Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #600103 > unrolled thread

Linear motion as a quantum property?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 12:59 +0000
    Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 15:16 +0200
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 15:12 +0000
        Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 17:21 +0200
          Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 17:33 +0200
          Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 15:34 +0000
            Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 18:01 +0200
              Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:39 +0000
                Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 20:53 +0200
                  Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-10 21:09 +0000
            Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 18:02 +0200
              Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:35 +0000
                Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 20:47 +0200
                  Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:50 +0000
                    Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 20:54 +0200
                      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-10 21:12 +0000
            Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 18:02 +0200
              Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:37 +0000
                Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 20:51 +0200
                  Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? "Richard D. Saam" <rdsaam@att.net> - 2016-10-09 18:42 -0500
                    Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 17:42 +0200
                      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-10 08:53 -0700
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-10 03:14 -0700
        Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-10 21:19 +0000
          Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-11 00:19 -0700
    Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-10-10 13:10 -0400
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-10 21:15 +0000
        Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-10-16 10:26 -0400
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-11 00:14 -0700
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? THE STINGER - AKA 'KING OF AUK' <bzz.bzz.bzz@sting.sting.sting> - 2016-10-11 09:43 +0200
      space hath atoms, secondpower of the speed of light numerosity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 11:58 -0700
    Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 11:38 -0700
      Re: Linear motion as a quantum property? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-10 11:46 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#600253

On 10/10/2016 01:42 AM, Richard D. Saam wrote:
> On 10/9/16 1:51 PM, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 09/10/2016 v 20:37 7 napsal(a):
>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dne 09/10/2016 v 17:34 7 napsal(a):
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a post trying to say linear motion could
>>>>> be quantized. You seem to justify it is continuous
>>>>> without explaining why.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, linear translational motions can be quantized,
>>>> but is not quantized by nature,
>>>> in contrary to rotation and vibration
>>>> that are quantized natively.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rotation and vibrations are measurable because
>>> the experiment does not run off anywhere.
>>
>> Rotaion and vibrations are not inertial motion.
>> And they are quantized by QM principles.
>> Translational motion is not
>>
> Is superconductive particle translational motion
> quantized?

Do you mean the quasi-particle ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600254

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 6:42:47 PM UTC+3, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 01:42 AM, Richard D. Saam wrote:
> > On 10/9/16 1:51 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne 09/10/2016 v 20:37 7 napsal(a):
> >>> Poutnik wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dne 09/10/2016 v 17:34 7 napsal(a):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a post trying to say linear motion could
> >>>>> be quantized. You seem to justify it is continuous
> >>>>> without explaining why.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, linear translational motions can be quantized,
> >>>> but is not quantized by nature,
> >>>> in contrary to rotation and vibration
> >>>> that are quantized natively.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Rotation and vibrations are measurable because
> >>> the experiment does not run off anywhere.
> >>
> >> Rotaion and vibrations are not inertial motion.
> >> And they are quantized by QM principles.
> >> Translational motion is not
> >>
> > Is superconductive particle translational motion
> > quantized?
> 
> Do you mean the quasi-particle ?
================
may be 
 I didn't think about such name
yet
I did and how was thinking about it
as both :
1
ATTTRACTION FORCE MAKER
2
PARTICLE MAKER !!!
how about that ???
and you have to add on it
my 
CAIN OF ORBITALS SYSEM
THAT IS GOING ALL ALONG MYMODEL
see Gogle
'The Y Porat Model- an abstract '
(you see there

only the abstract of that model 
the model is 
in a book of 150 dense  pages !!
===
TIA
Y.Porat
=================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600230

On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC+3, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 09/10/2016 v 14:59 7 napsal(a):
> > Linear motion as a quantum property?
> > ------------------------------------
> 
> 
> > I don't understand any of this.
> > 
> > I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
> > of matter. But now I'm really stuck.
> > 
> > Basically it starts off by concluding linear
> > motion reduces to a property of matter.
> 
> Linear motion ( like of argon atoms in air )
> is not quantized, therefore is is not quantum property.
> 
> Also, linear motion is relative phenomena,
> as there is no absolute linear motion nor rest.
> 
> If an object is in state of linear motion,
> and what is its linear velocity
> is NOT a property of object.
> 
> It is property of the frame of reference,
> where the object state is evaluated.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
==============================
you should  know hat practically 
there is a limit about
how far we can ask why that
and if so why so
and if so why so ??
there are things that must be taken as basic assumptions
================
now about linear  motion
I have some news for you  
there are some  very basic particles (with mass 
there is nothing that has no mass - the only mass )
so those particles 

MOVE NATURALLY ""  IN A CURVED PATH !!!

once you accept it 
a whole new world is opened before  you 
see (Google )
''The  Y Circlon mechanism ''
ATB
Y.Porat
==================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600293

poraty350@gmail.com wrote:


> ''The  Y Circlon 


Shrriieeeeekkkkhhhh!!!!

Nooooooooo!!!

Not the Circulon!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600377

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:19:24 AM UTC+3, 7 wrote:
> poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> > ''The  Y Circlon 
> 
> 
> Shrriieeeeekkkkhhhh!!!!
> 
> Nooooooooo!!!
> 
> Not the Circulon!!!
===========================
anonymous dreck 
go better f your mother 
--
next!!! to human  beings
Y.P
=====================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600264

On 10/9/2016 8:59 AM, 7 wrote:
> Linear motion as a quantum property?
> ------------------------------------
>
> I don't understand any of this.
>
> I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
> of matter. But now I'm really stuck.
>
> Basically it starts off by concluding linear
> motion reduces to a property of matter.

Linear motion isn't a property of matter. Quantum spin is a property of 
matter and other particles. The quantum spin combined with linear motion 
produces a chiral (i.e. corkscrew) motion. The particles that travel at 
the speed of light will always have a single direction of motion, 
therefore their chirality is always in the same direction. Particles 
that don't travel at the speed of light, will always have the same 
direction of quantum spin, but they will go back and forth (i.e. 
vibrate), and this will produce left and right chirality during 
different phases of their travel. Due to a quirk of the Weak Force, only 
left-chiral particles interact with the Higgs field, while the 
right-chiral particles do not. This is what gives particles their mass, 
but doesn't give them so much mass that they can't move at all. So the 
particles get mass in one direction, but not the other.

		Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600292

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> On 10/9/2016 8:59 AM, 7 wrote:
>> Linear motion as a quantum property?
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> I don't understand any of this.
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
>> of matter. But now I'm really stuck.
>>
>> Basically it starts off by concluding linear
>> motion reduces to a property of matter.
> 
> Linear motion isn't a property of matter.

What I'm saying is there is a framework for making it
a property of matter if the OFF property is
inherited when objects travel at speed of light.

The ON property is inherited by letting two OFF particles
face each other.

By working it that way, it can be thought of as a property.


Linear motion as a quantum property?
------------------------------------

I don't understand any of this.

I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
of matter. But now I'm really stuck.

Basically it starts off by concluding linear
motion reduces to a property of matter.

In order for it to be a property, it can only
be ON or OFF.

The OFF state is anything that travel at the speed of light
contrary to where I want to start :(

There is no reference point to conclude you have
linear motion which is why the OFF state is
given to objects travelling at speed of light.

Then what does ON mean?

It seems to mean that when these particles
combine with other object and they face each other
then you get the ON state.

This logic just sucks and sucks.

When two objects face each other to cancel linear
motion they stand still.
And when they combine with more collections of such
particles you get various linear motion vectors.

The moment a particle has one of its linear motion
particle properties reversed in a particle collision of high 
energy, it is possible, they just accelerate until
its torn to pieces.

If that is the case, then may be some day we can reverse
the properties of just a few particles by just a little and hold 
on to it some way.

A sheet of this material would then accelerate slowly
assuming the force of acceleration can be evenly
distributed throughout the material (otherwise it would
rip itself to pieces if it is a point source).

Much like a sheet of plastic can be charged up
electrostatically or some materials form into magnets,
this material will accelerate in the specific directions
set into at the time its manufactured, and you
point it in the direction you want to travel.




> Quantum spin is a property of
> matter and other particles. The quantum spin combined with linear motion
> produces a chiral (i.e. corkscrew) motion. The particles that travel at
> the speed of light will always have a single direction of motion,
> therefore their chirality is always in the same direction. Particles
> that don't travel at the speed of light, will always have the same
> direction of quantum spin, but they will go back and forth (i.e.
> vibrate), and this will produce left and right chirality during
> different phases of their travel. Due to a quirk of the Weak Force, only
> left-chiral particles interact with the Higgs field, while the
> right-chiral particles do not. This is what gives particles their mass,
> but doesn't give them so much mass that they can't move at all. So the
> particles get mass in one direction, but not the other.
> 
> Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#601096

On 10/10/2016 5:15 PM, 7 wrote:
> What I'm saying is there is a framework for making it
> a property of matter if the OFF property is
> inherited when objects travel at speed of light.
>
> The ON property is inherited by letting two OFF particles
> face each other.
>
> By working it that way, it can be thought of as a property.

Motion is not a property of a particle, at least not an intrinsic 
property. It could be considered an emergent property, i.e. a property 
that arises from a combination of other properties, but that's about it.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600376

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 8:10:11 PM UTC+3, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 10/9/2016 8:59 AM, 7 wrote:
> > Linear motion as a quantum property?
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > I don't understand any of this.
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
> > of matter. But now I'm really stuck.
> >
> > Basically it starts off by concluding linear
> > motion reduces to a property of matter.
> 
> Linear motion isn't a property of matter. Quantum spin is a property of 
> matter and other particles. The quantum spin combined with linear motion 
> produces a chiral (i.e. corkscrew) motion. The particles that travel at 
> the speed of light will always have a single direction of motion, 
> therefore their chirality is always in the same direction. Particles 
> that don't travel at the speed of light, will always have the same 
> direction of quantum spin, but they will go back and forth (i.e. 
> vibrate), and this will produce left and right chirality during 
> different phases of their travel. Due to a quirk of the Weak Force, only 
> left-chiral particles interact with the Higgs field, while the 
> right-chiral particles do not. This is what gives particles their mass, 
> but doesn't give them so much mass that they can't move at all. So the 
> particles get mass in one direction, but not the other.
> 
> 		Yousuf Khan
=============================
mumble gamble !!
================
Y.P
============================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600379

O\_n \_/ \T/ u_/e\_, \_/ \1/ 1_/ \_/O\_c \t/ \_/ 2_/0\_1 \6/ \_/ 0_/ 
_0 \:/ 1_/4\_: \4/ 6_/ \_/-\_0 \7/ 0_/0\_/ \_( \P/ D_/T\_) \,/ \_/ \_
p\_o \r/ a_/t\_y \3/ 5_/0\_@ \g/ m_/a\_i \l/ ._/c\_o \m/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/w\_r \o/ t_/e\_: \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/O\_n \_/ \_
 M_/o\_n \d/ a_/y\_, \_/ \O/ c_/t\_o \b/ e_/r\_/ \_1 \0/ ,_/ \_/2\_/ 
0/ 1_/6\_/ \_a \t/ \_/ 8_/:\_1 \0/ :_/1\_1 \_/ \P/ M_/ \_/U\_T \C/ \_
+\_3 \,/ \_/ Y_/o\_u \s/ u_/f\_/ \_K \h/ a_/n\_/ \_/ \_/ \_w \r/ o_/ 
_t \e/ :_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \O/ n_/ \_/1\_0 \// 9_//\_2 \0/ 1_/6\_
 \_/ \8/ :_/5\_9 \_/ \A/ M_/,\_/ \_7 \_/ \w/ r_/o\_t \e/ :_/ \_/ \_/ 
_> \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/L\_i \n/ e_/a\_r \_/ \m/ o_/t\_i \o/ n_/ \_/a\_
 \s/ \_/ a_/ \_/q\_u \a/ n_/t\_u \m/ \_/ p_/r\_o \p/ e_/r\_t \y/ ?_/ 
_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/-\_- \-/ -_/-\_- \-/ -_/-\_- \-/ -_/-\_
 \-/ -_/-\_- \-/ -_/-\_- \-/ -_/-\_- \-/ -_/-\_- \-/ -_/-\_- \-/ -_/ 
_- \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/I\_/ \_d \_
 o_/n\_' \t/ \_/ u_/n\_d \e/ r_/s\_t \a/ n_/d\_/ \_a \n/ y_/ \_/o\_/ 
f/ \_/ t_/h\_i \s/ ._/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_
 \>/ \_/ I_/'\_m \_/ \t/ r_/y\_i \n/ g_/ \_/t\_o \_/ \f/ i_/g\_u \r/ 
_/e\_/ \_o \u/ t_/ \_/l\_i \n/ e_/a\_r \_/ \m/ o_/t\_i \o/ n_/ \_/a\_
 \s/ \_/ a_/ \_/p\_r \o/ p_/e\_r \t/ y_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ 
_/o\_f \_/ \m/ a_/t\_t \e/ r_/.\_/ \_B \u/ t_/ \_/n\_o \w/ \_/ I_/'\_
 \m/ \_/ r_/e\_a \l/ l_/y\_/ \_s \t/ u_/c\_k \./ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ 
_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \B/ a_/s\_i \c/ a_/l\_l \y/ \_/ \_
i\_t \_/ \s/ t_/a\_r \t/ s_/ \_/o\_f \f/ \_/ b_/y\_/ \_c \o/ n_/c\_/ 
l/ u_/d\_i \n/ g_/ \_/l\_i \n/ e_/a\_r \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_
 \m/ o_/t\_i \o/ n_/ \_/r\_e \d/ u_/c\_e \s/ \_/ t_/o\_/ \_a \_/ \p/ 
_/r\_o \p/ e_/r\_t \y/ \_/ o_/f\_/ \_m \a/ t_/t\_e \r/ ._/ \_/ \_/>\_
 \_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_L \i/ n_/e\_a \r/ \_/ m_/o\_t \i/ 
_/o\_n \_/ \i/ s_/n\_' \t/ \_/ a_/ \_/p\_r \o/ p_/e\_r \t/ y_/ \_/o\_
 \f/ \_/ m_/a\_t \t/ e_/r\_. \_/ \Q/ u_/a\_n \t/ u_/m\_/ \_s \p/ i_/ 
_n \_/ \i/ s_/ \_/a\_/ \_/ \_/ \_p \r/ o_/p\_e \r/ t_/y\_/ \_o \f/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \m/ a_/t\_t \e/ r_/ \_/a\_n \d/ \_/ o_/t\_/ 
h/ e_/r\_/ \_p \a/ r_/t\_i \c/ l_/e\_s \./ \_/ T_/h\_e \_/ \q/ u_/a\_
 \n/ t_/u\_m \_/ \s/ p_/i\_n \_/ \c/ o_/m\_b \i/ n_/e\_d \_/ \w/ i_/ 
_t \h/ \_/ \_/ \_/ l_/i\_n \e/ a_/r\_/ \_m \o/ t_/i\_o \n/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \p/ r_/o\_d \u/ c_/e\_s \_/ \a/ \_/ c_/h\_i \r/ a_/ 
_l \_/ \(/ i_/.\_e \./ \_/ c_/o\_r \k/ s_/c\_r \e/ w_/)\_/ \_m \o/ \_
t\_i \o/ n_/.\_/ \_T \h/ e_/ \_/p\_a \r/ t_/i\_c \l/ e_/s\_/ \_t \h/ 
_/a\_t \_/ \_/ \_/ \t/ r_/a\_v \e/ l_/ \_/a\_t \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ \_
>\_/ \_t \h/ e_/ \_/s\_p \e/ e_/d\_/ \_o \f/ \_/ l_/i\_g \h/ t_/ \_/ 
_w \i/ l_/l\_/ \_a \l/ w_/a\_y \s/ \_/ h_/a\_v \e/ \_/ a_/ \_/s\_i \_
 n_/g\_l \e/ \_/ d_/i\_r \e/ c_/t\_i \o/ n_/ \_/o\_f \_/ \_/ \_/ \m/ 
_/o\_t \i/ o_/n\_, \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/t\_h \e/ r_/e\_f \o/ \_
r\_e \_/ \t/ h_/e\_i \r/ \_/ c_/h\_i \r/ a_/l\_i \t/ y_/ \_/i\_s \_/ 
_/ a_/l\_w \a/ y_/s\_/ \_i \n/ \_/ t_/h\_e \_/ \s/ a_/m\_e \_/ \d/ \_
i\_r \e/ c_/t\_i \o/ n_/.\_/ \_/ \_/ \_P \a/ r_/t\_i \c/ l_/e\_s \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_t \h/ a_/t\_/ \_d \o/ n_/'\_t \_/ \t/ r_/a\_
 \v/ e_/l\_/ \_a \t/ \_/ t_/h\_e \_/ \s/ p_/e\_e \d/ \_/ o_/f\_/ \_/ 
l/ i_/g\_h \t/ ,_/ \_/w\_i \l/ l_/ \_/a\_l \w/ a_/y\_s \_/ \h/ a_/v\_
 \e/ \_/ t_/h\_e \_/ \_/ \_/ \s/ a_/m\_e \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/ 
_d \i/ r_/e\_c \t/ i_/o\_n \_/ \o/ f_/ \_/q\_u \a/ n_/t\_u \m/ \_/ \_
s\_p \i/ n_/,\_/ \_b \u/ t_/ \_/t\_h \e/ y_/ \_/w\_i \l/ l_/ \_/g\_/ 
o/ \_/ b_/a\_c \k/ \_/ a_/n\_d \_/ \f/ o_/r\_t \h/ \_/ \_/ \_/ (_/i\_
 \./ e_/.\_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ v_/i\_b \r/ a_/t\_e \)/ ,_/ \_/ 
_a \n/ d_/ \_/t\_h \i/ s_/ \_/w\_i \l/ l_/ \_/p\_r \o/ d_/u\_c \e/ \_
 \_/l\_e \f/ t_/ \_/a\_n \d/ \_/ r_/i\_g \h/ t_/ \_/c\_h \i/ r_/a\_/ 
l/ i_/t\_y \_/ \_/ \_/ \d/ u_/r\_i \n/ g_/ \_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \_
 d_/i\_f \f/ e_/r\_e \n/ t_/ \_/p\_h \a/ s_/e\_s \_/ \o/ f_/ \_/t\_/ 
h/ e_/i\_r \_/ \t/ r_/a\_v \e/ l_/.\_/ \_D \u/ e_/ \_/t\_o \_/ \a/ \_
 \_/q\_u \i/ r_/k\_/ \_o \f/ \_/ t_/h\_e \_/ \W/ e_/a\_k \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ F_/o\_r \c/ e_/,\_/ \_o \n/ l_/y\_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ l_/e\_
 \f/ t_/-\_c \h/ i_/r\_a \l/ \_/ p_/a\_r \t/ i_/c\_l \e/ s_/ \_/i\_/ 
n/ t_/e\_r \a/ c_/t\_/ \_w \i/ t_/h\_/ \_t \h/ e_/ \_/H\_i \g/ g_/s\_
 \_/ \f/ i_/e\_l \d/ ,_/ \_/w\_h \i/ l_/e\_/ \_/ \_/ \_t \h/ e_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ r_/i\_g \h/ t_/-\_c \h/ i_/r\_a \l/ \_/ p_/a\_
 \r/ t_/i\_c \l/ e_/s\_/ \_d \o/ \_/ n_/o\_t \./ \_/ T_/h\_i \s/ \_/ 
_/i\_s \_/ \w/ h_/a\_t \_/ \g/ i_/v\_e \s/ \_/ p_/a\_r \t/ i_/c\_l \_
 e_/s\_/ \_/ \_/ \_t \h/ e_/i\_r \_/ \m/ a_/s\_s \,/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ 
_/ \_> \_/ \b/ u_/t\_/ \_d \o/ e_/s\_n \'/ t_/ \_/g\_i \v/ e_/ \_/t\_
 \h/ e_/m\_/ \_s \o/ \_/ m_/u\_c \h/ \_/ m_/a\_s \s/ \_/ t_/h\_a \t/ 
_/ \_/t\_h \e/ y_/ \_/c\_a \n/ '_/t\_/ \_m \o/ v_/e\_/ \_a \t/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/a\_l \l/ ._/ \_/S\_o \_/ \t/ h_/e\_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ 
_/p\_a \r/ t_/i\_c \l/ e_/s\_/ \_g \e/ t_/ \_/m\_a \s/ s_/ \_/i\_n \_
 \_/ o_/n\_e \_/ \d/ i_/r\_e \c/ t_/i\_o \n/ ,_/ \_/b\_u \t/ \_/ n_/ 
_o \t/ \_/ t_/h\_e \_/ \o/ t_/h\_e \r/ ._/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_/ \_/ \_Y \o/ u_/s\_u \f/ \_/ K_/h\_a \n/ \_/ \_/ 
_/>\_/ \_= \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_
 \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/m\_u \m/ b_/l\_e \_/ \g/ 
_/a\_m \b/ l_/e\_/ \_! \!/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_
 \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \Y/ ._/P\_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \=/ =_/ 
_= \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ =_/=\_= \=/ \_
=\_= \=/ =_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_Y \O/ U_/ \_/M\_U \S/ T_/ 
_/ \_B \E/ \_/ R_/I\_L \L/ Y_/ \_/H\_I \G/ H_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/-\_- \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ T_/h\_e \_/ \S/ t_/i\_n \g/ e_/r\_/ \_- \_/ \S/ c_/o\_/ 
u/ r_/g\_e \_/ \o/ f_/ \_/T\_e \h/ \_/ U_/s\_e \n/ e_/t\_s \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600603 — space hath atoms, secondpower of the speed of light numerosity

no particles propogate at the speed of light;
only waves of light can so-propogate through the particulons of free space
 
> produces a chiral (i.e. corkscrew) motion. The particles that travel at 
> the speed of light will always have a single direction of motion, 
> therefore their chirality is always in the same direction. Particles 
> that don't travel at the speed of light, will always have the same 
> direction of quantum spin, but they will go back and forth (i.e. 
> vibrate), and this will produce left and right chirality during 
> different phases of their travel. Due to a quirk of the Weak Force, only 
> left-chiral particles interact with the Higgs field, while the 
> right-chiral particles do not. This is what gives particles their mass, 
> but doesn't give them so much mass that they can't move at all. So the 
> particles get mass in one direction, but not the other.
> 
> 		Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600269

On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 5:59:07 AM UTC-7, 7 wrote:
> Linear motion as a quantum property?
> ------------------------------------
> 
> I don't understand any of this.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out linear motion as a property
> of matter. But now I'm really stuck.
> 
> Basically it starts off by concluding linear
> motion reduces to a property of matter.
> 
> In order for it to be a property, it can only
> be ON or OFF.
> 
> The OFF state is anything that travel at the speed of light
> contrary to where I want to start :(
> 
> There is no reference point to conclude you have
> linear motion which is why the OFF state is
> given to objects travelling at speed of light.
> 
> Then what does ON mean?
> 
> It seems to mean that when these particles
> combine with other object and they face each other
> then you get the ON state.
> 
> This logic just sucks and sucks.
> 
> When two objects face each other to cancel linear
> motion they stand still.
> And when they combine with more collections of such
> particles you get various linear motion vectors.
> 
> The moment a particle has one of its linear motion
> particle properties reversed in a particle collision of high 
> energy, it is possible, they just accelerate until
> its torn to pieces.
> 
> If that is the case, then may be some day we can reverse
> the properties of just a few particles by just a little and hold 
> on to it some way.
> 
> A sheet of this material would then accelerate slowly
> assuming the force of acceleration can be evenly
> distributed throughout the material (otherwise it would
> rip itself to pieces if it is a point source).
> 
> Much like a sheet of plastic can be charged up
> electrostatically or some materials form into magnets,
> this material will accelerate in the specific directions
> set into at the time its manufactured, and you
> point it in the direction you want to travel.

When thinking of motions in regards to the behavior of matter both quantum and macro spin ,curved direction,and speed are in.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600271

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Full Swine Glazier wrote:
> When thinking of motions in regards to the behavior ... 
then <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine> who turned 
into the <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier> does
this: <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web