|
Thank you Bojan... I have been socialising and learning why I prefer to live alone..
also Ron and some other friends built me (now us four) a net site to talk about you know what. (look at the addition in my signature).. I try and get away from it but something drags me back to the gravity thing.
I accept and understand what you say however my programing seems to lean to "I must know all the detail"...and so questions such as above preoccupy my approach to all things that present to me...also most human things are not available to me anymore...too old etc... so without worrying about human stuff I want to try it my way.
So I try to imagine the make up of light, for example, I feel the complexity dictates a simplification but never the less the complexity must be even greater than my visualisations can entertain.
BUT as I dont have to meet deadlines or produce meaningful and usable results my musings run wild.
When you think about it a visualisation is no more than a complex picture our minds generate and in that generation simple math comes into play...I can build most things for example with no ruler as I hold relationships most easily in my mind....size relationships can be understood with little need to quantify any numbers... imagine an atom in relation to Jupiter.. math can quantify it with accuracy however I still have a decent grip on the fact the difference is "very big" and so any visualisation of atoms and Jupiter has that as a general precondition.
AND on that other matter I get interested in...gravity..It is my intention... when I get over the lastest heart break and on the positive assumption she will not talk me into having her back... to address all the matters you and others have raised re the push gravity thing...
I have a hard copy of the thread we were into here and there are many things I need to cover... and I must do this to help you and others understand I am no doubt right...sorry just joking.. but in the interest of discussion , considerations and keeping my mind active...and off girls... is to have a go.
Do you think the EM spectrum is made up of many particles or just one (per wave lenght)... I suspect we deal with it in a singular fashion as the reality would see such a complexity that we would get no where.
There was a math guy on the radio dealing with this sort of thing..he basically said math made things "simple" and he used the example of a computer image of a smile...although extremely complex in reality he said a smile can be dealt with from a math view point as a relationship of only seven points... and so if one manipulates either of these seven points you can recreate practically all smiles... and so on that point I think that when we work with light (or most things in math or physics) we are taking the seven points of a smile approach... and so I bet there are many many particles in a single wave lenght although to determine matters pertaining to light we do not need to break it down into the many parts I suspect will be found present.
alex
|