Fact or Friction?

[flyingcloud]

I see your point, remove me from the equation

this stuff happens without my intervention or conscious will

I guess my example was misleading

friction is not action, more an interaction

[altonhare]

buy a dictionary

Okay. It's a "fundamental constituent", essentially a discrete continuous ball. Why would a discrete ball jump from one material to another? Why does it stick to any material for that matter? Is the electron ball physically connected to the materials? If so how does it decide which material to remain close to if it's connected to both?

thanks for the definitions, the masses it's always about the masses

#1
to fill the void
#2
friction makes it stick, it,s not the only thing sorta like those pictures from that dude with the four hands drawing each other, those are the four forces, nothing to speak of the parallel, like the steps that lead to nowhere, m c escher?
#3
the largest cummulative need, it shares.


friction as a unit, that may hold some merit
it does have value, it can be accumulated

temperature change is signifigant, especially in insanely short intervals

thanks JL

need to wrap my mind around this aether substance, and photons have my attention as well
time, time, time

Why would a ball want to "fill the void"? If I have one ball here, and one over there, why would the one over there jump over here?

"friction makes it stick" but what is friction? What is physically intervening to keep electron balls from careening away from proton balls?

It shares? Shares what? What's this need? Look more closely. Picture the atom itself. If the atom is a bowling ball ("proton") surrounded by a bead ("electron"), why would this bead orbit? Newton's second law clearly states that the bead will simply go careening off away from the bowling ball. We are so thoroughly conditioned to believe that + attracts - that we don't even question it in the slightest anymore. But do protons have little +'s on them in Nature? Nature doesn't care about our rules and equations, Nature has a causal physical mechanism that produces all our observations. Nature doesn't know what +'s and -'s are. In Nature there are simply continuous objects colliding.

[flyingcloud]

i am utterly postless.
what are you attracted to? and why?

bowling balls and beads aren't even close, these analogies are a distraction, these posts are friction

I want to be receptive but this isn't making it easy.

are you saying there is no such things as atoms, just bowling balls and beads, what makes them move in the first place

[altonhare]

i am utterly postless.
what are you attracted to? and why?

bowling balls and beads aren't even close, these analogies are a distraction, these posts are friction

I want to be receptive but this isn't making it easy.

are you saying there is no such things as atoms, just bowling balls and beads, what makes them move in the first place

Exactly, quantum proposes that the universe is composed of particles. That they use complex equations involving wave packets and matrices does not change the fact that their only physical hypothesis is the particle. We need a new physical hypothesis, a new physical explanation for the behavior of atoms and light etc.

To explain what we observe as friction we need to know/hypothesize about the physical nature of what's involved. Fundamentally, this means positing the architecture of the atom. We are all agreed it cannot be a discrete bowling ball at the center of a tiny orbiting bead. So, that physical hypothesis is out. What else might the atom look like? Chemists often picture the bound electron as an encapsulating balloon. But why would this balloon contract/expand in the presence of other atoms at specific proximities? Why would such a structure lead to the observation of "quantization"?

It is obvious we need a new physical model of the atom. Suppose every atom is connected to every other atom by an entwined, dual strand, anti parallel chain. One strand of the chain wraps around forming the electron shell and the other strand continues to the center of the atom. The chain is taut between all atoms. This physically justifies quantization and the rectilinear travel of light. Friction is the interaction of electron shells to varying degrees in varying situations. Magnetism is a loose loop of chain sweeping around the atom. Two such atoms will attract or repel each other magnetically depending on if both are spinning the same direction (attraction), or if one is spinning CW and one is CCW (repulsion).

Science has gone too long disregarding physical causal explanations for some of the most basic phenomena. We have enormously complex quantitative models. We have counted live and dead deer in every possible situation. It is time to hypothesize about why the deer live and die:

Magnetism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

[flyingcloud]

rethink the atoms, I'll see what I can do, thanks for the reply

the strand, dual strand and chain I could be led to think honeycomb,

I think knots,
it feels quite constricting
but I'll explore this

I'd be breaking strings to start my fire,
loose pieces
it's a cat's cradle

[flyingcloud]

Suppose every atom is connected to every other atom by an entwined, dual strand, anti parallel chain. One strand of the chain wraps around forming the electron shell and the other strand continues to the center of the atom. The chain is taut between all atoms. This physically justifies quantization and the rectilinear travel of light. Friction is the interaction of electron shells to varying degrees in varying situations. Magnetism is a loose loop of chain sweeping around the atom. Two such atoms will attract or repel each other magnetically depending on if both are spinning the same direction (attraction), or if one is spinning CW and one is CCW (repulsion).

just two strands connect everything that is?
every atom?
do these things ever break,
are they individual rings of rope that these electrons spin on or do the jump the gap on this continuous intertwined dual strand anti parallel {(is that a word sort of odd concept) no offense should I take that to mean not parallel} string so that all electrons are on one strand and the atom is on the other, chemistry seems impossible,

this is too complex
i can't figure out how to walk with this concept

same spin attracts, opposites repel

this is too bizzaro world stuff for me

I can't begin to envision the first sentence quoted above, maybe pictures would help,
sorry dude. I'll try to catch up here...

[altonhare]

Suppose every atom is connected to every other atom by an entwined, dual strand, anti parallel chain. One strand of the chain wraps around forming the electron shell and the other strand continues to the center of the atom. The chain is taut between all atoms. This physically justifies quantization and the rectilinear travel of light. Friction is the interaction of electron shells to varying degrees in varying situations. Magnetism is a loose loop of chain sweeping around the atom. Two such atoms will attract or repel each other magnetically depending on if both are spinning the same direction (attraction), or if one is spinning CW and one is CCW (repulsion).

just two strands connect everything that is?
every atom?
do these things ever break,
are they individual rings of rope that these electrons spin on or do the jump the gap on this continuous intertwined dual strand anti parallel {(is that a word sort of odd concept) no offense should I take that to mean not parallel} string so that all electrons are on one strand and the atom is on the other, chemistry seems impossible,

this is too complex
i can't figure out how to walk with this concept

same spin attracts, opposites repel

this is too bizzaro world stuff for me

I can't begin to envision the first sentence quoted above, maybe pictures would help,
sorry dude. I'll try to catch up here...

Yeah, pictures help a lot. Here are some videos:

Light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

The H Atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Magnetism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

Gravitation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

Bill Gaede calls them "ropes" instead of chains, but the overall principle is the same. This should help you visualize. These are just 4 of his current 12 videos, I highly recommend them all in addition to his main website:

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

Enjoy.