21

New Theories / Best thing that ever happened to me.

« on: 27/03/2012 20:18:14 »

I have a theory like everyone else here but my problem is I'm not a good mathematician, which is a problem because I'm unable to define my theories in numbers even though I think the idea is good but if it doesn't have backing of math its as good as pointless.

Trust me this is the best thing that has ever happened to me, maybe you guys already know but you should try this... if you don't.

http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa_download

You put in the result and it will make an equation for you... my dream come true, its not perfect, have to tweak it a bit when it gives final product but trust me its amazing...

Loving it already working on my first equation, it will take few days for it to calculate but I'm in Love...

22

New Theories / Re: Is gravity mass accelerating through space-time?

« on: 26/03/2012 14:57:43 »

Hi Mike,

Frankly I am totally confused of what you are talking about, if you could go into detail of few things it'll be more helpful.

But if you're saying that time dilation depends on gravity, its not proven yet. Little amount of time dilation is tested but seriously its not a huge difference where we can't say that error could be on experiment side. When Einstein talked about time dilation it was because he wanted to fix the speed of light, but if you fix the speed of light time has to dilate otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Lots of people say "time dilation" is needed for GPS to work but seriously these clocks on satellite are updated every second from ground stations so I don't think its possible to have a time dilation in these satellite clocks.

But it'll be great if you could explain your idea one more time, because I agree with time dilation but not depending upon speed but size, larger the size faster the time is, I have my reasons for that.

It'll be great to get your idea once more and if you could make it much more clear it'll be great.

23

New Theories / Faster than speed of light

« on: 26/03/2012 10:55:58 »

Its just a thought but speed of light is constant this is why its denoted by C.

Lets look at a black hole, can't escape the gravitation pull of black hole because its speed is not enough to escape event horizon.

We don't have information on how much time it takes for light to slow down to speed of 0 and we don't even know the distance it travels before it hits that speed. Now lots of people here would start shouting with speed of light being 0 but in case you want to shout you have to give a "logic" reason why it doesn't escape.

Well that isn't the question, assuming a body moves into a black hole before it hits event horizon its speed might be X, which is less than C but when it hits the point where light was emitted from its speed will be X+C, that is more than speed of light.

I do not see terminal velocities in a black hole because of heat everything is plasma and light could have originated at a point where there is no effect of terminal velocities.

Thus question is does matter in Black hole travels faster than speed of light?

24

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What makes an atom an atom?

« on: 20/03/2012 08:30:00 »

Its funny that if you change the number of electrons in an atom it becomes an ion.

But if you change number of neutrons it becomes an isotope.

That means only thing that determines atom to be of certain type is proton, but neutron is actually a collapsed proton with electron, how come it doesn't make changes in the structure of the atom?

25

New Theories / Re: Alternative description of atomic structure

« on: 13/03/2012 12:53:50 »

Hi Imatfaal,

I never said electrons are same size protons, in fact I'm saying electrons aren't even particles and no they are not waves they are fields, electron is a field around the atom that increases in size if you add more energy to it and reduces in size if energy is removed from it. Like electron jumping to higher orbit and lower orbit, its a same concept but different outlook because if you take electron as particle it does not answer the mechanism to produce light, Logically, now I know we have to keep our logic on side if we want to believe in Quantum Mechanics.

Neutrons are just proton with electron, its actually a hydrogen atom.

If anything would work with 20 constants like standard model, than we wouldn't have string theory trying to explain how it really works, Quantum theory does not go with General Relativity because GR simply can't explain where gravity comes from and its a same problem with QM. Unable to explain the origin of gravity.

I'm sorry if e=mc^2 doesn't mean that amount of energy could be produced by matter x speed of light ^ 2, but I this is what I understand that its a formula to give energy output of mass is converted to energy. If I'm wrong please give me a link so I could correct myself.

Light might be particle, I'm not saying that is wrong but in my theory that is something that is simply not needed and there is a reason for that, in case light is a particle we wouldn't have cosmic background radiation because in my theory its a totally different reason (not big bang) why it exists.

As far as observations are concerned I am unable to find issues, problem is that everyone says temperature doesn't effect decay rate but there are some experiments done that shows that as you increase temperature the decay slows down. Now current theories simply says its not possible. When I talk about this theory its one of the main understanding that it would happen.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24307/

Again, sir I'm not saying I'm smarter than these people who did great achievement and I'm not saying I'm better, but empirical observations completely gives what this theory a say, secondly they always talk about summitry and they haven't found a single evidence for it. Maybe tomorrow they might discover something but in my opinion these are simply parts of atom that you smash up, some with energy others without energy, giving feeling of electron or proton, because we look at this computer screen see atoms smashed to small pieces and we say... ah this is electron and that is a quark, we have no proof of it.

As far as math is concerned, I'm working on it still might take me 2-3 years just to learn higher math but lets see where it takes me, because as of right now, I can only do calculus at the most.

26

New Theories / Re: The New Concept AntiGravity Aircraft

« on: 13/03/2012 07:04:43 »

Well let me put something here again,

Any rotating object would stabilize itself perpendicular to gravity, because force will travel to the sides, the same of that object will determine if its going to move up or down (in air).

This is why when you spin a top it tends to spin on its point, while actually excreting more force downward (favor of gravity).

A disc or frisbee when thrown in a rotating action would actually rotate and this rotation would equalize the mass differences on its side, thus it wouldn't tilt as much (depending on speed of rotation), the rotation will also move the centrifugal force to its sides, but its shape will keep it a float in air.

But these things will work fine in air as soon as you don't have air they would not seem like floating, they would dive, remaining stable or perpendicular to gravity they would still go down.

So sniping anything doesn't defy gravity and you can't spine anything in such a way that it would not have a counter rotation.

27

New Theories / Re: Alternative description of atomic structure

« on: 13/03/2012 06:47:59 »

Come on I need your input on this people, please tell me where am wrong ask me questions or if you agree with something please acknowledge.

I'm not putting this in front of smart people like you just to be ignored.

28

New Theories / Alternative description of atomic structure

« on: 12/03/2012 11:35:16 »

Alternative description of atomic structure.

Current description of atom is bit overwhelming, it has lots of components starting with some basic particles Proton, Neutron and Electron. The structure answers lots of things from very basic thing like periodic table to complex things like how molecules are formed, it doesn’t seem wrong but problem is as soon as you step into complication like Quantum Mechanics it has dual nature of electron, standard model says it is made up of simpler particles like quarks, it simply gets confusing when you apply a mathematical theory behind it that has so many constants that you could change anything and get any answer. People who work with this theory might feel bad when I say this but seriously it doesn’t make sense as a theory where you could plug in your numbers and get an answer, unless we are missing something. Well the point goes against me as well when I say its complex and doesn’t make sense because they could say, “You do not understand it”. Maybe they are right, I don’t understand it this is why I find it complex and insensible.

But I am giving my simpler explanation of things, I’m a simple person and I understand things in simpler way or maybe its just time, Bohr understood electrons like particles going around the proton (in case of hydrogen) and I understand it as a different thing. This is just another explanation of how things could be in reality as we haven’t figured out any right way yet, I have a chance of putting my 2 cents in it.

First thing that doesn’t make sense is consistency, what do I mean by that? It means the size of proton, neutron and electron are same, their charges are same, but nature does not give integers, a rock is not same as another rock, if you pick up two stones they look different have different shapes and are nothing alike. Than why on Quantum level things change that only 3 quarks make up proton? It doesn’t even make sense, that means all quarks are same size, that is not what nature is habituated in giving us integers or numbers. So I can’t understand why 3 quarks would make up a proton or 1 proton would make up hydrogen, it simply doesn’t make sense.

So what do I propose? Lets not confuse ourselves over this and propose that protons (word proton is only use for our understanding) are made up of smaller particles that have no minimum size, they could be as small as they could get and they are everywhere, lets call it dark matter for reference or actually. I call them matter particles because I like to call them something that make sense matter particles make up matter, sounds good enough.

But there is a problem, if matter particle (Dark matter) could form higher particles (like protons), why in the world they are free in the middle of no where and not forming particles? Hmm true, so lets add another thing, energy. Well I thought energy was matter, we know that E=MC², that is perfectly fine the formula is true but its talking about amount of energy that could reside in a given amount of atom multiplied by speed of light raise to two, it doesn’t need to say that energy equals to mass. Thus energy is separate from mass, they are totally different things, yes mass or matter particles in our case need energy to form higher level particles but energy cannot be formed or created in the universe that is filled up with dark matter as it would not convert to energy, i.e. energy and matter are two separate things.

So fine if we take energy and matter as two different form, how does that help?

First of all we got ride of integers and secondly now we could imagine atom in a totally different way. So lets put the rules here first, matter + energy = atom.

But that really doesn’t explain electron are electrons energy? No, electron is a field, its neither wave or particle, it’s a simple field of charge created when matter particles and energy comes together. Let me try to give you what’s in my mind, energy is like water that is able to attract matter (which is like dust), thus forming clay, more dust you put onto it, it will accept but at a point it’ll not be able to hold the dust and atom would decay.

So if M>E than we have decay.

In case you put more water on this dust it has to lose the extra water (now for sure water example doesn’t do it any justice but it has to do) to surrounding balls of clay, but in case you still put more water it will radiate as some kind of energy.

Thus, if E>M than we have radiation.

So basically we got ride of not only Integers but also of strong and weak forces as decay could easily be explained.

Prediction: At 0 Deg K, everything will decay much faster, increasing the temperature should slow down its decay, because more energy you put in more particles like dust could it hold, that means at point of radiation things would not decay or decay very slowly.

Now for sure above prediction is not in line with current theories but it says what it says, I’m sure you people have google and could find the right answer.

So what is electron? Electron is a field generated by the amount of energy in an atom, so if you increase the amount of energy the negative field would get larger and if you decrease the amount of energy it would get lower.

Thus formation of light (waves), yes I do not consider light as particle or photon not only because it doesn’t make sense but there is no method to show its production, i.e. there is no mechanism that shows how light could be produced as photon if electron field jumps from higher to lower orbit. But yes if same electron field moves from higher level to lower level it would radiate light as a wave.

Thus this is how atom in my theory looks like, you people are first of all the smart people I have put my theory across, till now I talked about this to people who don’t understand anything about science and I want people to hear me and tell me if I’m wrong.

Though I was writing about “atomic charge time” a concept in my theory that explains why we have “photo electric effect” and explaining the same with wave phenomenon, I stopped writing it and wrote this because people I’m going to talk to first should understand what I’m talking about before my assumptions and why I assume like that.

You are welcome to question me on this, I know I could be totally wrong but for the time being this is what makes sense to me and if I could learn from my mistakes than great.

This surely is a big paper and I’m expecting your comments on it even though I’m scared to read them because I still have to get used to the fact of being rejected.

29

New Theories / Re: Why when things are heated they become lighter?

« on: 12/03/2012 09:50:36 »

Sorry MikeS,

I put your name there by mistake actually.

Sorry about that.

30

New Theories / Re: The New Concept AntiGravity Aircraft

« on: 11/03/2012 11:15:20 »

Its a good idea but problem is relativity, no I'm not going to talk about Einstein here.

When you rotate clockwise there should be something rotating anti clock wise otherwise it doesn't work, this is why helicopters have small fan on its tail so that helicopter shouldn't spin, to keep it straight, thus it pushes the air in opposite direction of rotter spinning thus to avoid the relative force in opposite direction.

If you rotate anything in air in one direction it has to to have rotation in opposite direction as well that cancels out rotation completely, you could rotate it using air but than to push through the air the craft has to move and in this situation slower you go slower you spin, overall it makes it useless.

Its a great idea for things that would stay in air for few seconds but right now we have no technology to move it in one direction and keep it moving without a counter rotation.

31

New Theories / Re: Why when things are heated they become lighter?

« on: 11/03/2012 10:59:01 »

imatfaal a hot ball will drop slower than a cold ball anyways.

Hot ball will expand and thus will have more friction compared to a colder ball, so basically you can't test the idea with hot a cold balls.

In case you want to test it with small material in a total vacuum and that material is heated by laser, its possible but problem is atom from the small body may be released and actually bring the weight of the object down. Thus its very hard to test this idea, I can't define right now any experiment that could be used to check if this idea is right or wrong.

Right now it could only be tested or checked against the gravity anomaly and trust me (I bet you don't) I didn't make up this idea based on the anomaly, as this is a new theory area I'm more than willing to put my theory here.

Maybe its wrong, I'm not saying its right but its a concept of linking and understanding nature of our universe in a different way.

Secondly as far as "things getting lighter when heated" is concerned, maybe I'm missing a point and I am totally wrong, but for the time being I don't see anything giving an answer to fact why less denser objects move away from source of gravity at Quantum level. Maybe you find this formulation in Classical mechanics where things rise when they are less dense but it has no explanation in Quantum mechanics.

32

New Theories / Re: Why when things are heated they become lighter?

« on: 11/03/2012 10:40:31 »

MikeS thanks for your great response but just for a second think why it doesn't work in absence of gravity.

In Zero Gravity the hot air balloon (in air inside the space station) wouldn't move up or down or anywhere, that means gravity has something to do with it, this phenomenon only works when gravity is applied to the problem.

Thus you could simply say that increase in gravity in a smaller body would decrease the attraction, while increase in energy on a larger object (body) would have increase in attraction, you could try to find 100 different ways to tell yourself that fine it doesn't work in Zero gravity because of such and such reason but it bounces to a single issue that we have a set of rules that we live by, maybe we don't care or know what is the cause of these rules.

I'm just throwing out their my assumption because if you look at it, it does solve the problem of earth surface gravity anomalies and answers for the time being. Maybe I'm wrong and the whole idea is bad but its an idea that gives a solution to our understanding.

Thus lower density objects are higher energy objects and higher density objects are low energy, it doesn't matter what is talked about.

33

New Theories / Re: Why when things are heated they become lighter?

« on: 07/03/2012 08:13:04 »

Okay after doing some searching on the internet, its clear that higher energy objects are lighter than lower energy objects.

Thus gravity doesn't make sense as attraction between two masses but mass and energy.

In case the energy is increased equilibrium forces the atom away so that lesser energy atom could take the same space and increase the amount of energy.

Thus my assumption of energy and matter being source of attraction is right.

34

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Earth Gravity anomaly

« on: 07/03/2012 06:24:41 »

Sprool

This is why its called gravity anomaly and this is why you could see on the map that areas that give gravitation anomaly.

Now either you have to completely ignore the values we are getting and move on or find an answer for it, rocks (as you said) with 4km-8km (sometimes mountains) difference in thickness can't make huge gravitational pull (at least on paper) for no reason.

Only thing we find in the area that is same as the map are hot spots, true you could brush aside the problem as if nothing happened and nothing make any difference just because we are too lazy to add corrections to gravitation theory but that doesn't mean problem would be solved on its own.

You could try to find the right answer by checking other things that are in common with the gravity anomaly but as of right now what we have is hot spots laying under each higher gravitation area.

Don't tell me everything is alright, look at the map, its an issue we have something wrong, I'm not saying I'm right but this is my 2 cents in the problem, put your 2 cents rather than rejecting the idea and saying it doesn't exist.

35

New Theories / Re: Why when things are heated they become lighter?

« on: 06/03/2012 16:09:14 »

Hi imatfaal,

If gravity plays a part in rising and sinking of objects when energy levels for these objects change that means the things aren't going away from gravity just because they are less dense, because same results can't be duplicated when you are in zero gravity. In normal gravity these different energy level objects (for ease lets imagine air), the object with lesser energy level (cold air) will go down, while warm air (higher energy) would rise. While in 0G there is no up or down and higher energy object can't go above the lower energy object.

Now we have no reason what so ever to say "Why certain thing to up when they are less dense?", we take it for the way it exists, but it doesn't work when we are in zero gravity it only works when we have gravity on one side. Now we could say whatever is needed but looking into the matter it is one fact that objects with higher energy level tend to rise away from gravity or move away from gravity. You may imply that hot iron rod has more energy than hydrogen at 0 Deg C but that isn't entirely true because hydrogen has internal energy that would be more than energy in rod, this is why its in gas form even at 0 deg C.

  A volume of hot gas will mix as well as lift even in a gravitational field

Yes they do but that is part of equilibrium of energy but any higher energy object will rise, but in zero gravity it would not go up.

Dimensional Analysis would be good here

ms^-2 DoesNotEqual kg + joules

I'm working on it, right now I'm working on something else I call it charge time and once I finish that I'll go ahead and work on the math for this.

I totally agree my idea sounds stupid, I know but two major things are answered from it, gravity anomaly and things moving away from gravity when they have more energy than its surroundings.



Hi Wolfekeeper,

When you heat up a (we'll assume for the moment for clarity that it's a sealed-type) hot air balloon, it gets physically bigger, but weighs the same.

Weight is gravitational pull on certain object, the weight would not be same because if you tie it to a weighing machine it would give negative weight even though volume is more but because of the upward thrust it will not give you any weight. So even for same amount of material the weight actually changes, x atoms of O, will actually weigh less if you put them in confined area.

Yes but if you put that in a total vacuum they wouldn't rise because they have nothing to rise against, there is no difference in energy and it doesn't matter how much that matter is heated the weight will not change much.

hmm... that means there is a flaw...

back to drawing board for me... I have to find how much if any the weigh changes in a vacuum.

thanks for the answer guys.

36

New Theories / Re: Why when things are heated they become lighter?

« on: 06/03/2012 09:45:34 »

Thanks for your answer Wolfekeeper.

But that is what I said above, that isn't a problem but we automatically assume that less dense things will rise but we have no real reason behind it, we just assume it to be there.

Hot gas rise on earth or a planet that has gravity but not if we are in 0 gravity, because there is no rise. In 0 gravity less dense object mix with higher density objects without any problem, air bubble that is heated and has less density mixes perfectly fine with air around it and it doesn't go up or down.

In case there is no gravity, the expansion of the produced gases does not cause them to go anywhere. They just stand there and expand spherically around the source. So we have neither of the two effects above. The flame does not point anywhere, and burns like a sphere (given the reaction point is small, like a match). Second, since the auto-oxygen-feeder mechanism also fails, the flame burns in rather dull colors, and will extinguish itself rather quickly if there is no flow of air (or if the match is not moved around) to feed oxygen into the reaction.

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae673.cfm

That means gravity plays part in things rising, that would mean that anything with higher energy level rises because it doesn't have the same attraction toward the object.

As I said in my anomaly example, gravity formula could be in such a way

g=m1+e1+m2-e2

Remember that m1 and e1 are for larger object, while m2 and e2 are for smaller object (as I'm not a mathematician I really have to work hard on making a formula that works for both). I'm not saying it would make a lots of difference but there is a visible effect of this problem, in gravity anomaly that we get from GRACE and in the density problem.

My prediction is in 0G energy would have a repelling property, because if you make m1 and e1 as 0 that is what you get.

I really hope to get more responses on it, I really want people to help me with this by giving me example and proving me wrong so in case I'm wrong I would know.

Thanks

37

New Theories / Why when things are heated they become lighter?

« on: 05/03/2012 09:13:33 »

Before you answer please read below, I know that when any gas is heated the density for it changes, the density get lower that means area it occupies gets more and because of its density it gets lighter and goes upward.

Great but problem is why less dense objects are lighter? For instance...

E=MC² so M=E/C²

Thus more energy you increase (by heating something) more massive it gets, if its more massive than it should have more gravitational pull because matter with higher mass have more gravitational pull, but it doesn't work.

Why? Why higher energy object have less gravitational pull if we consider gravitational pull is directly proportional to mass than it would mean heating something would make it less massive? Does it mean higher energy level electrons are less massive?

Or does it mean energy and matter are not proportional?

38

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How is light produced from an atom?

« on: 05/03/2012 08:32:38 »

You are right about that after studying QM for 5 years with different books (as I'm too old to go to college here), I find QM doesn't make logical sense from the day I started till today, read and heard lots of books, watched many lectures on iTuneU but seriously either my mind is not ready to accept it as logic or people just call it logic when its not at all.

Personally in my opinion logic should be something that make sense to you and has a well defined mechanics, I really couldn't find any answer for production of light on internet, it just simply isn't clear, its like coming half the way and it ends, its actually like watching half the movie so either you don't know what happened in start or how it ended.

Maybe we don't have complete information and just trying to come up with a picture that cannot be understood or we are on wrong path and trying to correct it with twitches from side.

Overall I'm totally confused, but thanks for your efforts to try to make me understand, specially JP and Cheese.

39

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How is light produced from an atom?

« on: 04/03/2012 19:20:21 »

So as Cheese said before "Photon is packet of Waves", now I can imagine how wave could be produced from an atom, but if photon is a separate entity than it seriously doesn't make any logical sense how a particle is produced from any defined process.

I think I'll go through Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics, by L. Mandel and E. Wolf.

40

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How is light produced from an atom?

« on: 04/03/2012 12:02:10 »

After reading what I have written I think I should re-explain.

If all photons are of 0 frequency and their frequency depends on distance between them as they are produced that means two photons are exactly same with no difference.

In which case it wouldn't make any difference what wavelength of light is used photoelectric effect will give same output at a particular amplitude of light. It wouldn't make any difference at different frequency as photoelectric effect was explained by Albert Einstein to give explanation of photon because it cannot be explained in classical way if we take light as wave.

So photons with 0 frequency isn't possible they have to have frequency to give it color otherwise its just like one crust of wave, there is no difference between a wave and particle theory of photon here.

Awaiting explanation of above.