0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: opportunity on 15/02/2018 14:00:40 I'm suggesting he wasn't bang on with the photoelectric effect. I'm suggesting that frequency is inversely proposal to energy.I didn't really understand the rest of the post but I did understand this sentence. A notion I have mentioned before, That λ is directly proportional to the invert force. So you was close . λ = F1 + F2F1 = c F2= u where c is Photons and u is permeability.
I'm suggesting he wasn't bang on with the photoelectric effect. I'm suggesting that frequency is inversely proposal to energy.
Yet I like yor use of the permeability, because "there" we can suggest how "space" can be factored in on a Planck scale of consderation, and as you suggest with an equation regarding permeability. Am I right in thinking that?
I think I understand. By temporal compression you're suggesting a "blue-shift" effect?
Of course as per the logic of what you're suggesting; you gave the example of why we see the sky as blue, and so presumably the same could be suggested regarding the red-shift of stars?
Doing a blue shift or red shift requires on a basic level a contraction or extension of a wavelength of light. That mechanism on a grand scale such as the planet has to abide by a whole host of other observed factors on a planetary scale. Can your theory accommodate likewise?
Do you have a paper on this?"0" as time or space? What Cartesian mode is being used?
Have you had any feedback yet with this? I just don't know how to criticise. It's hard to judge your point without a solid field of response on this.
Can you send me a link for your gravity mechanics?
"neutral" what? Neutral as in space is self-attractive?I think if anyone has a new idea, don't hide it. I've posted vast amounts of whatever. Papers and so on. The money shot is exactly that, "is it useful". I get the feeling you don't want to explain your idea completely?If you think space is self-attractive, like a negative-energy matrix, maybe, I don't know, does that fit?, consider the post I offered in this new theories section: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72390.0It's hard to define these forks in the road of scientific development.
Am I missing something? What you just said as an equation is what on what contemporary scientific level of congress?