looks like a blurry spot. Even if the lens is focused properly, the image will not appear sharp in the way it does with normal light.
To imagine why this occurs, imagine the light from a distant galaxy as photons speeding out like bullets following ray paths, with no accompanying wave. As they move they spread out, getting farther and farther away from each other. When they are focused through a telescope, only a small amount of photons are imaged, and the image will appear a a collection of bright spots and empty spaces, allowing no sharp edges to be shown. The image of the galaxy would appear as a blurry, fuzzy, sparkly spot. You could also imagine, that if far enough away, these photons might be so spread out that they miss us entirely. Light, as a wave, however, would fill in all of the empty spaces. As multiple wave-fronts, coming from each individual star, they would refract individually, forming an image of each star. Also, as a wave, we would not need to be directly in line with a photon to see the star, we would be able to see regardless of our position.
The main problem is really the double slit experiment. When light is shined through a double-slit, it diffracts. As a simple experiment, cut a couple of slits in a sheet of paper, side by side, about big enough to slip a coin through. Hold it between yourself and your computer screen. You'll notice that you can read a few words through the slits, but you may see the same word in both slits. If light was traveling in ray paths, the light should pass straight through so that one word appear through a slit, the paper would cover the next word, and the following word would appear in the next slit. But that's not what happens. The words appear to be where they shouldn't, and the same sentence will seem to overlap. The image will appear distorted at the edges, as if viewing it through a lens. This is because the wave front has been diffracted into two separate wave fronts.
Perhaps this is just a case of photons interfering with each other. However, experiments have been conducted with lasers and double-slits, where one photon is launched at the slits at a time, with detectors sensitive enough to record them on the other side. The results are the same. The individual photons still diffract, just like a wave, and end up where they could not possible if they were following ray paths. The answer to the double-slit experiment is the holy-grail of light-science. It is exactly because of this experiment that theories like "multiple universes" are even considered. This theory states that the individual photons are interfering with photons in the other universes. If you come up with an explanation for this, though, I wouldn't publish it on Wikipedia. Publish it in Nature or some other peer-reviewed journal because, like I said, you'll be looking at a Nobel Prize.
Anyhow, it's been nice chatting with you, and I hope you have a great new year! Zaereth (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice set of experiments and I guess I don't know enough about optics to become confused. When I shine my green laser pin (birthday present) at a 40 watt bulb, (had to find an incandescent bulb) I see a reflection off the bulb's surface plus a dim green luminescence within the bulb. So the light energy is diffused within the bulb. And my eye is designed to detect and integrate the occurrence of the amount and frequency of the light energy emitted by the external surface and the internal spacial volume within the bulb. And in looking at a distant light emitting object I do the same thing. Or maybe the interior light is reflected light off a multitude of interior surfaces within the bulb. But I have no problem in understanding that a light source from a star at a distance would soon shrink to a sparkle due to the star's distance of transmission. And the ability of the path of starlight transmission to obscure and otherwise alter the transmitted light ray (as well as to refract and optically double the light emission frequency in the case of the light evaluation experiments) lead me to believe that the character of the light transmission media is like any space-time continuous transmission system such that it's content can be interrupted and/or distorted by intervention phenomena. But if it is a package of kinetic energy of motion, I cant see how 2 light beams can be merged to reduce the light energy originally carried by the 2 separate individual light beams. And I'll keep thinking and trying your experiments and thanks for the additional comment.WFPM (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's mind-boggling. I often find it easiest to think of the wave as being a freeway, and the particles as vehicles following that road. If the offramp (reflection) is destroyed by interference, then there is no "offramp" for them to follow. The particles simply follow the main-road (transmission), which is still intact. Another way to think about it is that photons might only exist as particles at the moment the wave encounters an obstacle. All of that is very abstract, though, and starting to get into "Schrodinger's cat" type stuff. Plus, now we're back to looking for some medium through which this wave transmits.
There was a special presentation on PBS; on the show Nova; which is called The fabric of the cosmos, which you may find interesting. I sure did.
By the way, perhaps a better example of the double slit experiment is to lay the paper with the slits on top of your magnifying glass, between your magnifying glass and the overhead lightbulb. You will notice two or more separate images of the lightbulb on the table, (one complete image for each slit), which partially (but not completely) overlap when it comes into focus. Zaereth (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm trying to make the slits out of taped together 3" x 5" filing cards, and I can observe some of the line level distortion and when I put on my anti-stigmatism glasses I can't read a thing through the slits so there is some refraction and distortion. But if I fold down the top obscuring card, I can then look over the top end of the slits and almost figure it out. but not yet. Don't have a big enough magnifying glass for the other experiment. How do you make nearby slits?WFPM (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC) After all all you have to do is look along parallel to the hot metal surface of your car finish to know that the light path is temperature sensitive. That's just another argument in favor of directional beam light transmission. The devil is in the details.

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hi WFPM,

I've been incredibly busy, and so haven't had time to respond to you. Please let me get back to you after the holidays, as I'm on my vacation right now. We just got a lot of snow, and I'm out at a cabin in the wilderness right now, trying to warm up by the fire. I've been out snowmachining (snowmobiling), trying to go as fast as I can on winding, bumpy trails. With all of the new snow, conditions are perfect. We must've averaged 60 MPH today, hitting speeds from 80 to 120 on the rivers. The amount of acceleration in these newer machines is amazing. I can stop along side the highway, wait for a car to pass doing 75, then punch the throttle and pass him within 5 to 8 seconds. Riding these things is not easy, though, because you really have to man-handle them to control them. Plus, you have to ride jockey-style, (knees bent, butt off the seat), to keep from getting thrown off. At high speeds on rough trails, these things tend to buck like a rodeo bull. Every muscle in my body is sore right now. Probably the worst is my throttle-thumb and my hold-on-for-dear-life-fingers, which is making typing difficult. I hope you have a Merry Christmass and a great New Year! I'll get back to you in a week or two. Zaereth (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Indenting comments[edit]

I noticed that on talk pages, you often do not indent your comments with colons (:). Doing so makes it easier to follow the flow of the discussion. It would help other editors do their job better if you indented comments. Thank You. StringTheory11 23:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure of the protocol. However will try to match columns with previous to see if that works. Thank you for comment.WFPM (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is another very bad example [3]. You have inserted inside a very long post of another user (itself a bad thing to do) without indenting, right before a sub-heading within the user's post. This makes it look like everything the user (Circuitdreamer) wrote up to that point appear to be written by you. Basically, the rule is use one more colon than the post you are replying to; see WP:INDENT. SpinningSpark 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry! It was at the end of the discussion with no previous signature which would have identified the previous contributor, and I was just trying to add information about the subject matter.WFPM (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
That is not correct, the post is signed, it is just that it is a long rambling post with several sub-headings. Circuit-dreamer is notorious for such long, and pointless discussions. Most of us think it is best just to ignore him, especially the old conversations (mostly with himself). SpinningSpark 23:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes! At the bottom. I thought the next paragraph was a different subject. Well maybe someday I'll get the right idea. And even where to locate the pertinent article about the subject matter.WFPM (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC) And I apologize for inserting redundant information about inductive loading.WFPM (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I hope I don't seem to be nagging you because this really is not very important, it is just one of those funny etiquette things found on Wikipedia but nowhere else on the internet. You still don't have it quite right: your post above should have been indented three times instead of two because you are replying to a post that already has two indents. I would then have indented my post (this one) with four indents instead of three.
Posting in the middle of a thread is best avoided if possible. Although it is very frequently done, it has the potential to cause confusion and a few editors find it annoying to have their posts interrupted. Post at the end of the thread unless you really need to reply to a specific point. Replying to comments months or years old is rarely useful: often, the issue with the article has long since been resolved and the editor that made the post may well have moved on and will not reply. Circuitdreamer will definitely not be replying to you, he is currently community banned from electronics articles - if you wish to discuss something with him, you will have to go to his talk page. If you have new information to add you would be better off putting it straight into the article (being bold is encouraged here), or if you feel it needs discussion first, start a new thread at the bottom of the talk page. A new thread has a much greater chance of being noticed, old threads may well be ignored. Happy editing, SpinningSpark 09:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm an old dog learning new tricks and I've already been shot down for adding to articles without references. And I'm an EE with interests in Nuclear physics and with Navy training in electronics. Like in Magnetrons etc. But I'm not keeping up in electronic communications and they're not making it simple by throwing in higher mathematics. And the compartmentalization of subject matters in Wiki is thoroughly confusing. I try to discuss facts and/or opinions about scientific things where I notice them and can add information. And I get particularly concerned when I notice that this or that convention is complicating the understanding of a a scientific situation. Like the organization of the Periodic table for instance. So us old dogs stay alive and active by sticking closer to the fundamentals and occasionally adding to their knowledge along their line of interests within the limits of their imaginative powers. That's why I'm glad I read a lot of Science fiction when I was a kid. And I still read Isaac Asimov.WFPM (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to Maxwell Atom[edit]

Here's that link: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/maxwell/atom.html - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Modifiedchartofthenuclides-color.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Modifiedchartofthenuclides-color.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Modified chart of the nuclides.jpg[edit]

Okay! kind of neat huh? Shows how a format can improve the intelligibility of data presentation. Also shows that just an analysis of the stable nuclides doesn't tell much about the stability characteristic. The halflife data also has to be evaluated to begin to understand the tendency of each isotope to be stable, and the best value to be associated with that tendency is the base 10 logarithm of the half-lifetime seconds value. So maybe sooner or later these halflifetime values will be pinned down sufficiently to provide the needed values for further determinations.WFPM (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2012 (UT

File:Modified chart of the nuclides.jpg[edit]

Talk:Nuclear model[edit]

Here's that link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_model&oldid=478791686

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

File:82Pb Lead stable isotopes.pdf listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:82Pb Lead stable isotopes.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Modified chart of the nuclides.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Modified chart of the nuclides.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talking to myself[edit]

Hello! I'm trying to talk to myself in this comment in order to find out who I am that is talking to me.68.89.218.132 (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Trying again[edit]

Who am I this time?.68.89.218.132 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Element stability long past the superheavy region[edit]

It's been suggested (see group 12 element) that EE164Uhq482 (482164) could be the centre of a second island of stability. Period 8 element and period 9 element have data for surrounding elements from 156 to 172. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)