okay lets try this gravity theory again and explain it better

The math works, why argue with it. What exactly is going on behind the math makes all the difference in understanding how it all comes together. Zero point particles work the same as traditional physics, but with them we can see how fundamental forces are united. We can then expand our understanding to understand some mysteries in quantum physics like psi wave functions, which my theory attempts to explain. Is the moon really there if no one is observing it? Quantum physics says no. Cool stuff...

E/c2=D/V

Energy increases and as a result _______ density increases in a fixed volume of space.

Fill in the blank please. Keep it short I'm at work. Let's work it step by step then you can gloat when you prove me wrong.

No takers? Is (D) density of matter increasing? If so density of matter is p=m/v where p represents atomic weight equal to mass of matter over volume. What exactly is increasing in matter? If v is fixed in p=m/v, Then m is increasing proportional to p. So atomic weight of matter is increasing with energy. E/c2=(p=m/v)/v. However, while Einstein says mass is a form of energy... no equation is showing how energy derives this mass. E=mc2 shows it has mass, but not how it got it. For that we turn to the Higgs field. Higgs field says energy at a certain level produces an electroweak force that accounts for mass and matter characteristics in Boson particles at a sub atomic level. So how is point particle space-time compressing with energy, D/V=E/c2, operating on a different principal then the Higgs field? At a certain energy X>D/V, compressed point particles produce matter characteristics and mass. The X being Joules (J) in energy mass equivalency of the most fundamental particle we consider matter.The Higgs Boson model fits in fine. I am just saying the density we see increasing is space-time density increasing with energy over a fixed volume, while Higgs says it is pure energy. My model actually explains the workings behind energy to mass better because that energy is flowing through space-time, and space-time is dynamic thus is effected by the energy, because according to Strong Field theory energy produces gravity, and curved space. Higgs Boson ignores that for: at a certain energy, this just happens without a very good explanation of the space-time dynamics behind the energy. They both work, mine just comes to the same conclusion using a different principle. Once again, if energy distorts space-time, that space-time will have different properties then non-distorted space time. Matter is simply defined as having mass with specific properties. I can show how distorting space-time gives matter mass, and specific properties at specific energy thresholds in Joules. As long as this critical threshold (X) is met in Joules, in fixed volume space, you have matter, all while explaining the energy distortion effect on space-time (including gravity, and nuclear forces, not just electroweak) to achieve a "Boson particle" (although since my particle is derived differently I want a different name ) which Higgs Boson theory just kind of ignores. Mine also explains atomic mass increase with energy as relating matter density to point particle space-time density compressed by energy. Biggest difference is I can prove space-time distorts with energy using Strong Field theory and relativity to make my theory work. Higgs Boson is hypothetical. One of us is right, and I don't need hypothetical fields we can't find anyways, to make mine work right now, right here with what we currently know. I know I know... techno babble

you have ignored me twice now. i do not understand why.

nevertheless, i will help you to see where the math you are applying equating density/volume to Energy/velocity has gone wrong.

* m=E/c2, this is an equation in reduced form.
* m=p*v, this is a conversion factor. an equation, yes, but not in reduced form.

if you substitute the dimensional units for each, you will yield the following:

m=E/c2, this gives units of grams equals joules per ((meters per second)squared).

m=p*v, this gives units of grams equals (grams per meters cubed) at meters cubed.

(please note that here you will be multiplying, not dividing as you have been wrongly insisting.)

if you reduce this second equation, algebraically cancelling the factor of meters cubed, you get the following:

grams equals grams.

this is an identity.....a conversion factor.

because it is an identity, substitution into the first equation is an syntactical error. does not compute.


ignoring people is rude.

Originally posted by Mandrakerealmz
reply to post by Moduli

 

His work sounds from what I gather similar to how Tesla looked at physics.

edit on 16-3-2012 by Mandrakerealmz because: (no reason given)

And Tesla didn't understand a lick of modern physics developed after 1917.

Originally posted by b309302
Is the moon really there if no one is observing it? Quantum physics says no. Cool stuff...

edit on 16-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)

Actually that's not what quantum physics says.

Somebody who does know quantum physics, Erwin Schroedinger in particular, says that i*hbar (d/dt) Psi(t) = H(t)*Psi(t) for a wavefunction with a Hamiltonian H---it's a time evolution initial-condition differential equation, just like for Newtonian mechanics. (The new thing is the space that the Psi(t) is in is a functional space, not a finite-dimensional vector space).

When a system is isolated (no observation) the Hamiltonian is separable and doesn't connect particles in one part (observer) to another part (observed). When a system is brought together the Hamiltonian does result in interaction.

In all cases the wavefunction/state vector is there. If it weren't, how did it's time evolve.

Quantum mechanics does say that without an observation it is impossible to be precise or certain, on some simultaneous combinations of things which individually are observable. These are identified and the degree of uncertainty quantified and experimentally verified.

reply to post by mbkennel

Lol..... Thats all the reply you get for suggesting that hindered Tesla in any way.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

reply to post by b309302

It's a theory I'm working on, there is no math to do until I can make the concepts work.

This is just a quick abstract of my theory, and I hope you can understand how I am using energy and space-time to relate fundamental forces. I am not a PhD physicist, and there is a good chance I am not explaining it correctly. I am not showing any math, because the math is already done. I am just reinterpreting the results into a more cohesive theory. Thank you, Any comments or suggestions are appreciated

Suggestion #1 - get your story straight about whether the math is done or not.

Suggestion #2 - it's not a theory until it's testable, and it's not testable until you have the math. So.. show the math.

Suggestion #3 -- If you can't do the math, then produce experimental data and not a narrative.

Originally posted by Mandrakerealmz
reply to post by mbkennel

 

Lol..... Thats all the reply you get for suggesting that hindered Tesla in any way.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

edit on 17-3-2012 by Mandrakerealmz because: (no reason given)

Tesla's wrong. Most of quantum mechanics was suggested by otherwise inexplicable experimental phenomena. It's true that the mathematics of physics became far more complex starting int he early 1900's than it ever had been, and some of it was speculative mathematical derivations and not experimentally validated physics. But those who were actually doing it knew the difference.

When science can satisfactorily explain how magnetism really works, then soon to follow will be an explanation of what gravity is as well. Both are still undefined as absolute proven truths.

reply to post by b309302

I see a MAJOR FLAW in the first paragraph. That being that Matter and Energy can exist in a 3 Dimentional State. They definitly can't exist in a two dimentional state....and it is most likely that they can only exist in a 10 or 11 or more Dimentional State in this Universe and this Universal State is Multiversaly Geometricly Connected in a unknown vast number of Dimentional states that allow for the transference of Quantum Particles between Divergent Universal States connected to this one.

In order to have an Atom...you must have at least Protons...Electrons....and dependent on Atomic Mass...a Number of Neutrons for certain Elements. Some Atoms do not naturally exist in singular Atoms but exist in pairs such as O2. This is an Element even though there are 2 atoms of Oxygen thus it is also a Molecule...but it exists mostly as O2...you don't see just one O by itself in Elemental natural States of Oxygen.

Point being...reguardless of how many Neutron an Element may have...it always has the same number of Protons to ELECTRONS....BUT HERE IS WHERE IT GETS TRICKY...Electrons are a QUANTUM PARTICLE that also exist as a WAVE FORM. Plus every Proton and Neutron are comprised of smaller Quantum Particles such as Leptons, Glueons, Quarks...etc....where some of these particles are in a Universal/Multiversal FLUX STATE. They literaly blink in and out of existance but never exist in less than a certain Minimum quantity or Maximum Quantity as in the case of Quarks...but the Quarks in number between the minimum and maximum can blink in and out of our UNIVRSAL STATE OF EXISTANCE....and most likely build up close to or at Maximum in a version of say...YOU or I...where PROBABILITY is dictating that either a choice or a cause and effect condition will dictate the Creation of a whole new DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL REALITY OR STATE. Thus the version of you that spills his coffee and instead of watching the road....crashes into a School Bus...will be LOADED WITH QUANTUM PARTICLES NEAR OR AT MAXIMUM.

The version of you that didn't buy a coffe that day...will have Quantum paticles near minimum or at it....and the version of you that left his coffee in the cars cup holder and did not take a sip as the School Bus was stopping to pick up a kid...will have Quantum Particles above Minimum but no where near maximum. SO YOUR FLAW IS...MATTER IS COMPRISED OF PARTICLES OF MASS AND ENERGY THAT ARE in a constant state or Motion or Geometric flux. THUS....MATTER CANNOT EXIST IN JUST 3 DIMENTIONS...ALSO FOR JUST THE ELECTRONS TO ORBIT THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS YOU NEED MORE THAN 3 DIMENTIONS. Split Infinity

reply to post by b309302


Energy doesnt create mass. You seem to think this was proven but actually you couldnt be more wrong.As near as i can tell you misunderstood einsteins equations.Mass is relative to where your observing from. A space ship moving at the speeed of light wouldnt see a mass increase at all.they are at center of momentum and that would be 0. Then you have invariant mass in physics this mass doesnt change no matter where the observer is. What your confusing is einstiens equation for conserving momentum.This confuses alot of people. First mass increases with speed but its not the energy that causes this. You do need more energy as mass increases but that doesnt mean thats whats causing the mass increase. The reason mass increases is because of space-time a faster an object moves the more it distorts space in front of it. This causes an effect similar to the sound barrier only this barrier cant be broken.

Ps if you can show how your theory works ill look at it but id need some math to prove your hypothesis.

If you are looking at redrafting the fundamental laws of physics, then I would start with where the problems are. I do contribute the site www.bipm.org... as providing the most comprehensive overview of physical relationships as it has been the longest running organisation in this area.

The definition of mass is still a problem and the last of the base units still based on an artefact. One issue is that as this artefact is moved around the world, the weight of it changes with slight fluctuations in the gravitational strength. This also flows onto problems with the definition of a mole, as mass is a contributing factor of its definition.

The Ampere definition also has some practical problems using infinite length and zero conductivity with its equation. I can understand the reasons behind this in trying to isolate amps from the electrical trinity of amp, volts and resistance, but it does not come across as elegant as nature is.

I am leaning towards the elements of time and space being infinite in resource, I know it is hard to accept but so is an end to these units and what kind of boundary exists. Big bangs may come and go distributing energy and matter, but the underlying fabric of time and space still remains.

Originally posted by kwakakev


The definition of mass is still a problem and the last of the base units still based on an artefact.

Clarification. The definition of mass is not a problem, the definition of the mass-unit used in experimental measurements is still a (very minor) problem.

It is not a problem in fundamental physics, in contrast to, say gravitational unification, dark matter & dark energy.

reply to post by mbkennel

The definition of mass is not a problem

tgidkp has concluded quite a significant problem between two equations that are used to describe the relationships with mass, m=E/c2 and m=p*v. If there was harmony in our physical framework why does tgidkp end with 'does not compute'?

How do you define mass?

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by mbkennel

 

The definition of mass is not a problem

tgidkp has concluded quite a significant problem between two equations that are used to describe the relationships with mass, m=E/c2 and m=p*v. If there was harmony in our physical framework why does tgidkp end with 'does not compute'?

Because one is in a relativistic physics and the other is not and thus one is doing the physics wrong.

More properly, for E being the combination of rest-mass energy and kinetic energy, E^2 = m^2 c^4 + |p|^2 c^2

How do you define mass?

The property of elementary particles which is fixed for every species of particle at rest, and which enters, with experimental consequences, into

a) the stress-energy tensor of the Einstein equations for gravity (and consequently inertia with the equivalence property)

b) the Heisenberg or Schroedinger equation in non-relativistic quantum mechanics and all the relativistic extensions thereof.


In physics definitions refer to properties of things which explain what they do when interacting with other stuff.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by mbkennel

 

The definition of mass is not a problem

tgidkp has concluded quite a significant problem between two equations that are used to describe the relationships with mass, m=E/c2 and m=p*v. If there was harmony in our physical framework why does tgidkp end with 'does not compute'?

How do you define mass?

I still stay the course with MASS being a description of what creates the Geometric Singularity of Gravity. Close as a statement that I believe can define it. Split Infinity

Originally posted by b309302
Look technobabble... okay Mr. Physicist:

E/c2=D/V. No one violated physics doing this. Follow me here... The density of point particles in a fixed volume of space increases as energy increases.

In other words, the energy equivalent of mass density is proportional to mass density for particles at rest. This is not surprising, but it is not informative.

Assuming the speed of light in a vacuum medium is a constant, which my theory shows can change given the amount of energy in local space time. Light does slow down through denser mediums or is wave speed= frequency x wavelength technobabble too?... This isn't technobabble. I'll break it all down for you if you like, but I'm tired and it's late right now. Like I said your wrong isn't an answer. If I'm wrong please explain what exactly is increasing (D) in a fixed volume of space, when (E) increases? The density of something is increasing with energy... my theory has an answer for that. What's yours?

When you have more atoms in a a volume, the bulk density is larger.

What are you getting at? Density is a property which makes sense only for continuous media---that means viewing mass as a continuum, which is a good approximation at space scales much larger than inter-atomic distances. We know that for real, particles are really discrete down there. This was a big discovery in the late 1800's & early 1900's. Though many scientists suspected it was true, they didn't have conclusive evidence until then.

Ill work with you and take it one piece at a time and let me explain it to you, we might teach each other something. I honestly think we are not understanding each other, and I can see your point of view since I am probably not explaining it right. Relax...

edit on 16-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by mbkennel

 

The definition of mass is not a problem

tgidkp has concluded quite a significant problem between two equations that are used to describe the relationships with mass, m=E/c2 and m=p*v. If there was harmony in our physical framework why does tgidkp end with 'does not compute'?

How do you define mass?

I still stay the course with MASS being a description of what creates the Geometric Singularity of Gravity. Close as a statement that I believe can define it. Split Infinity

Well most of the time it doesn't cause a singularity (we hope!) but just minor geometrical deformation---otherwise basically right and a more intuitive version of my previous statement (a).

Note that mass (at least rest mass) is not necessary to cause gravity---even massless photons contribute to metric deformation though usually the contribution is insignificant next to that of massive particles.

reply to post by mbkennel

Note that mass (at least rest mass) is not necessary to cause gravity---even massless photons contribute to metric deformation though usually the contribution is insignificant next to that of massive particles.

One theory I have been playing with is that photons do not exist, except as a human concept. All the calculations surrounding the photon is actually a representation of how energy is transferred between electrons of neighbouring atoms. If this is right, then the mass of the electron as it bounces around may account for this metric deformation. Or I could be wrong, just putting it out their.