ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Captain's Log 21/12/12:

EDisConstant

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 41

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 11:28 am

                                  
CAPTAIN'S LOG:   21:12:12:        Spock's Analysis:



1.1.  We have entered a small new universe where fundamental particles exist in the form of oscillating energy fields.

1.2.  These "wave-particles" (WAPs) exist at all energy levels, but the most stable and numerous are neutrinos (~1eV), electrons (511 keV) and protons (938 MeV). 

1.3.  Counter-intuitively, higher energy wave-particles are smaller than lower-energy wave-particles such that:

Energy x Diameter = constant.        (ED is constant)

Hence, electrons are "larger" than protons by a factor of 1836, and neutrinos are 500,000 times larger than electrons.

1.4.   If a wave-particle is given extra energy, it will become smaller and its inherent frequency will become higher.  Conversely, if a wave-particle loses some energy, it will become larger and its inherent frequency will become lower.

1.5.  ....       more on Facebook:   EDisConstant


 

Palomar1932

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 9:29 am

Is this spoof or speculation?

EDisConstant

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 41

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 3:22 am



Well, perhaps we need a logical brain like Spock's to explain some of the simple things we don't yet understand  -  like gravity.
Or electric charge - supposedly, electrons repel each other - yet they move around closely together in an atom.  How can that be?
An electron has one unit of negative charge - and a proton (which is almost 2000 times heavier) has one unit of positive charge - the charges balance exactly.  How can that be?
Spock would come up with a solution that made some sense.

Palomar1932

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 11:35 am

OK, good questions.
wheres the more stuff on facebook?

EDisConstant

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 41

Report this Feb. 13 2013, 4:34 pm

There's more on "EDisConstant"  on Facebook.
Basic ideas come from the techie-trekkie    -   "brianstrom999"   - who has been posting on Yahoo Groups.
There's no good news on time travel, but this guy will blow your mind...

Palomar1932

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46

Report this Feb. 16 2013, 4:08 am

Theres a lot there.
Do you just have the main points - the Spockisms

brianstrom999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 85

Report this Feb. 16 2013, 4:33 am

OK Edis and Palomar1932,  let me help with this.

Spockism 1:  Particles with more energy are smaller than particles with less energy. 

Spockism 2:  Particles get smaller as they gain energy.

If these Spockism bullet points are better for you, will post some more.
B999

Palomar1932

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46

Report this Feb. 18 2013, 5:05 am

SPOCKisms  for the techie-trekkie!
Yes thanks, these bullet points are easier to remember
Will sneak them into trekkie conversations.  - pretend to be logical

brianstrom999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 85

Report this Feb. 18 2013, 6:12 am

OK - first point:

In the Electron Microscope,  we know that higher energy electrons can "see" smaller things.

SPOCK would say:  "It may be counter-intuitive but, logically, the higher energy electrons really are smaller  - so of course they can detect smaller things."

SPOCKism 1:  Particles with more energy are smaller than particles with less energy. 

SPOCKism 2:  Particles get smaller as they gain energy.

SPOCKism 3:  Particle Energy  x  Particle Diameter is constant.      (ED is Constant)

EDisConstant

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 41

Report this Feb. 18 2013, 9:09 am

It may seem counter-intuitive, but it makes more sense than the textbook explanation that "the Planck frequency of the electron increases with energy".

Using the brianstrom999 mathematics, the diameter of the electron comes out at about 1.2 x 10^-12 metres, which fits with the measured diameter of the atom at over 60 x 10^-12 metres. 

And the proton is about 2000 times smaller, with a diameter about 0.6 x 10^-15 metres, which fits with the measured diameter of the atomic nucleus at over 2 x 10^-15 metres.

"It seems that brianstrom999 makes sense, Captain."

alfamav

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 54

Report this Feb. 19 2013, 11:39 am

Greetings techie-trekkies.

Just looked at the whole EDisConstant thing on Facebook - pretty weird, but love these Spockisms -

"8.1. In this Universe, there is no Mass, Weight, Charge or Gravity. There is only Energy."

Why don't you put it all on this Star Trek site? - the writers can weave it into future episodes!

Brilliant!

brianstrom999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 85

Report this Feb. 22 2013, 10:37 am

 


OK. We're debating some new input on Yahoo Groups, so when that's completed will post the updated Captain's Log.


Another Spockism for techie-trekkies:


Since "ED is constant", then for a wave-particle of double energy, its diameter/radius will be halved, and its volume will be one eighth.


Hence its "energy density" will be sixteen times greater.


The general formula is:


 


"Energy Density is to the fourth power of Energy".


 


Therefore, a proton will have an energy density of (1836)^4 which is about 10^12 times greater than an electron.


So a small, dense proton can pass straight through a large, fluffy electron without any interaction.


But a slow-moving electron can easily become trapped in the very deep Potential Well surrounding a proton.


The electron will orbit the proton and form a Hydrogen atom.


Physicists believe this happened to most of the free electrons and protons in the early development of the universe.


 


LL&P.


 


So let me get this right: Your Earth physics is based upon the idea that an electron has one unit of electrical charge, which is exactly equal and opposite to the charge on a proton, which is almost 2000 times bigger! Furthermore, these charges normally repel like charges, but not when electrons are close together in an atom, nor when protons are close together in an atomic nucleus! You must be crazy!

brianstrom999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 85

Report this Feb. 26 2013, 7:19 am

Palomar1932

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46

Report this Mar. 02 2013, 2:30 am

What would Spock say about this matter to anti-matter flip?


Any chance of using it for engines?


 


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21594357


 


 

brianstrom999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 85

Report this Mar. 04 2013, 4:32 pm

 


There's no good explanation of why these particles should flip from one state to another.


There's no energy input and, it seems, there's no energy output.


So guess there's nothing that could be used as a propulsion system!


There's also a problem with the use of the term "anti-matter".


By definition, if "matter" and "anti-matter" existed and were to combine, the product would be zero - the product would not be a finite quantity of energy in the form of photons.


Spockism:


Logically, there are"particles" and there are "counter-particles" but there are no "anti-particles".


LL&P.


So let me get this right: Your Earth physics is based upon the idea that an electron has one unit of electrical charge, which is exactly equal and opposite to the charge on a proton, which is almost 2000 times bigger! Furthermore, these charges normally repel like charges, but not when electrons are close together in an atom, nor when protons are close together in an atomic nucleus! You must be crazy!

Post Reply

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9TREK, FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum