The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: A new hypothesis  (Read 1042 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2920
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #25 on: 24/04/2016 22:02:45 »
Now the final version of the equation becomes

1a99dc56f29bb9a2c6be634df4188307.gif
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2920
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #26 on: 24/04/2016 22:11:15 »
And that completes the hypothesis.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2472
  • Thanked: 21 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #27 on: 28/04/2016 18:36:16 »
The proton and neutron energy equations can be stated thus.

77396b572a1e3e96359113a2b5018b2a.gif

2943f8641a346b6eea70ae8187c263c7.gif

Here k = kinetic energy and h = Higgs energy.

If during an infinitesimally short time interval the graviton reduced the inertial mass obtained via the Higgs field a consequence of this disturbance could be a displacement of the mass in the direction of the gravitational source.

Kmax=S   where S is entropy?

Kmax=c0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.gif?


E0=Qneg?

E1=Qpos?
« Last Edit: 28/04/2016 18:41:04 by Thebox »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2920
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #28 on: 28/04/2016 19:21:46 »
There is a maximum kinetic energy that can't physically be reached. That is 1/2mc^2. Since this could also equate to the entropy at the surface of a black hole the yes you may be partly right. How you got there baffles me.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2472
  • Thanked: 21 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #29 on: 28/04/2016 19:27:25 »
There is a maximum kinetic energy that can't physically be reached. That is 1/2mc^2. Since this could also equate to the entropy at the surface of a black hole the yes you may be partly right. How you got there baffles me.

I just try to say what I ''see'', whether it be describing something in words or trying to define it in a formula.   
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2920
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #30 on: 28/04/2016 21:30:37 »
I tell you what Thebox why don't you find out about entropy and I mean properly and come back and explain it to me.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2472
  • Thanked: 21 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #31 on: 29/04/2016 05:58:51 »
I tell you what Thebox why don't you find out about entropy and I mean properly and come back and explain it to me.

Well my interpretation of Entropy may be  a little different than you are use too, entropy is represented by the symbol S, it is a measurement of a disorder, however I see it like this,
A glass that is full of water is full, if a constant drip fell into the glass the entropy would overflow out of the glass, this would have a set rate rather than disorder.

Equal loss to equal gain,


of course when I imagine the water I am imagining energy. 


Antoine understood entropy, he just needed to know that there is equal gain to equal loss, if the gain was a greater rate than the natural gain then the entropy would change.


added - so if the drip is a variate in rate, disorder can only follow.


added- sorry Jef I have just had a thought,


take two galaxies A and B and each system is gaining positive charge entropy.


>(q+)SA=+Ve

>(q+)SB=+Ve


relative to each other both systems repel each other at an accelerated rate, the ''faster'' a system gains + entropy, the ''faster'' the acceleration apart.  The moon is gaining + entropy so the earth's + entropy is pushing it away,


added - the further the moon moves away , the more it will accelerate as the earths entropy loses affect on the moon and the moon increases its K.












« Last Edit: 29/04/2016 06:44:04 by Thebox »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2920
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #32 on: 29/04/2016 18:22:29 »
Well I would rather say that since gravity attracts and under extreme conditions draws in energy and gobbles up entropy then dark energy should distribute entropy over an expanding spacetime. This is a balance which preserves the thermodynamic integrity of the universe as a whole. However, entropy will still tend to increase for both situations. So what you say is in the right general direction but that is only my opinion.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2472
  • Thanked: 21 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #33 on: 29/04/2016 21:35:29 »
Well I would rather say that since gravity attracts and under extreme conditions draws in energy and gobbles up entropy then dark energy should distribute entropy over an expanding spacetime. This is a balance which preserves the thermodynamic integrity of the universe as a whole. However, entropy will still tend to increase for both situations. So what you say is in the right general direction but that is only my opinion.

I am still learning, I am not sure I have learnt anything but then sometimes I think I know everything.  I like science has a hobby it is free to learn, maybe one day I might get better at trying to explain.

I try to imagine a void then in this void I place two pieces of dust a length apart, then I consider the only acting force on the dust is of the other dust and vice versus. I imagine dust particle A is drawn towards particle B and vice versus, but then I imagine as the dust particles draw closer they are cushioned by an imaginary field from each dust particle, I then imagine these fields prevent the dust particles from ever making direct contact , I also imagine that when these particles  ''meet'' they are sent into a spin but now adjoined,


I then imagine entropy can only exist of  solidity matter, it is only this matter that has ''storage'' room for hf, otherwise hf remains a ''solo'' whole. 

ce033365f9e8be061ce60ab20992314b.gifc9ba1d1a9f9fa8ed4ddbadd03f99b25a.gif...^∞  (maybe a bit gibberish)


hf exists in space, hf's exist of atoms.







« Last Edit: 29/04/2016 21:44:09 by Thebox »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2920
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #34 on: 30/04/2016 15:05:31 »
Just keep going. The more you read the more you learn. It may be just a little bit at a time. If you are enthusiastic about something learning becomes easier. At some point you will get a eureka moment when just one small thing suddenly makes sense. That will be the breakthrough. However, just being interested in science and reading on new discoveries can be rewarding. Don't expect to know everything to quickly. It's always a pleasure debating with you.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2920
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #35 on: 30/04/2016 15:33:25 »
I have to point out a major issue with this hypothesis that still needs to be resolved. Depending upon what the cause, gravity or energy input, an accelerating object will experience opposite magnitudes of time dilation for each respectively. This leaves the hypothesis either invalid or incomplete. A resolution will have to be found with respect to the Higgs field interactions if the hypothesis has merit.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2472
  • Thanked: 21 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #36 on: 30/04/2016 21:37:44 »
I have to point out a major issue with this hypothesis that still needs to be resolved. Depending upon what the cause, gravity or energy input, an accelerating object will experience opposite magnitudes of time dilation for each respectively. This leaves the hypothesis either invalid or incomplete. A resolution will have to be found with respect to the Higgs field interactions if the hypothesis has merit.

In respect to a body at rest in an inertia reference frame it is transferring energy from itself to the ground at a rate ,  when the object is displaced the rate changes and the body in motion will slow down it's emittance rate.   The rate of the caesium atom is the rate of output , the rate changes because the output lessons as the body is moved . (maybe).


The caesium rate is not related to time other than an arbitrary use.



 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2920
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #37 on: 30/04/2016 21:47:15 »
That is a very interesting viewpoint and does relate to time dilation.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2472
  • Thanked: 21 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #38 on: 01/05/2016 08:43:22 »
That is a very interesting viewpoint and does relate to time dilation.

Thanks Jeff, I observe that an object at rest has a synchronised rate of transference from itself to the ground , move it and the synchronisation is more than obviously going to be different, A timing dilation is slightly different to a time dilation and the correct terminology for time dilation.  We use the caesium for synchronised timing yet the caesium is not synchronised when it is in motion to our arbitrary rate of timing.



 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #38 on: 01/05/2016 08:43:22 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums