Skip to main content


Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 09:43 PM PDT

3D Cross eyed pics

by Sneelock

If you already know how to view 3-D cross eyed images, you should jump to the fold.  But if you haven't learned this technique, the results are worth a little effort. Once you learn to see these images, you get a pretty good 3-D view of the object you're looking at. This method of presenting 3-D images is commonly used to display molecular structure. For example, the simple ball and stick image below reveals the 3-D structure of DNA very nicely.

3d_dna photo dna_3d_zpsd859e134.jpg

This method of presenting two coordinated images -- one to each (crossed) eye -- works with ordinary photographic images too. You take 2 pictures of the same scene from roughly an eye separation distance apart and put them side by side. And when you look at the images in the right way, you see a single image that appears much like it would if you were in front of the scene, looking at it with your normal binocular vision.

The best way to learn how to bring cross eyed 3-D images into focus is to take something with a fine point, like a pencil. Put the tip of the pencil in the middle of the 2 images and slowly move it toward a point in between your eyes. Keep your eyes level, and focus directly on the tip as you do this. And try to be aware of the 2 background images as you focus on the tip. Hopefully, as the tip gets about 2/3 of the way to your eyes, the two images will start to merge. Now, you have the right amount of cross-eyed angle. Your right eye is looking at the left image, and your left eye is looking at the right image. Try to maintain that, and then shift your focus from the tip onto the images. Take your time and try to see the two images as one. If you get it. You'll know it. If it doesn't work, start over. And if it starts to hurt, take a break. With some practice, you can learn to maintain the 3-D view comfortably.

Continue Reading

Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 09:39 AM PDT

On the Nature of Matter - Part 3

by Sneelock

Part 3: Some heavier light model elements and speculations on how they lead to soutions to some effects that are insufficiently explained by our current scientific framework.

Part 1 and Part 2

In the first two parts of this series, I described why I believe the idea that matter is made of light is worth considering. And explained how the model of light matter I'm proposing works.  I described how gluons bind Hawkrings together to form neutrons and protons and the elements and how this model leads to explanations for why some molecules composed of the primary organic elements assume the shapes that they do.

In this part I'll examine a few guesses at how some of the heavier elements are constructed and how their structures lead to some of their properties.  Of course, all of the nuclear configurations I'm presenting here are just guesses. With the organic elements, it seems more clear that these guesses are correct than it does with the heavier elements, which are more complex.  Although I've likely made some mistakes below, I think these guesses fit well enough with the experimental evidence of how these elements behave, to present them.

Continue Reading

Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 08:23 AM PDT

On the Nature of Matter - Part 2

by Sneelock

Light matter atomic fundamentals leading to the shapes of some molecules involving the organic elements.

In Part 1 of this series, I described why I think a model of matter made of light is worth thinking about.

Here I'll describe the basics of a light model of matter and how it manifests in the structure and function of some molecules involving the most basic elements that enable life. This description includes a few other aspects of the light model necessary to set the theoretical stage that light matter exists in. I'll touch on the nature of Einstein's space time fabric and its role in effecting the forces of inertia and gravity.

Here is a link to Part 3

Continue Reading

Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 04:47 PM PDT

On the Nature of Matter - Part 1

by Sneelock

A model of atomic structure and function based on the idea that matter is made of light.  

Part 1: Why is the idea that matter is made of light worth considering?

The notion of matter made of light probably seems preposterous to you. But it isn't. Not if you take even a little time to think about it. So before you dismiss the idea out of hand, let me try to convince you to give it some thought.

Just at first glance, the idea that light and matter are made of the same type of stuff can be easily seen in our 2 most important and successful physical theories.  The standard model and relativity.  Under the standard model of quantum mechanics, 2 aspects of matter and light behavior are barely distinguishable. Both matter and light behave like both particles and waves. I read the fact that matter behaves like light at the quantum level as a clue that matter and light have something fundamental in common, and that they could be different manifestations of the same type of energy.

Now consider relativity. Arguably the most successful description of nature ever developed. Let's consider a few of the equations of relativity -- the most important ones Einstein published in 1905.  The equation describing the amount of energy contained in matter, and the 2 equations describing how space, time and mass are altered as matter moves through what Einstein called the space time fabric.  When we look at those equations, what do we see?  What these 3 revolutionary equations have in common is the figure C(2). Why is that?  Why is it necessary to describe matter in terms of light behavior?  If we think of matter as constituted from something different than light, we're hard pressed to say why the mathematics of our most successful physical theory of matter is littered with light. But if we consider the possibility that matter is made of light, there is no difficulty in reconciling the necessity of C(2) in a description of matter. It is the most natural idea that could be imagined.  

Let's look at another example of standard model proposed and verified experimental evidence. The fact that 2 particles of matter, an electron and a positron (a positron is considered "antimatter", but it a has mass and an equivalent energy content, just like "regular" matter, so I'm treating them both as matter here), come into conact, anihilate, and turn into...light.  How does that happen?  If matter can become light, then is it really preposterous to consider that it might be made of light?  

There are lots of other reasons the idea of light matter seems very natural to me. And I'll explain some of those below. I mean to try to convince you the idea of light matter is much more sound than it appears at first glance.

But I'll admit that I've tried before and failed to get other people to consider this idea. And most of them quickly start wondering if I've fallen off my rocker.  Maybe their instincts are right. Maybe this notion is a pipe dream. Maybe science is already heading in the right direction to  develop what Einstein dreamed of. "A complete worldview [including the quantum world] that is in accord with the principle of relativity". But anyone who understands our physical science today, even at a basic level, knows that we're nowhere near realizing that goal yet.

I propose that a model of matter based on the idea that it is made of light is obvious and simple, and that it fits with what we've learned through experiment about how matter behaves.  In particular, I'll try to show how the light model explains how and why elements arrange themselves geometrically as they do in in a sample set of molecules. And how the same effects apply generally to all molecules. Also, how this model leads to explanations for a few organic and inorganic processes that are different, and I would argue more realistic, than the explanations our current science offers. Those are the main goals of this series of diaries on the nature of matter.  

My goal here is simply to set the stage for you to consider the possibility that the C(2) in E=MC(2) is not just an arbitrary coincidence.  But rather, that it stands as a direct signpost, pointing out to us that the energy contained in matter is light energy.

Here are Part2 and Part 3

Continue Reading

Just trying something out here.  Took pictures of an image from two perspectives, about an eye-width apart and put them next to each other to see how well the 3-d effect works when you cross your eyes and look at them.  I can see it pretty well in this image.  But I've practiced looking at this type of (cross eyed) image before. I'm mostly curious how many folks awake now have learned to see this stuff.  And even if you haven't, whether it is easy to learn how to see it.

If you want to give it a try, the best way to learn how to see the 3-d image is to put your finger between the two images, then move your finger toward the center of your eyes, while staring at your fingertip.  Hopefully, when your fingertip gets about 2/3 of the way to the point between your eyes, the two images merge into one.  Then focus on the merged-image, and try to bring the merged image into focus.  Once you see it, you get a nice 3-d effect.  It may take a few tries.  And don't give yourself a headache trying too hard.  If it works, it works.  If not, so what?  I'm just goofin around on a saturday night and wondrin if anyone else wants to play my game.  

If anyone else sees it, I'd like to know what you think.

Continue Reading

This is part of a series within the Reading and Book Lovers group; it was suggested by LimeLite.  The subject is books about science, math and statistics.

This is intended to be a group series, with lots of contributors. plf515 can't do this alone.  But has a list of topics to get us started, and a list of weeks as well.  
This diary will post on Sunday mid-afternoons at an inexact time, and given the nature of Sundays chez plf, We can't be sure there will be a regular schedule.  But we all wish we were eating  at chez plf, and I'm wondering what will be served today.  In any case, these diaries will likely be published after brunch/lunch, before dinner.

Topic ideas (some of which could be collaborative with other RBL groupies):

Book reviews regarding science, math and statistics in fiction or non-fiction.

Diaries about popular science writers

Interviews of daily Kos science, math or statistics authors

A community read of a science, math or statistics book, possibly Feynman's The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, or maybe the much neglected Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski.

"Why it couldn't happen" - looking at some classic books and why they are not possible.

Books on Kindle or other e-reader vs. paper

I don't have the RBL Schedule, but I'm guessing plf515 will serve it up in the comments apres des livres.

Continue Reading

There are some glaring problems with our current model of the how the universe formed.  Problems, in the sense that our Big Bang model doesn't fit with important astronomical phenomena that we observe.  The first problem is that we think the cause of the expansion of celestial matter throughout the universe, is the momentum that matter acquired during the big bang.  Our model assumes that momentum and gravity are the primary -- in fact the only -- forces driving the motion of matter.  The second problem is that from our model, we calculate that in order for matter to have spread out to where it is now, the big bang had to start from a "singularity".  That idea means that the whole universe was contained in a space of infinitely small dimension.  As Grocho Marx liked to say, "that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard."  The singularity idea isn't even marginally believable.  The universe may be fantastic.  But it isn't magic.

Continue Reading

One of the most amazing and plentiful phenomenons in nature, is a snowflake.  Formed in a freezing atmosphere of free water molecules, which lock themselves together in a hexagonally based crystal structure that is delicate and nearly perfectly balanced.  What mechanism creates such a structure?  Why do freezing water molecules arrange themselves so easily and consistently at the 120 degree angle that forms this hexagonal structure?  Our science does not yet provide a good explanation for that.  Ice forms in lots of other configurations too.  And the angles involved in those await explanation as well.

Continue Reading

Pictures of the Next Atomic Model.

I've been asked by some commenters to state up front that I am not a credentialed scientist.  If you are a Kos reader who prefers to limit themself to only credentialed scientists, you should consider moving on.  But if you want to take a quick look at pictures of the elements described by an atomic model that goes beyond the current, scientifically established one, then take the jump.  

I developed this model and the theory behind it with the help of scientific authors who write "physics and astronomy for the laymen" books.  Especially with the help of Einstein, whose equations point directly to something that has been too long overlooked -- the equations of relativity reveal that energy, matter, and their interactions with Einstein's concept of a space-time fabric, are all defined by the speed at which light travels freely, (Squared).

Take a quick look at the pictures.  Then, if you want, there's more.

Continue Reading

If you haven't studied the theory, what's the first thing you think of when someone says the word Relativity?  The man with the wild hair who invented it?  Or matter traveling at the speed of light?  Stopping time?  Maybe, the idea of matter acquiring infinite mass?  Those all seem impossible don't they?  Like magic.  Something that could never happen.  They cant.  Those are only the extreme, impossible cases of Relativity.  If that's all there was to Relativity, Einstein wouldn't have struggled for 11 years to develop the math required to describe what he first exposed in Special Relativity (the effects of the interaction between matter, light and the space-time fabric -- with movement in one spacial dimension) and later developed into General Relativity(the same effects, describing the theory more completely, including movement in three dimensions).  

Continue Reading

On the Machinery of Motion  

It seems to me, we have overlooked something very important for a long time.  We have a great mystery -- the cause and machinery of gravity -- that we can't understand.  And we've been searching hard for a solution to this seemingly unsolvable dilemma.  We don't know why -- or more importantly how -- a ball falls when we drop it, or how it slows down, then accelerates toward earth when we toss it up in the air. We understand what gravity does in great detail.  But we can't figure out how it operates.  We've gone to great lengths to understand how this mysterious force works.  We've even invented an imaginary particle named the graviton to carry this force. Which, I think, many physicists believe, must exist.  Even though we have no evidence for it or even a theory of how it would operate, if we found it.

Continue Reading

The Feynman force is the E in E=MC(2) [squared] -- the measure of the power of light.  When light travels, it applies this force to Einstein's Fabric, resulting in its incredible speed. But half that force goes into the fabric that light pushes itself off of.  Not so different from the way a sailboat takes the energy of the wind from one direction to propel itself in another by pushing on the water with it's keel.  Some of the wind power goes into the water, some goes into pushing the boat.  When light is bound in matter, that energy stays where it is applied -- in the atom.  Light applying its force to light.  That's why the C gets squared in Einstein's fundamental equation.  Matter IS light.  And so are we.

Continue Reading
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.

RSS

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site