An Explanation. Let's Discuss

I appreciate the critical read, I will add the variable descriptions in. I believe the color of the object is represented by the frequency of light. Keep in mind this description is at the atomic level and explains how to build molecules. The dyes themselves could be constructed to purpose in those regards. a reply to: kwakakev

a reply to: IAMUnification

That's not skepticism, that's a statement of fact.
I was asking for your connection to qm, you started twaddling about E=mc^2, which is STR

You asked for relativity and quantum mechanics and how they connected to the standard model in the equation.

Simply stated:
The equation E=mc² is a consequence of special relativity. It states that mass and energy are equivalent, and that they can be converted into each other. This means that mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass.

And I refer to my post of the binding energy for quantum mechanics
a reply to: Peeple

I am not attacking you, please trust that. And if you criticize the work, that is okay as well. But it isn't productive, nor the reason for me to start my discussion. I am simply asking that when you make statements to refute the idea, try to pose it as an inquiry. a reply to: Peeple

I had used Bard by Google. AI is a powerful tool that collects what we belive we know into one spot. I highly reccomend using it. The limitations are its inability to imagine new concepts. They do not have enough data to verify it as anything but a hypothesis.. which is what i am posing. Once it can be verified it will be a theory. a reply to: Spacespider

a reply to: IAMUnification

No. This isn't an official AMA thread.
I can tell you exactly what I think, normal T&C no special rules for people who declare
Swallows fly at lightspeed...
You have no idea what you're talking about.

a reply to: IAMUnification

The limitations are...

...as with every tool: the user

Closed for review.

I appreciate the communication and will do my best to keep language and intents to conform with the forum rules. a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

As has been clarified to me by mods. I am not trying to offend you. Or deny your beliefs in any way. My response to the monty python quip was a non sequitur that made reference to the idea that if you released the energy of the swallow from its burdens of mass it would be moving at the speed of light in a vacuum. It was humor as a response to hymor. a reply to: Peeple

I gave this some thought now that I am awake.. I believe the equation shows that inertia is a property of the the state of energy.. if you just cancel inertia,, the object would likely seem to move away in an arc(which would be a vector for the object, without a force to balance that back out,, the object would eventually crash into something. The time it would take to crash depend son the objects that are in motion around the initial object that you would be canceling inertia for. a reply to: Topcraft

Ok I did take Physics. I did teach Chemistry Lab classes as a Graduate student, and my business card says Environmental Scientist. I see a lot of variables being defined here but some like E appear to have separate meaning to me. One thing I learned the hard way in Physical Chemistry was that when you have a piece of an equation that equals a Variable like "E", the equation can replace the "E" and be used to solve for other variables. I was lousy at figuring that out on the fly back then, but I see it clearly now.

I don't see clearly what you are saying with these definitions and equations, so far. We need more context. I need more. I am always open to reviewing this fairly. Science is nothing if it doesn't have sceptics to flush out their skepticism. I wasn't the top student in my University but I was on scholly's and showed some promise back then at least.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: IAMUnification

energy being the same thing whether you describe it as sound or light, it doesnt matter.

That's pretty radical, light and sound are the same and you can interchange them without consequences. Is that what you're saying?

classical phisics) to show how these forces can give rise to what we see as matter through their interference as what we call the binding energy of an atom this is your connection to quantum mechanics. Relativity is connected by the term for gravity

In classical physics you found all of that? You have not one single qm equation in your OP, how do you show the connection?

Light and sound are wavelengths. An expression of energy. I am not sure this is what was meant by that response you replied from the thread host?

I appreciate that feedback. I am no expert on everything and value that. I will try to revisit my variables and make sure they are not being confused in my calculations. I have a single semester of formal education. This makes it very hard to use jargon and technical expressions to explain my ideas.


reply to: Justoneman

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: IAMUnification

What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

ROFLMAO!

The hypothesis stated in the equation is that the total energy of an object is not just equal to its mass, but also to its sound energy, light energy, binding energy, electric energy, and magnetic energy.

This hypothesis is based on the idea that all forms of energy are interrelated, and that they can be converted into each other.

Further the equation represents mass as a product of the interference between the wave expressions of light and sound as is being shown in the binding energy equation

This has not been proven, but it has been supported by experimental evidence.

For example, it has been shown that sound waves can be converted into light waves, and that light waves can be converted into electric and magnetic fields.

I hope this is an articulate and coherent response that gives a place to begin.

a reply to: Justoneman

I see this in my head as a star tetrahedron. Where each tetrahedron represents a polarity of light sound electricity and magnetism. And when they come back on on themselves it can create a standing wave with resonance that will be stable in our environment as hydrogen.the ratio of light to sound in water is the frequency of hydrogen at ~1420 Mhz when we change the ratios of light and sound or the properties of the magnetic force we are effecting the resonance if the atom that was formed by a standing wave. This is the explanation to why elements move through perjodicity.

Science religion and myth are all explaining the same thing through different lenses. You can find this hypothesis in creation myths around the world. Parts of its understanding is contained in religions of all people through their observations over time. But science and technology have been our connecting force to these other modes or lenses. It allows us to define "what it is". Which let's us imagine what it could be.

Since its just open thoughts. I figured I could express a personal view.

At this point... please forgive my typographical errors. Limits on editing are going to inhibit my ability to correct my sloppy expression of grammar.

a reply to: IAMUnification

But isn't this the same rational as for why E=MC2 is only valid in static objects and that E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 (where p is momentum) is the correct equation for moving objects. I'm surprised that this didn't appear in any of the posts in the thread up until now especially as one of the only real questions you were asked related to objects in motion / with inertia.

There's no point in trying to explain to me, I'm not a physicist, it's the end of a busy working day and I haven't had time to fully read and absorb all your posts (oh and my brain doesn't always work like normal peoples).

I was really only attracted to your thread because it appears AI/bot like in the way it starts, adapts and manoeuvres and your posting history is really odd!

Only 15 posts prior to this thread only 4 of which were outside of your introduction, 1 to an introduction thread that was 5 years old when you joined and only 1 since October 2016.

You don't need to explain yourself or your history, I'm still intrigued by the parallels that you're drawing even if I'm finding it difficult to visualise them inside my brain.