# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Please tell me what is wrong  (Read 5681 times)

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Please tell me what is wrong
« on: 05/09/2014 18:31:13 »
I would not be surprised if you can quickly dismiss my comments as totally erroneous.  But I thank you for your time.

Small scale assumptions:
1. Energy-mass-speed relationship
E = mc2
m = E/c2
c2 = E/m
c = square root(E/m)
- This suggests that mass is energy that has slowed its momentum.
- This suggests that the total amount of energy in the universe is conserved.
2. The universe is composed of different types of radiated energy and matter particles.
3. An energy wave does not need matter particles to exist or travel.
4. A particle does not need energy waves to exist or travel.
5. Energy radiates (expands) from a source to all directions.
- This suggests that the size of an energy wave is unlimited, potentially encompasing the size of the entire universe.
- This suggests that the entire universe is full of activity.
6. As energy radiates the intensity (strength) gets weaker with distance.
7. Matter particles do not radiate (expand).  The size of a particle is limited.
8. An energy wave can convert into a particle.
- This suggests that an energy wave collapses into a particle BECAUSE its speed or strength goes below a certain threshold.
9. A particle can convert into an energy wave.
- This suggests a particle explodes into energy BECAUSE its speed or strength goes above a certain threshold.
10. An energy wave of a certain type always convert into its equivalent type of particle (or particles).
11. A particle of a certain type always convert into its equivalent type of energy wave (and/or smaller particles).
12. Energy waves can impart momentum to a particle (push force).
13. Energy waves are commonly known as electromagnetic waves.
14. An energy wave can spread out over large distances (many light years in diameter) but when it colapses into a particle,
there is no waiting for the energy to travel and condense to the location where it becomes a particle (acts as a wave packet).

Large scale assumptions:
1. The universe is expanding.
- This suggests that the universe started as a point.
2. Galaxies are moving away from each other at a greater speed as time progresses.
- This suggests that the expansion is not only momentum, there is an increasing repulsive force that is pushing the galaxies apart.
- This suggests that more space is getting pumped into the areas between galaxies continually.
3. The trajectory of Galaxies moving away from each other is uniform throughout the universe.
- This suggests that if space is getting dumped into the universe, it is not from a central location.
4. Celestial bodies that are in relatively close proximity to other celestial bodies pull towards each other (attractive force).

My wacky theory.  This is an attempt to describe gravity as a space force.
1. Energy in its natural state is an expanding wave.
2. Matter is energy confined into a small area, which has different properties than an energy wave.  Properties such as mass and gravity.
3. Space-time is not a property of the universe.
4. Space-time is a property of energy, so as energy travels it carries with it its own space-time.
5. Space-time should really be two separate concepts.  Space is what gives the universe its dimensions.  Time is the speed of how things operate.
6. Universal time is constant.  Regardless of our inability to measure time correctly, I believe that the passage of time is a real phenomenon in the universe and its passage is constant.  Events happen sequentially.
7. Energy time is relative.
8. Matter particles, as explained in the standard model of particle physics, have four forces (gravity, EM, strong, weak).
9. This space force is needed by energy waves and by matter particles in order to operate.
10. This space force is radiated and consumed (space field) around the energy wave or matter particle.
11. The health of this space field affects the operation of the wave or particle.  So as the space field is disrupted, so does the speed of operation of the wave or particle.
12. For the sake of giving it a name, when the wave or particle radiates the space force outward is called "antigravity".
13. When the wave or particle "consumes" or reabsorbs the space force inward is called "gravity".
14. For wave energy the amount of space field radiated and consumed is equal.  So it is said to be space neutral.
15. Here is the kicker, for matter particles there is a small difference between the amount of space force radiated and the amount consumed.  This is what we experience as gravity.
16. The excess space force (difference between the consumption and production) is radiated outward just like any other energy wave.
17. Thus the strength of gravity as defined today really it is a measure of the attractive force between to bodies, not the true strength of the space field.
"the attractive force (F) between two bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, (inverse-square law) between them.

How does this work?
1. Effects on the space field when a particle is near a planet.  The space field is affected and the normal operations of the particle begins to slow down.
2. Effects on the space field when a particle is traveling near the speed of light.  The space field is affected and the normal operation of the particle begins to slow down.
3. A clock slows down when near a strong gravitational field because the energy fields are disrupted and its particles slow down.  The EM, strong, weak forces slow down.
4. Placing a particle is an environment full of space force does not stop its space force.  The particle remains a negative pressure.
5. Placing a particle in an environment void of space force does not stop its space force.  The particle remains a nevagive pressure.
6. Placing a particle is an environment full of space force does not make it operate faster than normal.
7. Since an energy wave has a neutral pressure, it is weakly affected by areas of low or high space pressure.
8. Since a particle has a negative pressure, it is strongly affected by areas of low or high space energy.
9. This sea of varying space pressures makes celestial bodies in outer space move in a weather system similar to the Earth's atmosphere.
10. When there is high pressure (abundance of space force) the celestial bodies push away from each other.
11. When there is low pressure (lack of space force) the celestial bodies clump together.
12. Pushing a particle in a particle accelerator gets harder as the particle nears the speed of light because
the space field around the particle warps and affects the particle's EM properties to the point where they are no longer viable.
Proof?
I have no equations to show.  Just one interesting event which I think proves that there are differences in space pressure.  As the Galieo probes traveled outside of the solar system they began to slow down faster than expected.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #1 on: 05/09/2014 19:39:36 »
I would not be surprised if you can quickly dismiss my comments as totally erroneous.  But I thank you for your time.

Small scale assumptions:
1. Energy-mass-speed relationship
E = mc2
m = E/c2
c2 = E/m
c = square root(E/m)
- This suggests that mass is energy that has slowed its momentum. This statement is meaningless
- This suggests that the total amount of energy in the universe is conserved.No it doesn't - ther is no mention of conservation here
2. The universe is composed of different types of radiated energy and matter particles.
3. An energy wave does not need matter particles to exist or travel.
4. A particle does not need energy waves to exist or travel.
5. Energy radiates (expands) from a source to all directions.True of electromagnetic radiation, but not of "energy" which is a property of em radiaton (and other things besides)
- This suggests that the size of an energy wave is unlimited, potentially encompasing the size of the entire universe.true for an electromagnetic wave, but not for anything else
- This suggests that the entire universe is full of activity.activity has a specific meaning which is not relevant here
6. As energy radiates the intensity (strength) gets weaker with distance.
7. Matter particles do not radiate (expand).  The size of a particle is limited.
8. An energy wave can convert into a particle.
- This suggests that an energy wave collapses into a particle BECAUSE its speed or strength goes below a certain threshold.no it doesn't
9. A particle can convert into an energy wave.
- This suggests a particle explodes into energy BECAUSE its speed or strength goes above a certain threshold.no it doesn't
10. An energy wave of a certain type always convert into its equivalent type of particle (or particles).depends on its interaction
11. A particle of a certain type always convert into its equivalent type of energy wave (and/or smaller particles).not necessarily. There is no reason why a single isolated particle should do so
12. Energy waves can impart momentum to a particle (push force).
13. Energy waves are commonly known as electromagnetic waves.It would make things a lot clearer in everyone's mind if you used the correct terminology throughout
14. An energy wave can spread out over large distances (many light years in diameter) but when it colapses into a particle,
there is no waiting for the energy to travel and condense to the location where it becomes a particle (acts as a wave packet).Schrodinger said so

Large scale assumptions:
1. The universe is expanding.
- This suggests that the universe started as a point.No it doesn't
2. Galaxies are moving away from each other at a greater speed as time progresses.
- This suggests that the expansion is not only momentum, there is an increasing repulsive force that is pushing the galaxies apart.Not the only explanation
- This suggests that more space is getting pumped into the areas between galaxies continually."pumped into" implies the existence of a pump and a source
3. The trajectory of Galaxies moving away from each other is uniform throughout the universe.Is this observationally true? Seems improbable.
- This suggests that if space is getting dumped into the universe, it is not from a central location.
4. Celestial bodies that are in relatively close proximity to other celestial bodies pull towards each other (attractive force).Which contradicts the foregoing

My wacky theory.  I'm afraid there seems little point in discussing a theory based on what you have said so far

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #2 on: 05/09/2014 21:12:56 »
Thinking that free space has a pressure too?

Maybe? Depends on how you define it. Whatever pressure defined should be a relation between two states. Have a look at Casimir force for a very good contemporary example. In reality, macroscopically defined though, space is 'neutral'. If it wasn't uniform motion wouldn't exist.

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #3 on: 07/09/2014 02:29:55 »
My ideas about areas of high and low pressures in the universe is not any crazier than saying "dark matter" and "dark energy" come from another dimension.  We can deduct the existence of high and low pressures due to (1) the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate and (2) the galaxies spin at a rate that would normally make its outer stars fly off into space, yet they don't.  Since no one has come up with a better explanation, I think my explanation is not that bad. LOL  I will read up on the Casimir force and give you my opinion.  thanks "yor_on".

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #4 on: 07/09/2014 03:17:54 »
Quote from: alancalverd
...Small scale assumptions:
1. Energy-mass-speed relationship
E = mc2
m = E/c2
c2 = E/m
c = square root(E/m)
- This suggests that mass is energy that has slowed its momentum. This statement is meaningless\/color]
While I wouldn't agree that it's an appropriate way to describe mass-energy it isn't a meaningless statement. Suppose a body of mass m is traveling at speed v. If you could convert some of the kinetic energy into mass-energy then the body would slow down and the rest mass would increase.

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #5 on: 07/09/2014 04:05:36 »
In response to the casimir effect... Since the casimir effect can be demonstrated both in a vacuum and in a fast moving object, I would not be surprised that it can be used to support my wacky ideas.

Vacuum experiment:  The first experiment places two non-charged metallic plates in a vacuum and can either attract or repel based on the configuration.  I don't know the details of the experiment.  I am guessing that the attraction or repulsion depends on where the majority of empty space is.  If there is more distance between the container (vacuum chamber) than between the plates, we will see an attraction force.  In my explanation above, it is not due to a "zero force" between the plates that is doing the attraction.  Actually, the empty space pushes the plates together.  If there is more distance between the plates than the distance of the plates to the container, then it will see a repulsive force.

Fast moving experiment: The object must be moving close to the speed of light to see any detectable difference in it's gravitational (attractive) force.  In my explanation above, the space field around the particles is greatly distorted, basically preventing the particles reabsorb space force as usual.  This is what is normally described as gaining mass.

I know that my theory above is greatly different from how we describe things and normal equations would not work.  I am hoping some brave soul would have pity on me and start drafting some equations.

I've just read what is in Wikipedia about the Casimir effect.  Thanks for pointing it out.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2014 04:09:27 by americo_perez »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #6 on: 07/09/2014 18:25:22 »
Quote from: alancalverd
...Small scale assumptions:
1. Energy-mass-speed relationship
E = mc2
m = E/c2
c2 = E/m
c = square root(E/m)
- This suggests that mass is energy that has slowed its momentum. This statement is meaningless\/color]
While I wouldn't agree that it's an appropriate way to describe mass-energy it isn't a meaningless statement. Suppose a body of mass m is traveling at speed v. If you could convert some of the kinetic energy into mass-energy then the body would slow down and the rest mass would increase.

But wouldn't its momentum be conserved?

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #7 on: 07/09/2014 21:11:34 »
This may sound strange.  Einstein's formula has three parts or variables.  While it is accepted that mass can turn into energy and vise versa, I am surprised that no one has given it much thought to the speed variable.  What I am proposing is that that speed variable is not unchanging and does not refer to inertia (momentum, speed of travel).  What I am saying is that the speed of OPERATION of the energy (either radiated energy or a particle) changes.  In my opinion, a particle that has mass is essentially now energy operating at a slower operating speed and exhibits different behavior and properties than an energy wave. The more massive, the slower its operating speed.  Which by the way, mass suggests a solid.  I am saying, there are no solid particles.  What I am saying is that there is a direct relationship between space and time and mass.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2014 21:13:24 by americo_perez »

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #8 on: 07/09/2014 21:27:52 »
Quote from: americo_perez
While it is accepted that mass can turn into energy and vise versa, ...
Let me dwell on this part for the moment. This part is wrong. See Does nature convert mass into energy?Ralph Baierlein, Am. J. Phys., 75(4), Apr. (2007). You can download it from http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/baierlein.pdf

Back to this.
Quote from: americo_perez
Einstein's formula has three parts or variables.
Which formula? Do you mean ?

Quote from: americo_perez
I am surprised that no one has given it much thought to the speed variable.
What ever gave you that idea?

Quote from: americo_perez
What I am proposing is that that speed variable ...
Which variable are you referring to? I.e. what is this "speed variable" that you're talking about?

Quote from: americo_perez
What I am saying is that the speed of OPERATION of the energy (either radiated energy or a particle) changes.
What does "speed of OPERATION of the energy " mean?

Quote from: americo_perez
In my opinion, ....
This sounds like a new theory and as such this thread belongs in the "New Theories" forum.

Quote from: americo_perez
than an energy wave.
What's an energy wave?

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #9 on: 07/09/2014 22:12:12 »
I agree, I should have posted this conversation in the new theories forum.  My bad.

Einstein's formula.  The four equations are basically the same formula.
It is the relationship of energy-mass-speed expressed in different forms.

The "c" in the formula is the speed of light.

Yes, energy can convert into mass and mass into energy.

I am defining:
-what is mass
-what is time
-what is gravity
-what is space
-what is dark energy
-what is dark matter

I had to bundle all these concepts in my ideas because they are inter-connected.

What does "speed of OPERATION of the energy" mean?
The particle's EM, strong, weak forces slow down.  Not weaker, slower.

What do I mean by an energy wave?
Just a term I used to refer to any type of radiated energy.

What do I mean by a particle?
Just a term I used to refer to any type of sub-atomic particles.

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #10 on: 07/09/2014 22:56:40 »
By the way, I know it is a long shot.  I do not get offended if this turns out to be pure garbage.     No worries.

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #11 on: 07/09/2014 23:11:56 »
Since this is turning into discussion/promotion of non-standard physics, I'm moving it to the New Theories section.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #12 on: 07/09/2014 23:18:52 »
Quote from: americo_perez
Yes, energy can convert into mass and mass into energy.
As I said above, that's wrong. Do you think I'd say something like that without providing proof along with it? That's why I showed you this - http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/baierlein.pdf

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #13 on: 07/09/2014 23:59:06 »
Please give me time to absorb the information in the document.

My statement "Yes, energy can convert into mass and mass into energy" is wrong.  I over simplified hoping not to ruffle anybody's feathers.     Since mass is not potential energy in my mind, it is the increase or slowing of forces.  Let me regroup and I will post something soon.  Again, thanks for your honesty and insights.

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #14 on: 08/09/2014 00:35:59 »
And, by the way, where did this potential energy gone?  LOL  Remember that space force that got radiated?  It snaps back in. I know, it's wacky.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #15 on: 08/09/2014 00:48:00 »
Quote from: americo_perez
Please give me time to absorb the information in the document.

My statement "Yes, energy can convert into mass and mass into energy" is wrong.  I over simplified hoping not to ruffle anybody's feathers.     Since mass is not potential energy in my mind, it is the increase or slowing of forces.  Let me regroup and I will post something soon.  Again, thanks for your honesty and insights.
You're very welcome my friend. Let me explain a bit using pair annihilation as an example. That's when a electron annihilates a positron (aka anti-electron) resulting in two photons. If you were in the frame of reference where the total momentum was zero then the photons would have the same energy and be moving in opposite directions. You start with two particles of the same mass and the same momentum and you end up with two photons each having mass given by E = hf/c2. So the mass at the beginning is the mass of the electron and the positron (whose mass is more than its rest mass due to the particles kinetic energy) and at the end you have the same mass and the same energy. So you didn't convert mass into energy. What you did was to change the form of the energy and the mass.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #16 on: 08/09/2014 00:48:28 »
And, by the way, where did this potential energy gone?  LOL  Remember that space force that got radiated?  It snaps back in. I know, it's wacky.
What potential energy are you referring to?

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #17 on: 08/09/2014 18:39:53 »
What potential energy are you referring to?

Again, I need to be specific with my words to have any chance to be understood.  LOL

If I understand correctly, you said that the "m" in Einstein's equations can easily be described as inertia.  So in essence, inertia is what we normally know as mass.  And you describe inertia as “reluctance to undergo a change in velocity".  Agreed 100% so far.  What I am proposing is that the particle's inertia is DUE to space force been lost due radiation, and that space force can snap back into the particle.

Think of this scenario.  A lonely electron in a completely empty universe.  What gives it inertia?  Higgs/boson?  Spacetime fabric?  What gives it size, shape?  Remember that an electron constantly flickers back and forth between a wave that expands in all directions and a particle.  So what is spacetime?  Why does a wave turn into a particle?  Why does it turn back?  Why can the electron appear as a particle at any location in that expanding wave?  What happens to the wave when it converts into a particle?

So if we define inertia as resistance to undergo change in velocity, it takes for granted a three dimensional frame of reference.  I am guessing that its reluctance to move is directly related to this three dimensional frame of reference.  Let's call it a space field that surrounds the particle and the particle likes to be at the very center of its space field.  I am saying that the space field and the electron are both part of the same unit of energy or packet.  All part of that same electron that expresses it self as a wave (no inertia) or as a particle (with inertia).  Moreover, the space around the electron is what gives the electron its relative time (speed of operation).

As momentum increases at first nothing happens.  But as it gets closer to the speed of light, this space field gets distorted causing the electron's speed of operation to slow down.  A particle in rest state has already lost some of it's space force as radiated energy.  In my mind inertia is not stored with the particle at the local level.  Since the theory of supersmymetry seems to be debunked at this point, we need to find a reason why there is reluctance to undergo a change in velocity.

Well this is my cacamami idea.  LOL
« Last Edit: 09/09/2014 01:32:45 by americo_perez »

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #18 on: 08/09/2014 18:47:17 »
Also, if I understand your equations correctly, why would the increase of the particle's momentum convert into inertia in the first place?  Should it be a linear increase as momentum increases?  But we know that inertia exponentially increases as it gets closer to the speed of light.  Sorry for asking questions that may sound silly.  I am a newbie.

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #19 on: 08/09/2014 19:33:39 »
You're very welcome my friend. Let me explain a bit using pair annihilation as an example. That's when a electron annihilates a positron (aka anti-electron) resulting in two photons. If you were in the frame of reference where the total momentum was zero then the photons would have the same energy and be moving in opposite directions. You start with two particles of the same mass and the same momentum and you end up with two photons each having mass given by E = hf/c2. So the mass at the beginning is the mass of the electron and the positron (whose mass is more than its rest mass due to the particles kinetic energy) and at the end you have the same mass and the same energy. So you didn't convert mass into energy. What you did was to change the form of the energy and the mass.

I think you are saying that massless, particleless, radiating energy waves do not exist?  In the world of quantum mechanics everything is a particle of some sort.  But I think that is so we can describe forces as quantifiable points (rather than analog equations).  The reality might be that forces are not carried by any particles at all.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2014 23:00:02 by americo_perez »

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #20 on: 09/09/2014 01:56:59 »
Quote from: americo_perez
I think you are saying that massless, particleless, radiating energy waves do not exist?
No. I was explaining why it's wrong to say that you can convert mass into energy.

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #21 on: 09/09/2014 16:09:19 »
I will work on some drawings in the next few days to explain the dynamics of my theory.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #22 on: 10/09/2014 17:57:06 »
I will work on some drawings in the next few days to explain the dynamics of my theory.
In the meantime please see Does nature convert mass into energy? by Ralph Baierlein, Am. J. Phys. 75 , 320 (2007). The abstract reads
Quote
First I provide some history of how the equation E = mc2  arose, establish what “mass” means in the context of this relation, and present some aspects of how the relation can be understood. Then I address the question, Does E = mc2 mean that one can “convert mass into energy” and vice versa?
He describes what E = mc2 means very clearly. It's online at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/baierlein.pdf

#### americo_perez

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 13
##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #23 on: 26/09/2014 21:06:57 »

Love this video.  Hate the corny music.  But his ideas.  OMG  I am also thinking along this same train of thought.  I know, a photon is not an electron.  However, light is electromagnetic waves.  So photons should also have similar properties as electrons.  If an electron is better described as an orb cloud, could the standing EM forces of the electron be generated by a pulsating cloud (contract/expand)?  Is the frequency and intensity of the pulse directly related to the electron's energy level?  Why does an electron has a charge and the photon doesn't?  Could a photon simply be a slightly modified electron and vice versa?  So much to study and learn.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Please tell me what is wrong
« Reply #23 on: 26/09/2014 21:06:57 »