FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Science/Technology > Space and Time

Greetings!

Space and Time Discussions on space, time, relativity, physics, and the nature of the universe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 01-13-2010, 05:50 AM
imagine imagine is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,235
Possibility:

"mass" involves uncertainty ("a mass of leaves on the ground")

i.e. "spread out coherently" (at least one overlap )

"spin" involves certainty (the wheel spins: it is self-referent)

spin = opposite of mass?

If: spin = conservation of measurement; mass = measurement of conservation?

yes

force = fixed angle

acceleration = directed distance per time per time = directed distance per anywhere within limits per anywhere within limits, = directed distance per simple distance, = backwards referenceability (or mass carrying)

f = ma = fixed angle = mass of mass carry = uncertainty of uncertainty carry = travelling a wider path = ................ oh, I cannot say as it is too valuable a discovery right now (????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????)
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17  
Old 01-13-2010, 06:00 AM
imagine imagine is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,235
spin is "spread in"- so when you pull your arms in while spinning, you spin faster!

this is awesome: (dolphins creating vortexes of air as hula-hoop-like rings)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-13-2010, 02:00 PM
G O R T's Avatar
G O R T G O R T is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacedout View Post
Poisidon is right, there has to be a source of energy to form a spin vortex. In nature a tornado, a vortex, uses temperature differences to cause a rise in air and probably a spin of the earth to start the vortex. If considering vortex as a reson for matter particles, a source of spin must be found.
A tornado requires energy input to fight friction in a relatively thick and static air air mass. Such phenomena only exist from the standpoint of a spinning frame of reference. The atmospheric mass in which a tornado forms was already spinning.

From a more typical perspective for the universe at large, all matter both moves and spins with little frictional interaction. Where matter does interact due to friction, new vortices form.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-14-2010, 07:51 PM
spacedout spacedout is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 836
Those bubble vortices that Imagine sent were very interresting -- I didn't know these existed and the duration is more than one would expect. You have a point there on the life of a vortex Gort. It would be nice if a vortex particle could be made in water that would duplicate a subatomic particle with proper spins -- I still believe energy would have to be fed in though. Opposite spins would bond due to vacuum like two trains pull together when traveling in opposite directions. I believe in vortex theory for sub-atomic particles though.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-27-2010, 01:52 PM
Nef Raven's Avatar
Nef Raven Nef Raven is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,011
Blog Entries: 81
Why does everything spin?


It could be the suggestion that when somebody gives birth to an infant they should wear a space suit.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-27-2010, 01:57 PM
Nef Raven's Avatar
Nef Raven Nef Raven is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,011
Blog Entries: 81
That's his secret for courtship ladies. Spin with your hands in to go faster. Right. Apes pat their heads and rub their tummies then use their toes to grip the carpet; then, suddenly they discover ," Wow, no constaints in this thing."




(Very funny, indeed.)
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-27-2010, 02:09 PM
Nef Raven's Avatar
Nef Raven Nef Raven is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,011
Blog Entries: 81
I wonder what led to the parceling of Y +Y . Must be a few flat-rocks skiding on a spring. Do you see people spinning there? I don't. They're quite clear.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-12-2010, 05:56 PM
spacedout spacedout is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 836
How do you explain 1/2 spin? 1/2 spin can be demonstrated by taking two pennies -- fix one in place and rotate the other coin around the stationary one -- it will take two turns of the rotating coin to arrive at the starting position. Try explaining this with a simple vortex.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-17-2010, 09:48 PM
Bobbo Bobbo is offline
An old dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by G O R T View Post
Spin is the norm for a simple reason: of the infinite possible angular momentums available to an object, having a total lack of angular momentum is a singular case. Odds of any particular spin are (∞-1) to 1. Besides, where would you find a universal frame of reference for the judgment?
Very good, as far as it goes.

"of the infinite possible angular momentums available to an object, ..." or a group of objects ...

Can we actually observe rotation (spin) in singular objects, objects of atomic size and smaller? I think not.

The frame of reference is the observed relative position of each object in the group.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-07-2010, 02:04 AM
Booya's Avatar
Booya Booya is offline
Imagination > Knowledge
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagine View Post
"spin" involves certainty (the wheel spins: it is self-referent)
Spin has the same uncertainty as angular momentum.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-27-2010, 04:02 AM
imagine imagine is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,235
If I have a circular-shaped object such as a tuner dial on a radio; and it has a radius line on it as a reference mark, if I "spin" it so it points to a different external reference mark than what it was pointing to:

I have created an angle.

"uncertainty": e.g. "a or b"?

"certainty": e.g. "a"

How know concept of "uncertainty" i.e. how is it either "a' or "b"? Because have a projected space (room to move to "a" or to "b") ?

How know concept of "certainty"? How know "a"? Because the "projected space" is evenly subdivided- all options have been "flipped" except one?
(Subject identification?)

The cat on the mat: "cat" is the subject (Because it has to be a cat or specific item (for the sentence to hang together...?)) (If wrote: the cat or dog on the mat, (cat or dog) becomes in the role of cat in the simpler sentence? Isolation (time-freezing?)(timelessness?) of the subject is what allows it to "rotate around" the range of possible background scenes (e.g. mat, floor, grass, road, etc.) ?

How knew "uncertainty"- how knew ""a" or "b""? Because all ones have been "flipped" except option? (Object identification?)

The cat on the mat: "mat" is the object (Because it needn't be a mat?)

By writing "the cat on the mat or floor or grass or road", "mat or floor or grass or road" becomes nearly the subject as it is like the cat is being seen now from different points of view?

momentum - mass x velocity

mass = uncertainty (I think) like "a mass of leaves" describes e.g. "20-30 leaves"
(an uncertain amount of the leaves)

velocity = directed distance per time

time involves "anywhere within limits" (like limits of a clock-face or pendulum swing)

velocity = directed distance per anywhere within limits =

subdivision into two unequal parts per anywhere within limits =

juggling room to form ratio

= loose intersection of sets

= limit on making exchanges between sets

momentum = mass x velocity = uncertainty of velocity say =

uncertainty of limit in making exchanges between sets

= a third set moderating exchanges between sets (?)

= "an electron" ?

(This has consequences for teleportation!)


How can "spin" have "uncertainty"- how can "certainty" have "uncertainty"?

How can "the subject" become "the "object" as well?

A third set moderating exchanges between two sets is both "objective" (can be seen from two points of view- from the two sets?) and "subject" ? Everything hinges on it?

It forms "a unique" perspective, of 3 two mentions (3-D) ? Forming a triangular 'structure' to space (i.e. to 'room to move') ?

(If add such a structure (called a "Hamiltonian" in mathematical physics?) you get a chain rule and a D'Alembertian operator? A (fixed) space-time difference in 3 or 4(more) 'dimensions'- a "hitchiker's guide" AS ? "the galaxy" ? (or "the backbone" (communication infrastruture ?) of "the universe" ?) )

Uncertainty in spinning a radio-tuning dial: creates an overlap so it points to one station, then is spun to point to either some other station or yet another station.

Or the uncertainty could be at the start. Like a third station 'moderates' the other two-
its floating between the other two- if the other two are already floating as sets making exchanges, the third would fix the rate or ratio of those exchanges?

Measureable (quantisable) spin = uncertainty of angular momentum?

Proof!?: an ice skater spins, then pulls in or throws out their arms. they spin more or less, as they have measured / unmeasured their angular momentum by pulling in or throwing out their arms ?

Pulling them in "unmeasures the angular momentum", so spin becomes less defined, so faster? Throwing arms out measures (scales?) their angular momentum, so spin becomes more defined, so slows?

Last edited by imagine; 06-27-2010 at 04:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:52 AM
spacedout spacedout is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 836
Protons an neutrons are made of up-quarks and down-quarks and if quarks were made of x,y,z pusating opositing in a fase sequence the orbit speed of the electron would be multiples of the distance from its center. The first orbit would be 1 the second would be 2 and the third would be 3 and so on. However, I guess to Shrodingers equations, bosons are considered units of evennumber of spins and fermions units of odd number of spins -- 1/2, 3/2, 5/2 ---.

I guess calculations of the speeds of electrons around orbits in an atom are 1/2 at the first orbit compared with the same speed of rotation of electrons traveling, at the speed of light, around a loop of wire of a given length. I sure would like to know more about this so I could get to the bottom of what spin is.

I can't believe that from a starting point around an electron it would take 2 turns to arrive back at the starting point. What is special about the starting point and the second orbit of an analyzer to show the exact point you started from?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-29-2010, 07:23 AM
imagine imagine is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,235
idea:

measurement: involves item and ruler; (2 roles); and ruler must have at least one division giving item (1), ruler part a (2) and ruler part b (3) so 3 roles?

Conserve measurement; now item seen again (so two views) and ruler seen again (so 2 parts of ruler, seen again) so 6 roles (gives "6 quarks"?) and one has a constant angular separation: a constant crossing over between item and measuring material = a floating parameter pertaining to the partly unseen item (a universal difference swap or space cohering view of the item (a view of the item as two bits stuck together, as "a gluon")(so to see "quark" AND "gluon" you need "quark uncertain" (a change capacitor)).

If I point my arm at a cup on a bench and rotate it to point to another cup to one side, I have created an angle. If I treat the pattern as also having a beginning and an ending (thanks spacedout), then this angle has 'separation' (it is braced both forwards and backwards (this idea is the key?)).

Now it is called "spin". Maybe: the sweep of one's arm creates a triangle of at least 2 units perimeter to 1 shoulder; so "measurement" (or difference?), the bracing creates "conservation of measurement" (Or swapping difference, so floating boundaries, or "spin", i.e. "another way of looking at something").

If one rotated one's arm 360 degrees, the bracing (the remainder in 360 of a less than 360?) would be absorbed, so a second 'orbit' is needed to keep space as a factor?

a prime number is a 'space factor', a "spin"?

an even number greater than 2 is a factor space, or "mass"?

rrrr: measure is the 2 r's, conserve is rr to rr; measure conserve is r r to r r, r r ("mass")("spread IN")("factorising" ?)(so mass factorise is topsy turvy (holograph?) )


conserve measure is r r, r r to r r ? ("spin")("spread OUT")("normalising")

.......................

(When spin, one keeps getting tangents, i.e. "normals", right angles to the arm that is rotating.)

every mass is comprised of at least 2 spins (2 views of something) ? (Goldbach Conjecture: every even number greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers) ?

Last edited by imagine; 06-29-2010 at 07:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-29-2010, 09:08 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
what would happen to the electric field of a magnet
if you spun it at extremely high velocities?
(10% light speed)

would the north pole start to attract the south pole as
the electric field lagged slightly behind the magnet?

what about 50% lightspeed?

could this result in 99.9999% perpetual motion?

perhaps even a mechanism to create
a vortex that amassed an ever increasing amount of energy


>>> woooomf <<<

just got sucked in a black hole

<>
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-27-2010, 04:39 PM
spacedout spacedout is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 836
Spinning an electric field at high speeds produces field pulses that travel at a constant speed (that of light). This means that there is a medium that propagates the waves which can act on free electrons in metals or such to produce a voltave sine wave. Spinning a magnet will also produce a wave that travels at the speed of light and will act on the magnetic charactoristic of electrons in conductors. Somehow, these two fields are different and the medium knows how to propagate each at the speed of light. The question is how this is done -- magnetism seems to be a vortex of field paarticles and an electric field seems to be just the interraction of nonvortex field particles both of which propagate at the speed of light. Very interresting, because a field vortex should travel slower than the speed of light because it is in a spin mode -- and curiosly waves do have a sine wave of energy. Therefore, it seems that wave propagation has a fluid vortex of field particles. Some paradox.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From birth to post-schooling: Itís all Spin coberst General Philosophy 1 07-31-2008 12:33 PM
The Gods Garry Denke Religion 2 05-29-2008 07:19 PM
There is no Time whizkidz Space and Time 91 12-13-2007 12:09 AM
Old story, New names Garry Denke Religion 12 08-22-2007 12:42 AM
Fair and Balanced? 0ddity Politics and World Events 49 05-05-2007 06:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49 PM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network