The Naked Scientists Forum
On the Lighter Side
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
21/12/2009 11:34:07 »
I have been working on a new theory for quite some time now. I started when I was ten years old, and I'm now 22. My current line of work is as a poker player. I've made a lot of money using theory I developed myself, pretty much right from the start, so I figure I can't be 100% delusional (99% is more likely). However my goal has never been to use my head to take other peoples money, my goal is to unify all physics using non quantized, relativity themes. I believe, using quantized values for things, without understanding their origin is the main reason things appear as complicated as they do. My education of physics is regrettably not as impressive as it should be. What I've learned is from sneaking into classes at michigan state university, reading books, surfing the web, chatting with people, and what I figure out myself while walking in circles all day. My logic for not going to college was that, it would hinder my ability to monitor what I learned, and when I learned it. It could be convoluted logic but, thinking for yourself and then checking what modern theory says after is the only way to know if you're on the right track. It does nothing for other peoples confidence, which I guess is more important, but with honest reflection upon yourself you know if you have any skill. I will only look things up after I give it my earnest effort to search for the answer myself. It's like physicist practice. However college is in my future, I've got plenty of money from poker to pay for it, I just wanted to try it my way first. I tentatively know somebody, from the Michigan State Cyclotron Lab. through my mom. I was going to show this to him, but when I called him he told me his dad was in the hospital and he doesn't think he's going to make it. Considering I haven't talked to him in over a year, I don't know if he is going to call me back, or when it is appropriate for me to call him back (I'd love an opinion on that). I'm planning on showing him soon, that way I know I'll get a proper evaluation. However, in the meantime, I'd like to see what some other people think, whether they understood it, liked it, saw errors, thought it disregarded modern experiment etc...
I doubt even five percent of people would actually read this entire thing, the most I could hope for is that people would skip around. I just have to say, if you insist on skipping around, make sure you don't skip part one or the definition principle. I assure you this paper is very different than anything you've ever seen, and most of the logic builds on itself, therefore if you don't read the whole thing from front to back, you will most likely be lost. Well that's the end of my rant I hope you like it.
The Conceptual View of the Universe
by Casey Ryan-Hannum
At its base form, I believe the universe is very simple. There are only two noteworthy things that can happen in all of physics. You have objects, and they move. In addition to that, what objects are (at their most basic) is also simple.
Okay, so what do I define as an object(s)? They are very, very, tiny pieces of mass, that create reference points. That's what they do, they become the basis for what is motion. Motion only exists relative to other things, so that's what these objects do, provide a reference point for change. And other than being a point of reference, objects only have one other intrinsic property, and that is to preserve the three laws of motion.
The three laws of motion aren't that tough to understand. Since need to move relative to each other to define motion, all objects couldn't move the same way, at the same time. So therefore, a force is created on other objects, in the opposite magnitude of the motion, to give motion meaning. There are three different ways an object can move relative to one another, so naturally, there are three accompanying ways objects will push on one another.
The three ways they can move are:
1.Objects can move radially (farther or closer to each other) relative to other objects.
2.Objects can move at different speeds relative to each other.
3.Objects can move tangentially relative to one another (motion that is not closer or further).
These are the fundamental types of motion, and since they will push on each other in opposite magnitudes whenever they move, they will consequently form three corresponding constants. Any change in any of those three types of motion will be canceled out relative to some other object, therefore these three constants are formed. And these three constants will be maintained relative to every observer.
1.The combined distances of all objects from you is constant.
2.The average speed of all objects relative to you is constant.
3.The combined directions of all objects relative to you is constant.
None of these constants can be broken at any time. In addition to these constants, observers view objects that are closer as having a bigger impact by the inverse square of its' distance. So to rewrite the constants, using the inverse square impact, they would read.
1.The combined inverse square of all objects distance relative to you is constant.
2.The combined speeds of objects multiplied by their inverse square is constant.
3.The combined direction of objects multiplied by their inverse square is constant.
The three constants will cause forces that will move these objects to locations that don't violate the constants. There are three ways objects will create a force that will maintain the constants.
A. Objects will push each other away, or pull themselves closer together to maintain the constants.
B. Objects will create a force that causes other objects to push or pull each other towards or away from each other.
C. Objects will move towards objects that are doing the opposite of the constant.
When you combine the three constants and the three methods of maintaining the constants you create the 9 fundamental forces of the universe.
Radial Velocity Vector
1a. When an object moves toward another, it pushes other objects away, and if an object moves away from others (or bigger sources of mass), it will attract objects.
1b. When objects move towards one another, they cause other objects to push each other away and when they move away, they cause other objects to pull each other closer.
1c. When objects move towards one another they attract objects that are moving away from one another and repel objects that are moving towards one another.
Speed Scalar (change)
2a. When objects move faster, they slow other objects down, and when they move slower, they speed objects up.
2b. When objects move faster, they cause other objects, to slow down others, and when objects slow down, they cause objects to speed up relative to each other.
2c. When objects move faster, they attract slower moving objects while repelling faster ones, and when they move slower they attract faster moving objects while repelling slower ones.
Tangential Velocity Vector
3a. When objects move left to right, they cause objects to move right to left, and when they move right to left they cause objects to move left to right.
3b. When object move left to right, they cause objects to move right to left relative to each other, and when they move right to left, they cause them to move left to right relative to each other.
3c. When objects move left to right, they attract objects moving right to left, and repel objects moving left to right, while objects moving right to left, attract objects moving left to right, while repelling objects moving right to left. (all other directions apply, up, down, to, fro etc. etc.)
These are the fundamental forces. It is my contention that 100% of the motion in the universe is derived from these fundamental forces in order to maintain the three constants.
Determining the Strength of Force: When attempting to determine the magnitude of the above forces, there are a lot of things you have to consider, like where is the object measuring it compared to others? Whenever a change is induced, one or more of the aforementioned forces will be created. The amount of force on an object is determined by, how much a particular constant is changed. For example, if there were three objects in the entire universe, A, B and C. If A moved towards B, then C would have to move away from A and B(law 1b) . The equation for the distance constant would be m/d^2+m/d^2+m/d^2....plus however many objects you want to add up. M represents the object's mass and d represents the distance between the object emitting a force and the object receiving one. So let's imagine the three objects again. If A, B, and C were in a straight line, all 1 inch apart, with A being the furthest to the left, and C being the furthest to the right. Assuming that all three objects had the same mass, A would view a distance constant of 1.25. Object B which is one inch away 1/(1^2) would contribute 1 to the distance constant + C which is 2 inches away will contribute .25 1/(2^2), to the distance constant. So 1+.25= 1.25 which would be the distance constant. If you decided that 1.25 would represent the distance constant then this number could not vary in any situation. So if object A was locked in place, if C were to move closer until it was one inch away from A, object B would be forced to move away exactly 1 inch so that the distance constant would still add up to 1.25. All of the change that was induced on each object has to be manifested somewhere else, or the constant is violated. In this experiment B was the only other object it could be transferred to, therefore we know exactly how far it is going to move.
However, in the real universe, there is always going to be more than 1 object to transfer the necessary change/force into. So let's consider what would happen if more objects were around to transfer force to. Let's call them D, E, F, and G. The strength of the force in total is induced from C's motion towards A, like in the first experiment. C moves one inch so its influence changes from .25 to 1. So the force that would be applied to the others would total .75. However since there are more objects in the area in this thought experiment, the distance constant isn't the same. The new distance constant would be (B) 1/(md^2) + (C)1/md^2 + (D) 1/md^2 + (E) 1/md^2 + (F) 1/md^2 + (G) 1/md^2 If the new objects masses were all the same, the distance constant would be. 1+1/4+1/9+1/16+1/25+1/36 which equals 1.491388888. That number is the new distance constant. So, assuming that object A was locked in place, if you applied a force to object C that would push it an inch closer to A, the distance constant would have to be made up on the other objects. The way it would be made up is that a force would be created, that would push the objects just enough so that the distance constant would always add up to 1.491388888. The strength of the force on the other objects would be determined by the inverse squared distance the others were away from the force emitters.
Like the last scenario, the induced altercation of the influence constant would be .75 (1-1/4). So what would happen is the rest of the objects would divvy up the change based on how far they were away from the object. The force they felt would diminish as an inverse square of their distance. So, object G would feel 1/36th of the force object B felt. All of the constants are maintained this way, it's pretty simple really when you think about it. But if you actually try to apply these laws to real life scenarios it will explode into complication for all kinds of reasons. To start there is a countless number of “objects” in the universe, even the most powerful supercomputer working for 100 straight years couldn't exactly account for all the math involved in even a spinning baseball. There are way too many objects in a baseball each with differing variables. Another complicating factor, is the fact that the forces keep the constants in check at all times by accelerating objects to where they need to be. But when an object is accelerated, it doesn't just stop because it has momentum, thus it keeps moving. Therefore the objects have to constantly create new sources of force to keep the constants all in check. However just because math is pretty much impossible to apply perfectly, doesn't mean you can't use it. You just have to figure out how to estimate, and identify scenarios where the math gets simplified. This entire paper, from here on out, is my estimation of how this math is applied to common/simple/reducible scenarios in a way that forms all the phenomenon we view on a regular basis. It's meant to be a start on how to unify conceptual/mathematical physics, resolve known paradoxes, and predict new things, or predict old things with a little more clarity. No person will ever completely finish this, it's too complicated, and I'm aware that I don't have everything figured out. It will take a lot of other people to make this work. I am not above admitting that I need a ton of help.
In conclusion, these forces mainly get powerful enough to notice under certain scenarios. I'll explain these all later on, but to just list the most common reasons. These forces mainly become noticeable when dealing with, extreme sizes, extreme closeness (like within an atom), extreme speeds, extreme lengths of time, situations where stubbornness is applied (like how object A's motion was impeded so the entire force was re-routed somewhere else), and where symmetries can be broken easily (like two objects moving in opposite directions). If a random object doesn't fall under one of these categories, the resultant forces are going to be small.
Last Edit: 21/12/2009 11:40:34 by thebrain13
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
Reply #1 on:
21/12/2009 11:42:09 »
Viewing and Moving: Motion is a byproduct of the forces. But motion by itself is not the only weapon objects have to maintain the constants. For example, if you dropped an anvil into an anvil shaped barrel
and there was an object waiting on the bottom, the object would be hard pressed to move in order to maintain the first constant (it has nowhere to go). So what happens is that, the object will “view” whatever it needs to see. Everything in the entire universe will appear a little further away from it, than it would, had you not dropped the anvil. That way the anvil is allowed to drop relative to the object at the bottom of the barrels' perspective. However, other objects will not acknowledge this type of change. This leads to differing views of location. The anvil and the object will view themselves as being a little closer to each other relative to the rest of the universe's objects. Usually differing views will get buffed out. But sometimes if they get pushed hard enough for long enough, objects can develop drastically different views, quantum entanglement being the prime example. For the most part, these effects are less severe. The main thing to take from this is that, if objects motions dictate a force, and the force is impeded somehow, they will alter their views of where objects are located, and that “altered view” causes measurable forces. I'll explain more about this later.
Defining Speed in Law 2: Speed is defined as distance divided by time. The Speed Constant is defined as how much you change your location (distance), divided by how fast you change it (time) and multiplied relative to where you change it (inverse square of their combined distances). Therefore, objects that are considered nearer to mass, (like near a black hole) will appear to move slower compared to objects that are away from mass (like when they are in outer space). Therefore, there is a definite relationship between mass and speed. I call this the Mass/Speed Relationship. Objects away from mass have to travel faster relative to objects that are nearer to it. This is how differences in speed develop, even though speed has to be constant relative to every observer.
The Definition Principle: The definition principle states that all things must be defined relative to others. And that other things definitions affect your definition. Dark energy being a great example of this principle. The reason dark energy has a pushing effect is due to the definition principle. All the objects can't be shrinking, that would violate the first law. So in an environment where everything “wants to shrink” the “slowest shrinking” objects will become the “fastest expanding” ones. This is how the definition principle works, all things have to be defined relative to one another.
Universal push/dark energy: The majority of objects are getting closer to each other on a small scale (protons/photons are shrinking, see particle formation). Of course, all objects can't actually get closer to each other because that would violate the distance constant, and the definition principle. So to combat the shrinking forces on a small scale, a force gets created that pushes objects away from each other, on a large scale (galaxies moving away from each other). This push is called the Universal Push (law 2b, shrinking objects cause other objects to push on each other). This push, is for the most part the major driving force of the universe. Without this force, the universe would look much different.
Electric Charge: If you have two different systems, one that is expanding, and one that is shrinking, you would find that these objects would create a pulling force relative to each other. (law 1c expanding systems create a force that causes shrinking systems to attract and vice-versa). So in conclusion, shrinking objects are attracted to expanding objects, and repelled by other shrinking ones, and expanding objects are attracted to shrinking, and repelled by other expanding. Basically, opposites attract, and likes repel, just like electric force. The electric charge in a proton or electron is caused by small scale expansion or shrinking on an individual particle level scale.
Gravity: Gravity is derived from law 2. The entire universe is accelerating away in each direction and it is speeding up. So in order for the speed constant to be conserved, the speeding up affect of the far away particles have to slow others (law 2a). So what happens is that objects slow themselves relative to the objects in their local areas. The best way to do this, is for the object to move towards another slow moving mass (law 2c). This causes gravitation. If two comparatively slow particles move towards each other, then they need not move as fast relative to the farther objects this kills two birds with one stone. Gravity is comparatively the weakest force because law 2 is a scalar quantity. This causes its' force to be a lot smaller due to the fact that speeds can cancel out a lot easier than forces from laws 1 and 3. Laws one and three have directional components, this allows the forces to exist relative to specific directions. Law 2 is a speed scalar, it has to be defined relative to everything else's speed, which is going to tend to balance. Also there is a correlation between speed and mass (see mass/speed relationship). The only way objects can travel slower is to be around more mass, which is the reason slowing motion is attracted to mass.
Gravity and Electric Charge in Motion: How does gravity and electric charge respond to relative motions? This is a question of how do these laws interact with each other. For starters, gravity is derived from law 2, which is a scalar quantity. Electric charge is derived from law 1, which is a vector quantity, radial direction + speed. Laws 1 and 3 need speed to make sense, so they already account for speed. Since these two forces derive from different laws, they can only mix with the laws that aren't already responsible for the forces. So, first up is electric charge. Electric charge is formed from radial speed, which accounts for laws 1 and 2. So electric charge can only mix with law 3 (mixing with laws 1 and 2 would be applying the same law twice). Law three, the tangential speed vector, says that oppositely moving objects will view each other as being closer, and like moving directions will view each other as further away. This means that if two charges had a tangential velocity they would create an additional force, acting perpendicularly to its line of travel (magnetism). This is why magnetism acts only perpendicularly to its direction. Gravity also mixes with the other laws, but since gravity is formed from only one law, law 2 (the speed scalar), it mixes with two laws, 1 and 3. Gravity and law 3 forms what I call Tangential Gravity. This works just like magnetism and it causes the additional gravitational pull of different moving objects with a maximum factor of 2 (if the objects were traveling at the speed of light). Sir Arthur Eddington proved this, as he measured the gravitational effect of the sun during a solar eclipse to bend light twice as much as it was previously predicted (other than Einstein). It also is responsible for Bernoulli's principle (gravity is stronger on oppositely traveling objects). Gravity mixing with law 1 forms what I call, Radial Gravity. Radial Gravity acts only in the radial direction, and causes a very important effect, the Spinning up Effect.
Strong Force: Strong force is said to stop protons from exploding due to electrical repulsion from proton to proton. Protons and neutrons are found inside the nucleus of an atom and the electrons are found outside, therefore the atom would explode if it weren't for the strong force. Now stop, there is something seriously wrong with that last sentence. The electrons are found outside of the atom, compared to whom? I can most certainly assure you no proton views the electron (or parts of electrons) as being outside of the particle, even if the electron is miles away. Differing charges view themselves as being closer to one another than the rest of the charges. Just like different direction moving objects view each other as being closer, and different speed objects view themselves as being closer. The electron is only considered as being outside of the proton, relative to objects that aren't real close to the atom. Therefore strong force is not necessary in my hypothesis.
Dark Matter: Electric charge rears its head in more things than just “elementary particles”. Dark matter is a great example. As I will explain in my article about particle formation, galaxies have a lot of similarities with protons. And they have lots of similarities that modern physics can't account for. Dark matter being one of them. Dark matter appears to dominate the interactions of certain types of galaxies and then can oddly be non existent in others. How it works is, the planets and stars tend to be positively charged, and the random tiny, smaller than photon size objects tend to be negatively charged. The bigger you are, the more likely you are to be positive. The smaller you are the more likely you are to be negative. So galaxies will align themselves so that positive planets will rotate on one plane, and the negative light matter will rotate in the opposite direction. This creates the affect known as dark matter, and the spinning up effect.
The amount of electric charge in a galaxy system is based on how fast a galaxy is growing. It has been shown by satellites that the very largest giant elliptical galaxies are, contrary to previous belief growing very slowly. It is also shown that they contain very small amounts of dark matter. Both of those things are in accordance with my theory of electric charge, and dark matter. The slower a galaxy is growing the smaller amount of dark matter it will contain due to the lack of production of positive electric charge in the stars and planets (due to radial change). This charge, albeit small, will affect how much dark matter will be present. (P.S I learned of both of those effects after I formulated the prediction, I didn't randomly look up relative dark matter amounts in different galaxies, and galaxy growth rates on accident.) (:
Spinning up effect: One of the things that has perplexed me is why do objects spin. Pretty much any system you look at spins, and it spins fast. I think it takes some logic to understand why this is a problem, but to cut it short, my gripe with modern theory, which is “the spinning is all random” is simple. You can make good educated guesses, on the amount of angular momentum a large object is likely to contain. That is, there is a definite pattern to the rotation of large objects. And a definite pattern is the OPPOSITE of random. The pattern is, the larger/more dense a gravitationally bound system is, the faster it is likely to rotate. (p.s I have a lot more gripes than that)
The spinning up effect is caused by Radial Gravity. Therefore if a system is positively charged and is engulfed in a negative material, radial gravity would cause the leading half of a spinning object to be attracted to the surroundings more in the direction of its rotation, speeding it up. The amount of speeding up would depend on the mass of the electric charge in the system. And since larger objects tend to contain more electric charge, which contains more mass, they will usually rotate faster.
I think a great demonstration of this effect is by looking at the planets in our own solar system. A planet exhibits the effect with almost no pollution. The reason is because the planets are mostly very stubborn systems. A planet, due to its fixed crust does not grow or shrink like a star can. Therefore I would predict that the amount of positive charge that a planet would create would be directly related to its mass. The greater amount of manufactured positive charge, due to the greater amount of mass, would increase the magnitude of the spinning up affect, as planets became larger. So I would predict that the largest planets would rotate the fastest, and the smallest ones would rotate the slowest.
If you were to look at the length of day of each planet, and then compare it to its size, you would find a pretty strong correlation. However the two planets closest to the sun, mercury and venus, move slower than they should. This is most certainly due to the tidal affects from the sun. It is a well understood idea, basically their years are similar to their days, just like the relationship between earth and the moon. These two planets rotate extra slow due to their close proximity to the sun. Anyways here is a list of the planets based on their mass and rotational periods. On top are the planets listed from most massive to least massive, and underneath that, is a list of the planets based on how fast they rotate. (excluding the two closest planets to the sun)
Jupiter Saturn Neptune Uranus Earth Mars Pluto* *not technically a planet anymore
Jupiter Saturn Neptune Uranus Earth Mars Pluto*
As you can see, not one planet is out of place. Sure these planets rotations could of randomly aligned with their masses but the chances really aren't that great. There are also a lot of other examples of how this works. This is a very important point, normal gravity and radial gravity, are probably the two biggest shapers of the universe.
(p.s. I didn't just randomly stumble onto this relationship either)
Stubbornness: Stubbornness is a term used to compare objects willingness to change. It's a pretty vague term, but its' concept is very important. There are basically two ways a system can have stubbornness, one is if it is surrounded by a lot of other objects and hence can't move, or if the system has a lot of angular momentum, which can cause it to “want” to move back to where it started. So to picture how this works, let's say two objects are being pushed apart. In order for them to be pushed apart, some other objects have to be pulled together (law 1a). So let's envision a thought experiment using the earth and some other outside objects. The outside objects move apart from each other, causing the earth to create a force pulling it nearer to something (law 1b). At first, most of the force will be directed at the closest object to it, the atoms inside the earth. But atoms have strict sizes, so any push on them will be met back, with very similar amounts of force, in a very short period of time. The next thing that will happen after the atoms push back, is the earth will try to collapse itself, but the crust will be too rigid to move much, and however much it does move, it would most likely just buff right back out. These are examples of where objects are stubborn because of the locality of the surrounding objects don't allow for much change.
The next big target would be the moon, however if the earth pulls the moon closer, this would increase the moons angular momentum, causing its orbit to be unstable at a lower elevation, it would be traveling to fast, pushing its orbit out again. This would again reroute most of the force to another object, for example a passing asteroid. If the asteroid has the ability to move freely towards wherever it wants, and it doesn't have a defined orbit that will cause it to move back to where it starts, then the asteroid would be considered the least stubborn, and because of this, the asteroid would end up changing more than the more stubborn objects would, even though it was further away, causing the forces to be less.
This concept is very important because it allows these laws to be applicable to both the large, and the small. If it weren't for the concept of stubbornness, it would be difficult to compare the strength of the forces on different scale objects. For example, one might say the force from a proton on a proton should be completely negligible if they were even 1 millimeter away. The reason being the closeness of the individual objects inside the particles, and the inverse square law of all 9 fundamental forces, would comparatively dwarf any force, even 1 millimeter away because the distances of the objects inside a single photon are trillions of times closer. However, because of stubbornness, this law is applicable to all sizes. The reason is because protons have very strict regulations on their size. When they gain size, they tend to shrink fast, and if they lose size, they tend to expand fast. So even though maybe 99.999999999999999 percent of the force would be administered to their own parent particle at first, effectively all of the force would end up affecting other objects. So if say there was only one other proton in the area 1 millimeter away, it could appear that most of the force is transferred to the adjacent proton (due to the stubbornness of the proton). And if these two protons were somehow orbiting one another, (orbiting is another form of stubbornness) the added force might affect their orbits, and the force would essentially all get transferred over to another system. For example, two other rotating protons an inch away, if this were the case, the two sets of rotating photons would act like fundamental objects relative to each other, and transfer this force somewhere else and on and on and on. This principle is also the reason why I have no way of knowing how small a fundamental object is (or if it even exists). So that's the beauty of stubbornness, it makes all the laws applicable to any size you choose, as long as they have some degree of stubbornness to relate to one another.
Mitigation field: A mitigation field is the natural tendency of charged particles to accumulate around larger sources of oppositely charged systems. Mitigation fields are usually negatively charged particles most likely made of “intrinsically positive” small photons. Since mitigation fields are made of charged particles that form around oppositely charged systems, they have the affect of mitigating electric force. This dulls the force of electric charge, and causes the left over charge to diminish much slower than the common equation f=1/d^2. A mitigation field is just very simple logic that would explain how charged objects would naturally orient themselves. Basically if negative charges were going to travel nearer to a positive source they would end up “floating” on top each other. That is they couldn't all just stack right on top of one another, because if negative charges get to close to each other, the negative push from the closer negative charges would become stronger than the pull from the positive charges, even if the net positive charge of the object is stronger. This effect is why gravity “appears” to be a little stronger further away from objects, but gravity isn't the culprit at all, electric force is. This effect also hides large scale electrical repulsion from galaxy to galaxy.
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
Reply #2 on:
21/12/2009 11:47:29 »
Photon types: Photons will generally fall into four different categories small photons, medium photons, large photons, and Riddle photons. Photons tend to change, based on what they've been around in the past. Their mass tends to correspond with the density of the objects they have been a part of in an indirect relationship. Meaning, the bigger a photon is, the greater likelihood that it spent time in a less dense system. There are four basic systems a photon is likely to be found in, and naturally, four types of photons. Small photons, which correspond with protons and antiprotons. Medium photons, which correspond with electrons and positrons. Heavy photons, which correspond with dark matter/anything that is too small detect. The last type is the riddle photon. A riddle photon is a photon that tends to fall into black holes. I call it a riddle photon because I'm not as sure about its composition. I would imagine that they are the lightest of all the photons, but it's possible that they form completely differently, assuming they spend most of their time inside black holes. The reason being, that matter inside black holes would mostly overpower the effects of the Universal push, which tends to shape things, so I'm not certain how that would play out. Whats important to understand about photon types is that different types of photons, tend to form specific types of particles/systems.
Heat: Heat is created whenever objects move closer to one another, and it is “destroyed” whenever objects move away from one another. For example, if you condense a gas carrying container, the gas is heated. If you expand it, the gas is cooled. In completely elastic collisions no net heat is produced. That's because if the object bounces away, it's not any closer than when it started. Of course heat is produced right at the collision point, but it is lost when it rebounds. However if two objects hit each other and stick, heat is produced. This happens because, objects have to conserve the first constant. Particles will radiate material from inside their domains, in an attempt to maintain their overall densities. This radiation counteracts the fact that two larger systems are becoming closer. These mini pieces of material are mostly made of un-energetic small photons (most heat comes from protons). Since they are un-energetic photons they don't contain enough relativistic mass to travel very far from particles. In order for them to enter space and consequently be away from a significant source of mass, they would need to gather enough energy to travel at super high velocities, essentially the speed of light. Usually a single particle only creates this amount of energy (in a short enough period of time, before “acclimation” comes into play) when an electron drops an orbital and Electromagnetic Radiation is formed. The corresponding photon would then have an energy based on the distance of the jump. However when objects don't have enough energy to create light, they can mitigate the density change in a few different ways. Get an electron to jump up an orbital. Exchange small photons at close range (convection). Heat can transfer via convection because un-energetic photons don't ever have to travel too far away from mass . The whole particle can move towards or away from other objects. This is how mechanical pushes form. They can expand the parameters of the particle, however expanded objects have a “will” to shrink see particle formation. An the act of shrinking, will create a noticeable pushing pressure on other particles. This is what causes hot objects to be larger than cool ones. There is however another quality of heat that modern physics can not explain. The phenomenon is called the Coronal Heating Problem.
Coronal Heating Problem: The corona is the outer most part of the sun. The problem, is that the corona is millions of degrees hotter than the surface of the sun which is 5800 kelvin. Modern heating theory would predict that the corona should be cooler than the surface of the sun, however this is not the case. My theory suggests that this is a misunderstanding of how heat works. Heat, which is made of light photons, is repelled by heat, since light photons carry charge. Heat is also for the most part, “repelled” by the sun. Heat is created, when objects are trying to move away from one another. So, two objects containing larger amounts of heat than their surroundings will exhibit some degree of mutual repulsion, more than just from their larger amounts of kinetic energy. Because of the incessant creation of large amounts of heat at the center of the sun, and the repulsion properties of heat. Heat by itself (or near an atom) is driven upwards into the corona. And when the heat reaches the corona of the sun, it can't leave because of the mass/speed relationship of relativity. Therefore, heat stays at the surface of the sun, and heats any particles that happen to reside there. That is why the corona is hotter than modern theory predicts by a factor of over 200! (millions of degrees)
Electromagnetic Radiation: If an object pushes an electron up an orbital, the electron causes not only a change in density but a change in speed for the proton. The reason is due to the mass/speed relationship, the lesser mass of the electron, causes it to be faster than the proton. So if an electron moves up an orbital it will give the proton a “need for speed”. So as an electron travels upwards the attraction for its' speed would be increased. However the electron never would of jumped up if it weren't for the protons desire to be slower, and to be less dense. Therefore the electron jumping up eliminates two problems at once. However when the electron jumps up, two long term problems will become prevalent. 1. There is an increase outward electrical push from inside the proton due to the electron being further away (it's not huge but over time the proton will try to pull it back). And 2. Hot protons tend to be surrounded by other hot protons, so if it suddenly cools, the surrounding protons will heat it back up via convection. So, if a proton becomes hot, and its' electrons are already in upper levels, it has no choice, it has to radiate mass. But the particle can not just, let little pieces of mass go, because then laws 1 and 2 wouldn't be conserved in the “little pieces” perspective. So, in one grand reaction, all the problems can be solved by two things happening simultaneously. 1. The electron drops down, and 2. A “speedy” photon is emitted. The photon has so much speed that the first constant is conserved, due to the increase in relativistic mass (the speed redefines objects locations). The extra speed added to the photon from the proton, is balanced by the electron being closer. The extra component of electric charge due to the electron being too far is also solved. And last but not least, the proton/atom is cooled. As you can see, there is a definite relationship with electromagnetic radiation and heat. Light can NEVER be created without excesses of heat, or some heat causing agent. Also since heat causes radiation, hot objects emit more radiation, and consequently, the extra amounts of radiation will contribute to the turbulence of hot objects. Based on what we know about how light is created, it should surprise no one what happens when light is absorbed. It creates heat, and it strikes with momentum. The amount of energy the photon has, determines how much heat is created. However much heat it packs also determines what the heat is going to do. It could push an electron up an orbital, and if it has enough energy it can push the electron away from the atom all together (the photoelectric effect). Or it could do any of the other things associated with heat. One thing I can tell you that photons are not responsible for doing is, being the fundamental boson that mediates all electromagnetic force. The name electromagnetic radiation is quite the misnomer. Just because light can affect electric and magnetic fields, does not make it a fundamental force carrying particle, so can everything else! And while we are at it, I am not an advocate of the idea that bosons are force mediators. Forces are smooth.
Pioneer Spacecraft Anomaly: The pioneer spacecraft anomaly works similarly to heat. The spacecrafts' photons are accustomed to the density of the earth, and the solar systems. When the spacecraft leaves the earth, and the solar system, it loses heat. The lack of heat (less massive particles) then causes an acceleration toward mass, this is the reason the pioneer spacecraft is a little behind schedule.
Black hole mass pattern: Photons are the largest objects that can transcend the big bang. Since they are older than the big bang, they carry biases associated with previous periods. Previous periods would of formed all the things that they do today, since they are subjected to all the same laws. Like today, they would of formed black holes, electrons, protons, dark matter etc. Since different photons make up different systems, when a new “big bang event” occurs, the same photons would most likely end up forming the same things again in the same mixes. Outside of systems, photons are attracted to the opposite sizes. The large photons are attracted to the smallest, and like size photons would end up being repelled by the same types. Before the formation of larger scale systems, and their associated electric charge, the electric charge associated with the individual photons would have been a comparatively larger player. Given this fact, photons would of ended up ordering themselves in equal distributions. Riddle photons, small photons, large photons, and medium photons would all be found together in the same relative amounts. This is why black hole sizes always correspond directly with the size of their parent galaxies. Each galaxy starts with the same amount of riddle photons in relation to all the other types. This is why black holes contain the same amounts of mass relative to the size of their galaxy.
D.M.T: D.M.T. is an acronym for distance, mass, and time. It is very important to understand that all of these quantities are the same thing. They are all ways to determine how much a force will change things. I believe that it is physically impossible to separate these quantities from one another. For example, if you applied a specific force to a baseball so that it were traveling towards a target, all the baseballs would arrive at the same moment, regardless of if you, doubled the distance for one, doubled the mass in another, and slowed time in half for one. No experiment can be done, that could distinguish these quantities from one another in any way. However, I think it's perfectly fine to mention time, mass or distance by themselves, you don't need to define every experiment in all three terms, its just important to understand that if you change one, you change the others.
Relativity and Law 2: The second law is the speed scalar. Speed is defined as D/T. So based on what we know about D.M.T., it shouldn't surprise anyone to find that speed has a relationship with distance time and mass, as Einstein painstakingly explained. Relativity theory becomes more relevant at high speeds, hence law 2 (the speed scalar) is the major player in most of the related effects.
The Speed of Light: There is another way you can choose to look at speed, and that is how much things are changing their distance relative to their surroundings. An object with more speed is changing relative to it's surroundings more than an object with less speed. Also an object around more surroundings is going to need less speed to change the same amount. So speed can be looked at as essentially the same thing as the amount of change. So in law 2, like the other two laws, there is a conserved quantity. The conserved quantity is speed. Or depending on how you choose to look at it, rate of change is conserved. Objects have to change by the same amounts, relative to their surroundings at all times. This creates the speed of light. The constancy of change makes it so that in order for objects to travel faster than the speed of light, they would have to violate law 2. (speed of light would require too much change too fast) And since, no law can be violated at any time, traveling faster than the speed of light relative to your surroundings is impossible. But don't be to down space travel enthusiasts, breaking the speed of light is possible, you just have to alter your surroundings
The Variable Speed of Light: The speed of light is not the same everywhere you go. An object near a larger mass need not/can not, travel as fast if the Change/speed constant is to be maintained. Therefore objects near masses slow down, even light photons. And due to the D.M.T principle, if an objects' velocity slows near masses, time, mass, and distance does as well. Time and mass altercations have already been measured. Distance contraction, however, is viewed a little differently in my version than Einstein's.
Distance contraction: When Einstein says an object is length contracted, he means an object was shorter in the direction of travel. So if a train was traveling super fast the caboose would be close to the engine, but it wouldn't be any taller or wider. I think this question is not being looked at from the right angle. Different objects can have wildly differing opinions of where objects are. See quantum entanglement Distance is essentially a measure of where objects are relative to each other. Each object has a differing view compared to each other. Law 2 would decree, an object traveling fast, compared to its' surroundings will view objects with speed as being further away from it, and objects with comparatively less speed as being closer. This seemingly, would lead to paradoxes. For example one could conclude that if two trains were traveling in two differing directions, they could run into each other based on who was observing. This however is not a paradox at all, the trains could run into each other! All that would happen is that the object would react to/view the trains as being in the same place at the same time. This is how distance contraction works in my theory. Things only “make sense” in a preferred reference frame. In this frame, trains couldn't run into each other. A preferred reference frame is a combination of all the frames in the universe. I guess you could say, this is where the trains truly are. However, I don't prefer to look at it that way. Whether they crash or not is relative to the trains perspective.
Twin Paradox: The twin paradox, is a very famous idea that moving objects age slower. A very common question, that people have with it is, “how does the twin paradox break symmetry, how can you determine which twin is moving and which isn't”? In order to answer this question you need to know the answer to another. Where is the experiment being measured? Differences in their ages, from their births, can be determined by the speed of the twins, over their lifetimes, relative to the location of the experiment, not relative to the twins motion. The location of the experiment can break the symmetry. So what is it about the location of the experiment that can break symmetry? You see, every single point in space is in a different location relative to the rest of the universe. If an object were to move 1 foot to the right, the object would be one foot closer to all the objects to the right. The thing is, due to the largely homogenous acceleration of the universe, the farther you travel to the right, the closer you would be to objects also traveling right. So the new locality of the right traveling objects would re-adjust your view of what was considered “stationary” to more right traveling. The speed of light is relative to what is stationary, which is not the same at differing locations(right moves right, left moves left, up goes up etc). Light that was traveling away from you, at a distance, would obey the local laws of its surroundings, not yours. So an additional drift component would be added to its motion, accelerating it away from you, even if it adds up to over the speed of light (relative to you). This is how it is possible for far away galaxies to have recession velocities exceeding the speed of light. This is also what causes the effects of the famous Michelson Morley Experiment. And one last thing about the stationary reference frame. A component of gravity is attracted to the speeds of the stationary frame. The effect is so flat that is difficult to measure. It does, however, contribute to a large scale “braking effect” This causes the acceleration of the universe to be a little more homogenous and it provides a “check” of the spinning up effect. The faster an object rotates, the greater the braking effect that slows it. It just makes the rotation speeds of objects a little more predictable.
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
Reply #3 on:
21/12/2009 11:50:58 »
Michelson Morley Experiment: If the speed of light is dependent on the frame of “stationary space” then why doesn't the speed of light vary based on your motion? The answer is because there is a direction component to time. The combined effects of the radial and tangential vector (which is just a directional component to law 2) causes a type of time dilation that is associated with direction. This direction component of time is what really messes people up. Given the principles of D.M.T. I could of substituted the speed scalar with a time scalar. Therefore, time has a distance like relationship with things. If you are separated in distance, you are also separated in time. Objects that are separated, view others as being “behind” in time. This gives time a Radial component which reads, if you move towards an object, time is sped up (by a maximum factor of 2 at the speed of light), if you travel away from an object, time is slowed down (to a minimum of 0 at the speed of light). This way time would be a conserved quantity in the radial frame. How much the object slows down is dependent on how much distance is traveled. If an object travels 1 light minute, regardless of how long it takes to get there, the object will move back in time relative to its surrounding, it is traveling towards, by exactly 1 time minute. The time dilation Einstein discovered is caused via the speed scalar (which is related to time). The speed scalar differs from the directional types, because the other two types are vectors, and since they are vectors, the effects they endure can be undone, by reversing the direction, just like distance could be undone. Therefore, if an object traveled away from you, and then back again, it would not be any older than when it was next to you. (other than the normal time dilation associated with law 2) Only differences in location make a difference. So what happens with the Michelson Morley experiment is that, when the entire experiment moves, the experiment ages in time relative to objects measuring “in front” of the experiment. This is why light always appears to travel away from you at the speed of light, regardless of the fact that lights' speed is dependent on the stationary frame. For example, if an object was traveling at 50% the speed of light in the stationary frame, it would alter its' distance by 30 light minutes for every hour it traveled. If it was attempting to chase a photon, the approach speed of the photon would be c regardless of its speed. That's because when the observer traveled 30 light minutes, the photon would have had 30 more time minutes to travel at the speed of light. And if the object turned around, and traveled away from the direction of the light, the photon would have 30 less minutes to travel at the speed of light. This causes the speed of light to be invariant of motion. And naturally causes the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment. This point of view is my version of “relativity of simultaneity”.
The Big Bang: The most impossible question to answer is, why does anything have to exist at all? The big bang is the accepted model, but a six year old could stump even the most seasoned physicists by asking, where did that come from. I can't tell you why anything exists, but I can tell you where the big bang came from, and where we are going. The big bang is not an egg that popped out of nowhere, broke every law of physics on the way, and then exploded to form the whole universe. I would define the big bang as the beginning of the inflationary period. There are two periods, the inflationary (which is what we are in) where the universe is expanding on the large scale. And the deflationary, where the universe is shrinking on the large scale. Not one of the 9 laws need to be broken in order for this to take place. What happens is that if we continue on in our period, expanding more and more, the individual particle collapse that fuels the expansion of the universe, will run out of fuel. It will get to a point where the denser these objects get, the more they want to expand. If particles lose their will to shrink, it's judgment day, the universal push will reverse and become the universal pull. Therefore gravity will switch polarity, and objects will just start floating away. Protons will grow in size, while radiating mass until they are destroyed. The forces which once pulled them together, like gravity, will push them apart. Photons will leave their systems, and take on a more neutral size. They will expand and radiate some mass, but they won't be destroyed altogether, they are too dense (D.C.R). They will just float around, anti-gravity will make the universe homogenous. The size of the universe (on the large scale) will shrink considerably. The universe will shrink and shrink while the matter spreads out until, all of a sudden, the force that pushes it apart weakens, and just like that, the inflationary period begins again, and particles and galaxies begin to form again!
D.C.R.: The big difference between the way, the small particles are governed, and the large objects are governed is D.C.R. D.C.R. Stands for distance constant ratio. You see density is a constant (law 1) so as two objects get closer to each other, others get farther. Since all forces diminish as an inverse square, the forces, particles receive from the other constituents of their own particle, become larger in comparison to the forces that come from the rest of the universe. The universe has been accelerating for as long as time is dated. So it is safe to say, the constituent particles are super close to each other. Therefore the vast majority of the governing principles of an individual particle, comes from within. The fact that the universe is accelerating also means that D.C.R. Is affecting all objects more and more all the time. In fact I would predict that due to this fact, our own galaxy will eventually become a proton! I will also show that galaxies already exhibit all the characteristics of individual protons, just to lesser scales, due to the effects of D.C.R. being smaller. Don't believe me, here are a few examples. Galaxies can create charge and attract negative charge-dark matter. Galaxies have roughly predictable values of spin-the speeding up effect. Parts of galaxies mass partially resists changes of location relative to the rest of its mass-frame dragging/pioneer spacecraft anomaly. Galaxies want to grow at roughly the same speeds-old galaxies were almost as large as modern ones.
Proton Formation: So, how do protons form? Well there are a lot of steps involved, it doesn't just happen. And I think the best place to start is right after the big bang. Seconds after the big bang occurs, we are going to assume a few things. 1. the universe is expanding. 2. there are photons floating around in a very uniform way. There are no sizable clumps or empty spots in the entire universe. 3. each photon has a tiny bit of electric charge left over. Some are slightly positive, some are slightly negative, some are for the most part, completely neutral. 4. photons carry a tiny tiny amount of rest mass. Maybe it's only a trillion trillion times as much as an electrons, maybe less, maybe more. Now I know, I know, photons have to travel at the speed of light, and don't carry electric charge, but I would say that's energetic photons. Photons are just abiding by the same addition of velocities principles Einstein laid out. Wouldn't baseballs appear to have invariant speed to us if somebody could throw them a trillion trillion trillion trillion, times harder than Randy Johnson? And even if they were traveling slow, they would be way to un-energetic/un-massive to react with any of our experiments in a measurable way. Non energetic photons (photons with small amounts of relative mass) don't have to act the same.
I want you to picture the photons like little plastic beans in a bean bag, they are all the same size and shape, and they all have a tiny bit of mass. Also imagine that unlike real beans that can bump into each other, photons will mostly just pass right on through (they are small enough that significant collisions are unlikely). So lets begin the story in steps.
Step 1. To start the two forces at work here are gravity and the photons “initial”electric force. So gravity is going to cause these photons to start to clump. These little clumps are the very beginnings of a proton.
Step 2. As they clump they introduce another type of force, electric force. (As explained by law 1c. objects that are moving closer to other objects are repelled by objects that are moving away and vice-versa) Charge is born.
Step 3. Now we have denser clumps that as long as they are still consolidating (or shrinking) will be positively charged, and most of the time they will be. Outside of these consolidating clumps, is the less dense slower developing areas. Due to the effects of electric charge, as long as they are expanding will be negatively charged. Also due to the definition principle, and law 1c, the dense positive charged systems will literally force the less dense areas to be negative.
Step 4. Negative photons (the ones that have slight “intrinsic” negative charge) are attracted to growing clumps since the clumps are positive. So counter intuitively, the positively charged clumps are actually made out of negatively charged photons. Of course, once they make it into a system they won't appear negative anymore. The positive system of the budding proton greatly overpowers the “intrinsic” charge of the photon. The attraction between charged systems and the “forced charges” of the photons causes most photons to eventually get sucked into protons. This is the equivalent to dark matter for galaxies. Galaxies with smaller amounts of dark matter (hence can't generate as much charge) grow slower, like (adolescent) protons that can't generate as much charge.
Step 5. As the clumps collapse they will inevitably carry some degree of angular momentum, so they will begin to spin. The spinning up effect will cause them to spin faster and faster, depending upon their mass, and growth rates.
Step 6. The fastest growing/largest systems will start radiating mass due to the outward centripetal force, as caused by the spinning up effect. This will slow the growth of the largest systems.
Step 7. When the larger clumps mass starts expanding/radiating, the amount of positive charge created by the system is reduced. And relatively, the positive charge created by the smaller and medium sized clumps is increased (definition principle). This decrease in positive charge causes a decrease in growth for the largest masses, and an increase for the smaller clumps. At this point the largest masses growth slows, while at the same time the smaller masses growth increases. It's become a tug of war, and the smaller clumps are winning.
Step 8. As the growth of the largest clumps has slowed down, the medium clumps begin catching up, only to have to slow down when they get large. However as the large clumps become less rare, they begin to aid each others growth. That's because as a greater percentage of photons are found in bigger and more developed clumps, they end up losing less electric force to other (smaller) systems, and their gravitational force starts becoming a help not a hindrance.
Step 9. The larger systems will gain more and more power compared to the small systems, until a sticking point is formed. A sticking point is a point of mass that forms the borderline on if a system will gain mass or lose mass. At this point the smallest systems (the ones under the sticking point) will end up being engulfed, or disintegrated. The sticking point is formed due to the speed/mass relationship. The expansion of the universe will make the speed of light higher in comparison to the smaller sized systems. This “need for speed” for photons, causes the systems that are too small, to rotate too fast, and eventually radiate all their mass.
Step 10. As the universe expands more and more, the speed of lone photons has to increase to make up for the density deficiency of the comparatively “expanded” universe. The first type of light is seen. The expanding universe makes it so any photon that leaves the system, has to leave with more and more energy, as the photon is forced to accelerate to high speeds whenever it wants to leave the proton (mass/speed relationship). The system has to have enough excess energy for the photon to accelerate relative to, if it doesn't, and the photon starts leaving, a force will get created that will pull the photon back. (see electromagnetic radiation) This is also where heat starts coming into play. The greater amount of energy it takes to radiate light, the more wiggle room heat has to work in.
Step 11. The increasing sticking point will begin nearing the maximum natural mass level of the systems. Quantization is starting to become prevalent, the possible ranges for, spin, charge creation, volume, and mass are becoming increasingly similar.
Step 12. The increasing density of the systems is causing D.C.R to skyrocket. Stubbornness is intense, causing the systems to interact with each other like “fundamental particles” with very little wasted force.
Step 13. As D.C.R grows even stronger, the effects of entanglement become more and more significant. The particle considers itself as being closer than most of the other objects outside the particle does. This makes it difficult to “get too close” to the particle. Negative material starts forming “outside” of the particle, versus inside of it. Only material that can overcome the negative pull of the constituent photons inside the proton may enter. The most negative of the, “not quite negative enough”, photons will form the electron.
Step 14. Entanglement is making it very difficult to separate the proton from its constituent particles, and forms the illusion of the strong force.
Step 15. Extremely strong amounts of D.C.R. and entanglement gives constituent parts of the proton the ability to “wander”, relative to outside objects, without disrupting the conservation of the laws very much. Because the vast amount of D.C.R comes from within the proton, and the impact from the outside world becomes comparatively weak, constituent pieces can wander from their parent particles. Wave Particle Duality is formed. And the collapse of the waveform starts to form. This is what I consider the beginning of a particle.
Wave Particle Duality: Single objects can not form waves. When particles act like waves, it's because they are not actually indivisible. My interpretation of the twin slits experiment is as follows. Different parts of photons, or electrons merely travel through both slits at the same time. It takes a significant force on some part of the traveling cloud to “define” its' location, by relaying force via entanglement. You see, the objects view their volumes as being constant. When a significant force impacts part of the cloud, the wandering ability is crushed (momentarily). This causes the collapse of the waveform, and makes it so groups of objects like a photon and an electron, will strike with quantized amounts of energy, while acting like waves. The reason the waveform collapses when a force from an outside source is felt, is because of the wandering abilities dependence on the level of D.C.R. The larger the D.C.R. from a particle, the less outside things affect it. If an outside force impacts any part of the cloud, the particle no longer has the luxury of wandering around, as the outside impact has become larger, hence D.C.R plummets. Whatever the change is on part of the cloud, the other parts of the cloud will come rushing over to balance out the situation (maintain one of the constants) and consequently redefines the entire location of the cloud.
Proton and Electron mass and charge: In our current universe, shrinking systems are positively charged and expanding systems are negatively charged. We know this fact because the universe is accelerating. You see, we know that since the universe is accelerating, the majority of objects have to be shrinking. (which causes the universal push and consequently causes the universe to accelerate) Protons have 1836 times more mass than electrons do, yet electrons have the same amount of electric charge. The reason protons create so much less electric charge per mass is because so many other objects, have the will to shrink. This causes a reduction in the strength of positive charge, and consequently an increase in the strength of negative charge. The universe as a whole can not expand or shrink (law 1) therefore the charge of the entire universe has to be neutral, and in order for it to be neutral, whatever side of the charge has more mass will be comparatively weaker than the side with less.
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
Reply #4 on:
21/12/2009 11:52:19 »
Artificial Particle Formation: If two very energetic photons collide perfectly with each other in opposite directions, they will temporarily transform their speed quantity into mass. Their speed quantity gets transformed into a radial density increase. Most of the time this would cause the objects to ricochet, with any loss in rebound velocity due to non-elasticity, which would manifest itself as heat. However if the two colliding objects have enough energy/speed/relative mass they can create a sticking point. If they can create an energy/density that is above the sticking point. It can create a particle. The particle will quickly gain mass (or redefine masses locations) until it becomes a particle and an anti-particle. The formation of the particle-antiparticle happens similarly to the way protons create electromagnetic radiation. Now, I'm not sure about what actually happens with high energy collisions (I don't work at a cyclotron(: ) so I know very little about it. I would imagine, you could write books about all the things that can impact this, but I'm just going to knock out some of the simpler/bigger issues I figure would probably be the case. For starters we know that all the constants have to be maintained. Now energetic photons have a lot of power that they can pack onto very small amounts of mass (particle level power). If two super fast moving photons collide, the first thing they will do is create a large amount of positive electric charge. This will attract negative photons from it's surroundings immediately, even if they are at a distance. This will entangle the negative photons together. The second thing that would happen is the negative charge from the two high energy approaching photons would diminish (the induced charge, would slow them down). This would attract the positive material to the system as the negative material would be left over. A neutral system would be created. The neutral system would become very hot due to excess amounts of energy left over from the photon, this is likely to happen unless the photons had the perfect amount of energy (barely over the sticking point) but chances are it does not. The two components of the neutral particle would push itself apart as soon as the spinning up effect took hold. (this would cause a repulsion due to heat), the negative half in one direction, and the positive in the other. This would cool both halfs, but they would probably still contain a lot of heat. They would both attract more mass, to correspond to whatever the photons type would dictate. The particles could only form sizes that correspond to the type of photons that made them up. For example, if they contained a lot of medium photons the neutral system would form a positron/electron pair. The type of photon that they are made up would likely correspond somewhat to its' surroundings, and their energy levels. The energy amount of the photons could probably change what type of photons it would attract. Anyways I think I should learn more about these things before I make too many more generalizations or predictions. There are a lot of places to go wrong.
Antimatter: Modern physics claims that antimatter and matter are completely identical, with the exception of their charge, which is opposite. However, this is not entirely the case. Antimatter is not stable if you give it enough time. The natural state of matter is sculpted by the universal push. The universal push causes protons to want to shrink, and causes electrons to expand. This affect will eventually form normal matter, with its normal characteristics. It however does the opposite to anti-protons and positrons. It causes anti-protons to expand/lose mass, and causes positrons to shrink. And if subatomic particles expand too much or become too light (less than their sticking point) they will annihilate themselves (liberate photons). The reason antimatter can exist in our universe at all is because of D.C.R. D.C.R. will render the effects of the universal push (mostly) negligible in comparison to the effects inside the atom. However it can't completely stop the universal push, so in the meantime the particle will slowly expand and release mass (photons/energy) until it goes under its sticking point and is destroyed. The expansion and releasing of mass counteracts the universal push, causing the particle to be temporarily stable. However it can't release mass forever, so the universal push will slowly sap the antimatter of mass and energy until it becomes unstable and annihilates itself. And just to bring this argument full circle, this is why antiparticles annihilate each other. How do you simulate a super intense universal push? Put a particle next to a proton. And how do you simulate a super intense universal pull (which has the exact opposite effect as the universal push, and hence would rip a proton to pieces) put it next to an anti-proton. So in conclusion this is why matter and antimatter annihilate each other and why matter dominates antimatter in our universe despite CP symmetry.
This theory (hypothesis) was not meant to be an exhaustive explanation for everything, but was designed to be as short as possible to stress where this logic comes from and how it works together. Not everything I am aware of was stated or explained as thorough as possible. Also I am not going to tell you that I absolutely believe everything I just wrote is going to end up being 100% true, especially with those last two topics. I mean I don't see why any of it would be wrong, but I would be shocked if everything I just wrote ends up being true. I am well aware of the fact that when trying to explain every phenomenon of the universe, there are lots of places to go wrong. My goal was to explain a possibility of how these things might work. However if/when I make a noteworthy error, I would be willing to bet that it was due to a mis-application or an overlooked aspect of my original constants, not due to the lack of their validity. In other words, if there are errors, they are much more likely to be found after the 9 fundamental forces are stated. If there are problems with them, I'm toast.
But let me tell you why you have to support my theory over the old way. For starters, the simplicity, unification, and versatility of my laws is completely unmatched. They derive so many of the things that modern physics, just assumes. For example, it derives all the forces and laws and rules, from a logical beginning, instead of just assuming their existence. It creates the basis for why particles act the way they do, and why they exist. It doesn't just assume their existence with their parameters just because. It can explain things modern physics has lots of difficulty with, like dark matter, the coronal heating problem, dark energy, black hole masses etc. using the same types of logic I use to solve everything else. The conceptual picture is way easier to understand, conceptual understanding has taken a back burner to math in modern theory. It uses the exact same logic to explain, the very fast, the very large, and the very small. With such mind numbingly simple logic, that can explain so many different things, how could I not be on to something?
Let's compare the simplicities of the competing theories for a second. For starters, what does my theory assume?
I assume the existence of reference points to define motion. I assume there are only three ways to move relative to one another, hence three constants. And there are three ways that constants are maintained, hence the 9 corresponding forces. (3x3)
I believe all of physics could be explained from those fundamental things. Now imagine if you were to write down all the things that modern physics assumes.
If I just wrote down every single different law and rule and particle, and force carrying particle. It would be much longer than sixteen pages. But let's just think about different groups of laws just for fun. There's the laws about fundamental particles, all the different characteristics they have, all the ways they interact, all the ways they move, all the things inside them and what they do. Quarks and their types, gluons, flavour, spin, handedness, color charge. Laws about where they are, and where they cant go. There's laws about all the force carrying particles and their characteristics. You have big groups of different laws and rules for thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, the big bang, the standard model, mechanical motion, chemistry, and on and on. I mean really, there is a different law and rule to explain everything in the universe, and even now, there are all kinds of unification problems, paradoxes, and unexplainable phenomenon. I think it's time for a revolution. Out with the fundamental properties, and in with the relative ones.
Neilep Level Member
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
Reply #5 on:
21/12/2009 13:02:42 »
I would be very surprised if anyone reads this in its entirety - would it be possible to get a summary please?
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
Reply #6 on:
21/12/2009 13:39:09 »
My original title to the paper was actually, a cliff notes introduction to relative physics. My original intention was to write this to be as short as possible while addressing most of the topics. I tried to cut out all the fat and anecdote, while not explain anything twice. But if you insist on having an overall reduction of my paper. I guess I would say,
All physics rules, laws, particles, forces, and geometries, are derived in order to give motion a relative meaning.
My nine fundamental forces are all ways that particles administer the opposite effects on others when they are induced to move. This way, motion has meaning, object A moves right compared to object B.
There is a force associated with each different possible way an object can move relative to one another. It is my contention that all of physics can be explained by addressing the ways these objects move relative to one another. The entire paper is an argument for how modern experiments/phenomena are a resultant of this relative motion hypothesis.
Naturally, since all these rules are derived, I am forced to have to have a new explanation for everything. Therefore this paper is absolutely as short as possible. Is that a sufficient enough answer?
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
Reply #7 on:
21/12/2009 14:25:45 »
To further summarize my theory, I could give you an overview of how some of the modern day "problems" with physics are solved.
For starters the main advantage of my logic is that my theory doesn't support the idea that there are "fundamental particles". This gives my theory greater versatility, because it allows sub-particle sized objects to create phenomena. The problem with it though is that you have to be able to explain a giant range of other physics experiments. Like you would have to explain questions like, if an electron isn't a fundamental particle why is it always found with specific energies, why does it have the same amount of charge of a proton, and why is its mass so much less. Answers to these types of questions that involve "implied logic" of quantized particles, forces a monumental amount of logic just to get the idea off the ground. I'm hoping this is why nobody ever thought of my theory.
However the versatility of the "smooth" interpretation of particles allows for a whole range of predictions. Like the Coronal Heating problem of the sun. The corona (atmosphere of the sun) is over 200 times hotter than modern heat theory would suggest, and millions of degrees hotter than the surface. Modern heat theory assumes that all phenomena derive from turbulent particles. I however theorize that heat can move all by itself. And that heat is repelled by other heat(like the heat at the center of the sun) therefore my theory projects that the corona of the sun would be much hotter than the surface. (my theory also predicts that heat under normal conditions can't leave the sun all by itself)
The other two predictions I am most proud of, is the fact that the largest elliptical galaxies in the universe have small amounts of dark matter, something I predicted. And the existence of radial gravity, and its related effects on how fast the planets in our solar system will rotate, something I also correctly predicted. But those effects are explained with more detail in my paper.
Last Edit: 21/12/2009 14:31:38 by thebrain13
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
Reply #8 on:
23/12/2009 03:20:35 »
Whoa, I really like your theory. I didn't quite get everything, but the parts I did get seemed really interesting. When you are famous one day, remember, Mike Haslett was your first fan [
Neilep Level Member
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
Reply #9 on:
23/12/2009 10:16:54 »
Strange that your first fan happens to share an ip address with you.
Of course, you may live together, or be posting from the same school, after all, you wouldn't be sockpuppeting now, would you? Sockpuppeting will get you banned.
How to Unify the Math, and the Conceptual
Reply #10 on:
23/12/2009 12:35:35 »
Ok benv you got me. Not being sarcastic. Darn my lack of computer knowledge, how do you know my ip address? I did it because I figured that people would never read my theory if there were no positive responses. Most people would probably just skip down to the first posts not by me.
Anyways I sware to god, nothing else I wrote in here is a lie. I really do know a guy who works at the cyclotron his name is renan fontus, he is an engineer, and his dad really is on the ropes, if he is not gone. And I am more than willing to prove to anybody that I am good at poker if anyone is willing to read my paper, I could respond to your questions off a poker sites chat box while playing. I just really want somebody to criticize/encourage me/help me figure out any mistakes. So I made that guys account and based it off one of my friends michael haslett, he goes to state, and is facebook friends with me if you want to prove that I do know alot of people from michigan state. Nobody responded to me before so I figured it was worth a shot, it's not because I get off at the idea of being a forum legend or something. I've spent way too much of my life wondering if I know what I'm talking about or if I'm just one of the millions of examples of people with ego problems. There is really no possible way I can figure that out if nobody is willing to respond to me. So there, I hope you feel really smart about catching me in my lie.
P.S. I really hope somebody calls me out on my poker playing/chatting bluff.
Last Edit: 23/12/2009 12:50:44 by thebrain13