An analysis of the de Broglie equation

  • 724 Replies
  • 24786 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #650 on: 23/08/2016 00:18:43 »
My model then adds a 3rd dimension of time dilation.  Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation that is not gravity potential related, but gravity field related.

Tantalising.

A potential-related dilation can only be observed by an observer at a different potential but a field-related  dilation would be apparent to an observer at the same potential but in a different field. So let's put a source on the surface of Mars, say, and an observer at a point in space where the earth's field has decreased to g ~ 4 m/s^2 - around 40,000 km.

It's a feasible experiment!
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #651 on: 23/08/2016 00:44:05 »
Good grief my man, you are completely missing the point.

ONLY THAT WHICH HAS ****NO MASS*** WILL BE SUBJECT TO VIKKI RAMSAY GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION!!!

IE: THE SPACE BETWEEN MASSES...

Come on Alan, its not a difficult concept...  Normally you're so bright!  Why the mental block?

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #652 on: 23/08/2016 01:22:32 »
Timey, if you are going to follow what I am going to say you need to read up on the imaginary unit, the complex plane and the unit circle. Let me know when you have done that.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #653 on: 23/08/2016 02:43:01 »
Will do that...be back soon.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #654 on: 23/08/2016 21:11:29 »
Timey, if you are going to follow what I am going to say you need to read up on the imaginary unit, the complex plane and the unit circle. Let me know when you have done that.

Jeff - I understand imaginary numbers in relation to the complex plane...

I also understand unit circle, although this understanding is in some respect aesthetically impaired.  This may be ironed out when I come to see your process, but if I see it becoming a problem, I'll raise the reservation in context, rather than now.

If I could gently remind you that as much explanation of process in words as is possible will be helpful...
...and now please do go on, I'm really interested to hear what you have say...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #655 on: 23/08/2016 22:16:22 »
Good grief my man, you are completely missing the point.

ONLY THAT WHICH HAS ****NO MASS*** WILL BE SUBJECT TO VIKKI RAMSAY GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION!!!

IE: THE SPACE BETWEEN MASSES...

Come on Alan, its not a difficult concept...  Normally you're so bright!  Why the mental block?

So what happens in the space between masses? If "nothing" then time of any sort is irrelevant. If "photons" then the sturdy old GR equations seem to work pretty well. As far as we know, the space betwen masses contains the gravitational field of the masses it is between, and it seems that both particles and photons travelling in that space follow those boring Einsteinian pathways.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #656 on: 24/08/2016 00:49:54 »
How can nothing happen in the spaces between mass?

All mass is constantly changing position in it on every scale.  Quantum, micro, macro and cosmic.

All masses are subject to both GR and SR time dilation, but still have to travel 'through' Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation in these spaces between mass.

The consequences of mass (or light*) travelling through Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation will 'appear' observationally as what we currently describe as an acceleration of gravity.

*in my model - light, having no rest mass, is not subject to gravity potential energy or kinetic energy, and the changes in wavelength light of any frequency experiences n a gravity field are purely Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation related.
« Last Edit: 24/08/2016 00:54:51 by timey »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #657 on: 24/08/2016 11:40:31 »
To make a visual description of Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation:

We can take a small clock face radius... and the velocity that the outer tip end of the seconds hand will move at in order to depict the time period of a standard second will be of a certain velocity.

If we take a bigger clock face radius, the velocity that the tip of the seconds hand has to move at to carry on depicting the time period of a standard second will increase.

If we do not increase the velocity that the tip of the seconds hand moves at round this bigger radius, we are no longer depicting the time period of a standard second.  A second will be longer.

If we decrease the radius of the face of the clock, and do not change the velocity of the seconds hand, then the clock will be depicting seconds that are shorter than the standard second.

There is a direct relationship here between length and velocity...

If we look at the situation reversed, whereas we understand by how much the velocity of the seconds hand needs to be increased for the bigger clock, and we increase the seconds hand to that velocity, but neglect to increase the radius of the clock... The seconds hand will be depicting seconds that are faster than would be for the clock with the greater radius.

We can see that keeping the seconds hand on a clock radius at a constant velocity and changing the radius of the clock face can work to determine the lengths of dilated or contracted seconds.

I can see that it would be possible, perhaps, to mathematically work out exactly which ratio of radius to velocity a standard second is best suited to, and then simply dilate or contract the radius to depict dilated or contracted standard seconds.

A mass size will determine the strength of a gravity field, and the strength of a gravity field will determine the length of a second, but I'm pretty sure it is the inverse square law of the reducing strength of the gravity field that will determine how the length of this second increases in the space between masses, with distance from mass.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #658 on: 24/08/2016 15:17:06 »
Nothing can happen in the space between masses because there is by definition nothing there for it to happen to. The concept of time is meaningless in the absence of change.

Now let's have a small mossbauer source and a small receptor, some distance apart in deep space. "Small" so that neither has a significant gravitational field, and they arfe a long way from any other object. Describe what happens to the photon as the distance between source and receptor varies.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #659 on: 24/08/2016 17:04:59 »
Nothing there for it to happened to: That is simply not true.  Mass is situated in these spaces and Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation affects what mass does in these spaces.

The fact that mass experiences time differently to how the spaces between masses experience time doesn't negate these masses from being affected by Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation, and I am saying that Vikki Ramsay time dilation is already being calculated within current physics as an acceleration of gravity.

As to the mossbauers being alone in deep space, I'm not up on particle physics, or the process by which atoms and molecular structures form and decay, but I suspect that 2 mossbauers alone in deep space would no longer be mossbauers.

But... Light of any frequencies wavelength will have become proportionally really, really long, and I am saying that this is because the time period of a second in deep space relative to a standard second is really, really long, and light in my model is not subject to gravity potential energy, or kinetic energy and therefore is ***only*** subject to Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #660 on: 24/08/2016 17:28:15 »
I am saying that Vikki Ramsay time dilation is already being calculated within current physics as an acceleration of gravity.
but g is zero in deep space between masses and increases smoothly as you approach a mass, with no change in time dilation other than that calculated by GR and SR.

Quote
As to the mossbauers being alone in deep space, I'm not up on particle physics, or the process by which atoms and molecular structures form and decay, but I suspect that 2 mossbauers alone in deep space would no longer be mossbauers.
and there you would be wrong. Gravity or lack thereof has no effect on nucleon decay except as predicted by GR and SR (cosmic ray muon decay is very interesting in that respect)

Quote
But... Light of any frequencies wavelength will have become proportionally really, really long, and I am saying that this is because the time period of a second in deep space relative to a standard second is really, really long, and light in my model is not subject to gravity potential energy, or kinetic energy and therefore is ***only*** subject to Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.
If by "really really long" you don't mean infinite, then what value would you give it? Remembering that E = hc/lambda (can't do Greek on this forum anymore!) you will need a very large value for intergalactic c (which doesn't seem to accord with experiment) or somewhere for the energy to go, so that it can all be restored the instant the photon reaches a detector.

Whilst not decrying your inventiveness, the soon-to-be-famous VRGTT model so far seems to have added a lot of complication without explaining anything. But it's early days. It took 2000 years and a couple of human sacrifices to prove that Aristotle was a liar!
« Last Edit: 24/08/2016 19:03:02 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #661 on: 24/08/2016 21:11:15 »
Gravity gets weaker via the inverse square law.

I'm sorry but under the remit of inverse square, it would seem to me that an absolute zero gravity field cannot exist within the universe.

*

That would be red shifted light wavelength between galaxy sort of length, which is why the diagram I sent you shows that the distance that current physics thinks a light source is, and the distance that a light source is in my model are different, and that a light source is closer to us than GR is calculating.

*

Righto - thanks for the info on mossbauer.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #662 on: 24/08/2016 22:01:03 »
Alan - my model basically is GR minus Hubble's law, minus the abandoned cosmological constant that physics reinstates in the form of dark energy.

My model states e=mc^2 as for rest mass only, and states observation of additional energy, (thermal, potential, or kinetic), added to rest mass, or for kinetic energy subtracted from the added thermal or potential energies as being time dilation related.  An increase in energy will cause an observation that will appear in our current physics understanding as an acceleration of gravity.

My model doesn't add mass to light.

Apart from adding to the equivalence principle the statement:
"The speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time"

...my model does not differ further from GR, and the proportions of the maths that I am suggesting will be proportional to the maths of GR, but for alternate reasons.

GR requires additional unobserved phenomenon to balance the books, does not describe the big bang, inflation period, contraction, nor can it be reconciled with quantum.

My model does not require unobserved additions, does describe the mechanics of big bang, inflation period, contraction, and can be reconciled with quantum.

So what exactly is so great about GR that my model adds unnecessary complications that don't explain anything?
« Last Edit: 24/08/2016 22:05:51 by timey »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #663 on: 25/08/2016 22:39:42 »
OK We can consider a situation in which negative kinetic energy exists. As you know kinetic energy is defined by the expression 1/2*m*v^2. This is always a positive value. In order to obtain a negative value either mass is negative or velocity is imaginary. A negative mass could be associated with a repulsive force. What about imaginary velocity? More later.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #664 on: 26/08/2016 12:49:48 »
Question: Can we define a force carrier with negative kinetic energy? If it has zero rest mass and a constant velocity then it has to depend upon the formula used to derive the wave function and how it evolves over time.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #665 on: 26/08/2016 19:16:41 »
Another important question. Would a graviton have to be trapped behind an event horizon? This may not appear to be pertinent but it is. As I will demonstrate.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #666 on: 26/08/2016 23:55:09 »
While I have 5 minutes spare ... For a positive mass with imaginary velocity the gamma function would be of the same form gamma = 1/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} but where v^2 is in the range 0 to -c^2. So gamma can be changed to gamma = 1/sqrt{1+v^2/c^2}. This means that for a velocity of zero no change in mass as expected. However as the imaginary velocity 'increases' the mass reduces. It reaches 1/2 its original mass when v^2 = -c^2. We could imagine this energy loss as dark energy if we were so inclined. Also in this scenario length extends and time speeds up as the energy is radiated away. That sounds a lot like dark energy. More thoughts on the graviton later.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #667 on: 28/08/2016 00:13:00 »
For completeness I am posting the wikipedia link on negative mass. There are some significant issues with the concept. Included but not limited to the direction of the momentum vector and the sign of both active and passive gravitational mass. A combination of imaginary velocity and negative mass may resolve some issues but may no longer describe something akin to dark energy.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #668 on: 28/08/2016 19:58:27 »
It's not particularly clear where you are going with this...

I get the negative velocity aspect, and understand that imaginary velocity could make a description of Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.

But... I have specifically stated that there is no mass energy equivalence going on in my model.  An addition of energy increases the rate of time for the mass, and this increase in the rate of time appears as an acceleration.

There is also no requirement for dark energy in my model.  My models describes a universe that has been very slowly contracting from the moment of initial inflation, and it is this contraction that is accelerating as mass further clumps.

The observation of the extended wavelengths of red shifted light are Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation related.  As undead the reverse contracted blue shifted wavelengths are.

I have been staying quiet to give you room to make your pitch whatever it is.  Could be you are using the mass energy equivalence and dark energy references to accentuate your overall point, this being I had thought because of your post saying that there is a possibility that I might be right - but you are rather dragging it out a little perhaps...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #669 on: 29/08/2016 10:13:25 »
Well you don't get it then. The apparent expansion indicated by red shift depends upon the speed of the particle emitting the dark energy. If these particles were increasing in speed over time then the acceleration of expansion could be an illusion. Making exactly your point. Highly speculative and very likely wrong but it does support your argument. Since it's your way or the highway this will likely be the last time I try to help you.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #670 on: 29/08/2016 11:13:05 »
A piece of advice timey. Always make your own mind up. Don't let some author with an axe to grind make it up for you. The best thing you can ever do is revisit the history of physics. Find out why certain things came about. Try reading about Tycho Brahe. You should read a little about him. Newton would have been a footnote in history without Tycho. Kepler's laws of planetary motion wouldn't be named after him. Above all you will learn the utmost importance of observation.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #671 on: 29/08/2016 14:08:42 »
A piece of advice timey. Always make your own mind up. Don't let some author with an axe to grind make it up for you. The best thing you can ever do is revisit the history of physics. Find out why certain things came about. Try reading about Tycho Brahe. You should read a little about him. Newton would have been a footnote in history without Tycho. Kepler's laws of planetary motion wouldn't be named after him. Above all you will learn the utmost importance of observation.

I have been reading about physics for 8+years.  Books, wiki, and cited material that I have googled from indexes, etc.
I read very fast.  I can read an average sized novel in just a couple of hours.  Physics books I slow down for, but generally I'm done in a couple of days.

My experience is that physics authors writing 300+ pages on physics, actually have to rely on describing the history of physics in order to fill the pages.  There just isn't that much to write about physics itself, we know hardly anything and reading extensively about physics quickly becomes repetitive...

Manjit Kumar's 'quantum' is a prime example of pages filled with history.  Bill Bryon's 'history of everything' takes you through the discoveries of physics from the geocentric model to present day.   Lee Smolin's 'the trouble with physics' also gives the history of physics discoveries and explains how each factor changes the perception of physics.

To change one little factor of how something physically works in this universe has consequences that affect how  everything works together as a unit... I have given in depth thought to what consequences arise from the addition of Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation, and the consequences are the cyclic model that I describe.

***If the addition of Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation did not result in this cyclic universe I would not be here on this forum extrapolating my idea***

You cannot state that you have helped me, or have been trying to help me unless you follow the remit of my model and calculate the idea that I put forward.  To change any part of the mechanics that I describe does not result in the cyclic universe of my model.

My model can be calculated by transposing the Doppler shift velocities of Hubble's Red shifts via the speed distance time formula into values of time, instead of velocities.  A wave'length' is now becoming longer (red shift) or shorter (blue shift) because of Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.  The light takes a longer or shorter amount of time to coved the same unit of distance at the speed of light.
ie: 299 792 458 metres per variable second. (equivalence principle is upheld)

This means that the velocities associated with the expansion of the universe are not occurring and the universe is not expanding.  It in fact means that the gravity field of space, for the most part, is becoming weaker at an accelerated rate that is due to the trend of the universes mass content  becoming even further clumped together.
This trend to universal mass clumping together is caused by gravity, and accelerated by Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.
This is a description of the contraction of the universe, however this is not describing all masses retracing their outward journey of inflation period in reverse to result in a point as the usual picture of universal contraction is given.  This contraction is occurring as masses conglomerate into concentrated patches of mass called galaxies and black holes, that collide and form bigger galaxies and black holes of greater gravity, and distances in space of ever (for the most part) decreasing gravity fields.

There is your alternate reason for observation of red shift.

And this alternate reason results in the universe not expanding, therefore there is NO requirement for dark energy to counteract the gravitational force.

As Einstein added a cosmological constant to counteract the gravitational contraction of the universe, and then retracted it in the face of Hubble's Doppler velocities, my model dispenses with both and then states that although the universal gravitational attraction has an established value and strength, that there should be a clear distinction between gravitational attraction and gravitational acceleration...
Although masses will be attracted to each other, this attraction will be of a certain value, and the acceleration of this gravitational attraction is Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation related.

I suspect that the dimensionless value of the gravitational coupling constant might be relevant...

However - I am not going to my spend time trying to explain this model here on this forum any further just to be referenced to repetitive reading material.  Its insulting!

I will now put my energy elsewhere on the net into raising monies to HIRE a mathematician to calculate what I am describing.

Good day to you all...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #672 on: 29/08/2016 16:29:53 »
You don't have a model since you don't understand the mathematics. You can't put the cart before the horse. Hence why you are looking for a mathematician. If you can't express what you propose in understandable terms then it is likely wrong. Good luck anyway. You will need it.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #673 on: 29/08/2016 17:39:41 »
Correction:

Nobody has ever described a contracting universe as I have, nor a ***"medium that everything must travel through in space that affects wavelength" *** as I have been for a whole year now on this forum.
(Your comment concerning a medium that affects wavelength in space on David Cooper's thread has not gone unnoticed at all BTW)

Therefore I do have a model, but so far it is a model without mathematics.

Correction:  I do understand mathematics I just don't know how to manipulate them, which is why I came to this forum to ask for help, which I am not getting.

I don't need good luck, just money to pay someone to follow my instructions and guide me through the possibilities and impossibilities of the mathematics that I need describing without the prejudice I'm experience here, that I will indeed be paying said professional mathematician NOT to have.

My advice - you might consider that the fault you find in my model, but neglect to describe, could possibly be due to your own lacking in comprehension skills...
I always question my own understanding before denouncing another's...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #674 on: 29/08/2016 18:19:38 »
Correction:

Nobody has ever described a contracting universe as I have, nor a ***"medium that everything must travel through in space that affects wavelength" *** as I have been for a whole year now on this forum.
(Your comment concerning a medium that affects wavelength in space on David Cooper's thread has not gone unnoticed at all BTW)

Incorrect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Quote
Therefore I do have a model, but so far it is a model without mathematics.

Correction:  I do understand mathematics I just don't know how to manipulate them, which is why I came to this forum to ask for help, which I am not getting.

How can you understand the mathematics when you don't know how they work?

Quote
I don't need good luck, just money to pay someone to follow my instructions and guide me through the possibilities and impossibilities of the mathematics that I need describing without the prejudice I'm experience here, that I will indeed be paying said professional mathematician NOT to have.

My advice - you might consider that the fault you find in my model, but neglect to describe, could possibly be due to your own lacking in comprehension skills...
I always question my own understanding before denouncing another's...

As I said good luck. If you believe that physics is not about sharing ideas and hypotheses then that is your choice. How many people do you think contributed to relativity therory. One? Two? Several?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #675 on: 29/08/2016 20:26:33 »
That is a different cyclic model.  That is the model where the outward expansion slows down stops and everything contracts - in the reverse of how it expanded - to a point again and then 'bounces' into an expansion.
This model places our present day position in this theory as on the outward expansion.
This model had lost a lot of its viability with the discovery that redshifts are indicating that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
The alternative to the logic of this theory is a theory named The Big Freeze.

My model places our present day position as already in the contraction period.  The contraction period started from the moment inflation period ceased.
My model places the black hole phenomenon as the precipitation of both the end and beginning of the universes cycles, and the inflation period is caused by the superluminal jets of the end of the universes cycle's singular black hole.

Nobody has ever described a cyclic universe like this.

I understand how maths work.  I use and experience mathematics in everything I do.  My brain makes mathematical decisions of critical nature every time I negotiate a corner or turn when driving.  My brain calculates exactly where my hand should be to catch a ball.
I understand geometry and patterns.  I understand the ratios of the cogs in an old fashioned pocket watch.  I understand how musical scales are mathematical steps, and harmonics are achieved.

Its how to describe what my brain naturally knows and understands of mathematics in mathematical notation that I do not know how to do.

Of course I understand that physics is a group effort.  I am here sharing my idea for anyone to participate.  If I were a proper physicist no one but myself and 3 other collaborators would hear of this idea until it was proofed and proven, or not at all.

This being because only 4 people can share a Nobel prize, and because if we were wrong we wouldn't want to risk our physics careers in unwanted embarrassment.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #676 on: 29/08/2016 21:06:11 »
Ever heard the phrase peer review?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #677 on: 29/08/2016 21:48:13 »
Yes - Have you any suggestion?

...or if you are being snide and suggesting that 'you' are peer review... then I concur that it would be a distinct possibility.  You do have a keen mind...

But this would only be on the basis that you actually read what I write, which you don't, as it is now clear that you have been making comments on my description of the mechanics of a cyclic universe that are formulated based on your understanding of a theory of a cyclic universe that is NOT my model!

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #678 on: 30/08/2016 20:43:48 »
You said people work in small groups protective of their work and reputations. I asked you if you had heard of peer review. The two are incompatible.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #679 on: 30/08/2016 22:09:34 »
Out of all the interesting things I've been discussing on this thread, this is your response?

Small groups of professional physicists collaborating on new ideas, as far as I'm aware, mathematically proof these ideas before submitting them for peer revue.

As said - if you have any suggestion as to where I may submit my idea of this model of a cyclic universe that I am describing without mathematical proofs, then please do tell...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #680 on: 30/08/2016 22:36:14 »
Science doesn't prove things. It can't. Science builds models and theories that approximate processes. In the case of the unit circle we can say that pi/2 is an exact value of the number of radians in an angle but pi is an irrational number. Prove pi is irrational. There is a challenge. You could always google it. BTW do you know how many degrees in pi/2 radians? You say you understand the unit circle.
« Last Edit: 30/08/2016 22:39:29 by jeffreyH »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #681 on: 31/08/2016 09:00:08 »
Mathematically proofed means proven mathematically viable Jeff...

I could also Google what you are asking me about Pi and answer you, but why?

I can't Google what I am asking of this forum, and this forum cannot google it either!

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #682 on: 31/08/2016 20:22:21 »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #683 on: 31/08/2016 21:07:30 »
You are posting completely off topic!

There are many googles of conversations that I have had with people online.

What of it?

Do you really think that I meant that one can google my conversations?  I meant that one cannot Google my idea and get answers as one can google how many degrees in pi/2 radians?

I am now through with the obtuse nature of your replies, you are taking the piss.

What a complete and total waste of my time!

I give thanks to David Cooper who rescued me from that nasty site, introducing me to this one where I have learned a lot about the nature of the maths I need.

In particular I thank Alan Calverd, who has been instrumental in this understanding.

I also thank Evan for his participation with me last year. Space Flow for confirming the Lorentz transformation's, Colin for his patience, Pete for some of the links he provided, Ethos and John Faust for their interest.  Anyone who has responded in context with intelligence, and all who have been a good laugh.

Thank you very much.

This conversation is not progressive, and has become a midden of out of context trite replies...
There is no point in my continuing with it!

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #684 on: 31/08/2016 21:54:36 »
So does that mean I can steer the thread back to its original point? It has been off topic for quite a while.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #685 on: 14/09/2016 13:48:26 »
So does that mean I can steer the thread back to its original point? It has been off topic for quite a while.

...and that would be a steer of the bovine variety, right?

In your field of bullocks no doubt Jeff!

*

In light of anyone else being as curious as I am as to the mathematical viability of my alternative cyclic model, I am now elsewhere on net raising money to hire a mathematician to calculate the ideas that I have put forth above...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #686 on: 14/09/2016 14:00:04 »
So does that mean I can steer the thread back to its original point? It has been off topic for quite a while.

...and that would be a steer of the bovine variety, right?

In your field of bullocks no doubt Jeff!

*

In light of anyone else being as curious as I am as to the mathematical viability of my alternative cyclic model, I am now elsewhere on net raising money to hire a mathematician to calculate the ideas that I have put forth above...

Even BS beats the nonsense you are peddling.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #687 on: 14/09/2016 18:00:55 »
So does that mean I can steer the thread back to its original point? It has been off topic for quite a while.

...and that would be a steer of the bovine variety, right?

In your field of bullocks no doubt Jeff!

*

In light of anyone else being as curious as I am as to the mathematical viability of my alternative cyclic model, I am now elsewhere on net raising money to hire a mathematician to calculate the ideas that I have put forth above...

Even BS beats the nonsense you are peddling.

You know Jeff, I thought that becoming a moderator might actually be the making of you... That we all might see you emulating the calibre of posts and information that other moderators do, without the type of personal biased and what is coming across a 'jealous cow' syndrome that your posts here are literally reeking of.

Earlier this thread I invited you to elaborate on how your ideas affect the universe and what changes would be initiated when examining the universe operating under the principles of your changes when these changes you make are applied to how the universe developed and how the universe will progress in the future, and you said that you hadn't given it any thought.

Clearly Jeff you do not have an original idea for a model of the universe, and are peddling nothing at all...

And whilst I am not peddling anything, just simply stating an idea of a cyclic universe, its mechanics and how these mechanics affect the development of my model of the universe both historically and futuristically, and am just requiring help to calculate these ideas,  you...who have already stated that you have had to work really hard to understand these current physics concepts, (whereas I did not struggle with any understanding of these concepts and find physics to be simplicity itself), you are incapable of applying any changes to the current notions because clearly you are barely understanding the situation of physics as it currently stands.

I have an idea for a model of an alternative cyclic universe!

You don't!

A page or two earlier this thread you said that relativity might not be safe, that there is a possibility that timey may be right, and then you revert back to my posts being a case of me selling something suspect.

Clearly you haven't got a clue what you think and have no hope of comprehending what another is saying.

As a moderator you have a duty to this forum to keep your personal beliefs to yourself and answer posts objectively.  A person who puts forth an idea is peddling nothing.  What you are peddling is your own ignorant interpretation of an idea that you have not understood.  It is your own misunderstanding of the idea that is the problem, not the idea itself.  Anything can be calculated Jeff.

My idea can be calculated.  If it is not proportional to GR maths then it is not mathematically viable.  Even if my idea is not viable it is still a genius idea and I am proud of it whether it is viable or not.

Eat your heart out Jeff!  You will never come up with an idea as good as this... ever!

Now do please go ahead and make your reply.  I'm quite sure that it will reveal even more unsavoury cracks in your character.
« Last Edit: 14/09/2016 18:40:22 by timey »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #688 on: 14/09/2016 18:42:54 »
Does this mean I don't get the thread back? I would rather know for certain either way.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #689 on: 14/09/2016 20:44:50 »
Does this mean I don't get the thread back? I would rather know for certain either way.

Yes Jeff, by all means the thread is yours.  In fact I did suggest earlier this thread that you split the 20 or so posts out of 675, that are pertaining to your own input, away from the remainder that pertain to my idea in relation to your original post.

You declined to do so remember, so your complaints of thread napping are BS as well.

As I said, a deficiency in character, plain and simple.  What a shame!  Hope you can sort it out!

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #690 on: 14/09/2016 21:04:54 »
So basically I should have taken the posts I made in the thread I started and move them out of your way. No one can accuse you of modesty. I still don't have my thread back BTW. You just keep filling it up with nit picking.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #691 on: 14/09/2016 21:58:47 »
So basically I should have taken the posts I made in the thread I started and move them out of your way. No one can accuse you of modesty. I still don't have my thread back BTW. You just keep filling it up with nit picking.

I would hardly call a description of an alternative cyclic universe and a different perspective on the De Broglie wavelength nitpicking...and since 30/8/2016 you filled the thread with what?

I just gave you the means to the solution.  You are a moderator and unlike me, you do have the capacity to split the thread, not that it matters anymore, as said, I've gone elsewhere with my idea.

I guess we can now add 'a bit on the slow side' to your repertoire. Deary me!  How tedious!

And fancy that... a forum moderator who gets territorial over a thread.  Laughable really!  Whatever next I wonder?

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #692 on: 14/09/2016 22:11:56 »
For someone so eager to rush off and peddle, sorry crowd fund, your wonderful theorem, you seem to be doing a lot of insult throwing rather than getting on with it. Not a brilliant start.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #693 on: 14/09/2016 23:01:24 »
Not insults.  Facts!

And you are still talking about anything apart from physics as per usual, a fact that has literally bored me off the forum!

My only reason for responding is that you, without even understanding the physics of my model, denounce it...

I'm just making sure that everyone else realises the truth of this thread, what has and has not been said, and the fact that you are well and truly out of order for speaking out of turn about an idea that you have not even bothered to read properly, let alone understand.

Indeed I was actually invited more than once to elaborate on my idea right here on this thread by Alan.  You can now take up the highjacking of your precious thread with him. 

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4068
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #694 on: 14/09/2016 23:37:22 »
Not insults.  Facts!

And you are still talking about anything apart from physics as per usual, a fact that has literally bored me off the forum!

My only reason for responding is that you, without even understanding the physics of my model, denounce it...

I'm just making sure that everyone else realises the truth of this thread, what has and has not been said, and the fact that you are well and truly out of order for speaking out of turn about an idea that you have not even bothered to read properly, let alone understand.

Indeed I was actually invited more than once to elaborate on my idea right here on this thread by Alan.  You can now take up the highjacking of your precious thread with him.

You go for the dramatic exit then. My daughter, when she was a child, had tantrums such as yours.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #695 on: 15/09/2016 03:26:15 »
Not insults.  Facts!

And you are still talking about anything apart from physics as per usual, a fact that has literally bored me off the forum!

My only reason for responding is that you, without even understanding the physics of my model, denounce it...

I'm just making sure that everyone else realises the truth of this thread, what has and has not been said, and the fact that you are well and truly out of order for speaking out of turn about an idea that you have not even bothered to read properly, let alone understand.

Indeed I was actually invited more than once to elaborate on my idea right here on this thread by Alan.  You can now take up the highjacking of your precious thread with him.

You go for the dramatic exit then. My daughter, when she was a child, had tantrums such as yours.

...I'm certainly not going for the dynamic conversation that's for sure!  (chuckle)

As to your daughter, still not exactly physics but always happy to hear about the fam, and that normality ensues...

I'm actually waiting for your dramatic reentry tbh, but it would seem as of so far that New Theories really isn't your forte, and that trivial school yard triteness is!

Happy to be proved wrong though!

Go for it...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #696 on: 16/09/2016 13:42:30 »

My model places the black hole phenomenon as the precipitation of both the end and beginning of the universes cycles, and the inflation period is caused by the superluminal jets of the end of the universes cycle's singular black hole.

Nobody has ever described a cyclic universe like this.



I think Hawking's "Black holes and baby universes" came fairly close, and only 40 years after the unpublished Calverd-Kibblewhite conversations on the same subject.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #697 on: 16/09/2016 18:00:37 »

My model places the black hole phenomenon as the precipitation of both the end and beginning of the universes cycles, and the inflation period is caused by the superluminal jets of the end of the universes cycle's singular black hole.

Nobody has ever described a cyclic universe like this.



I think Hawking's "Black holes and baby universes" came fairly close, and only 40 years after the unpublished Calverd-Kibblewhite conversations on the same subject.
I do not know what yourself and Kibblewhite discussed, but the Black holes and baby universes places newly forming universes inside black holes and is a multi verse theory.

My model is not a multi verse theory.  My model places black holes that we see 'in' our universe as miniature big bangs, and very hot indeed.  My model states we do not observe much of a black hole because of observational time frame dependency that is caused by gravitational time dilation differences between observation point and black hole.  This gives cause and explanation for the observation of a black holes temperature decreasing by inverse square law proportionally to added mass.

My model, although it does not discount the possibility of there being multiple universes, states that this universe is a solitary act.  That any multi verse scenarios are entirely unconnected to each other, and are therefore not usefully considerable.

My model states that the trend for mass clumping will eventually result in all the mass of the universe being compressed into a singular black hole, that this black hole will, without any other gravitational counterpart, eject all of its content via its superluminal jets (inflation period) in particle form to create a sea of particles.  That from this point onwards all of the development of these particles clumping into bodies of mass occurs on the contraction trajectory.  The contraction is facilitated by mass clumping and forming gravitational orbits, and 'empty tracts of space' are created by particles vacating these spaces as they trend to clumping.  The spatial dimensions of the universe slowly contract as mass further clumps, and this contraction starts very slowly and accelerates as masses become bigger and more attractive.

The black hole phenomenon, although being the cause of the end of the universes cycle and the beginning of its next cycle, also functions during the cycle as a means of staving off the trend to clumping and spatial contraction by ejecting the mass that falls into the black hole in particle form via superluminal jets as we observe.  But the balance will tip in favour of clumping in the end, black holes will become predominant and merge into each other until there is just a singular black hole left to initiate the big bang of the next cycle.

My model is a combination of a lot of concepts.  Its a black holes and baby universes non multi verse theory vaguely mixed with the cyclic universe Bounce theory...  So no, not exactly original thoughts, just an original combination based on the work of others and facilitated by the mechanics of an original addition, this being Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation, to GR...
« Last Edit: 16/09/2016 18:06:01 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #698 on: 17/09/2016 00:06:17 »
An odd interpretation of multiverse, I think. As I see it a multiverse model is one in which what actually happens is the most probable or least energetic of an everexpanding and unobservable infinity of possible outcomes - fundamental Feynmanism! It's the difference between Bach's quantum compositions (every note is a surprise until you get to the end of the phrase and look back and see the masterful logic) and Mozart's linear inevitability.

Recycling though black hole ejecta and instability takes place within the observable universe, suely.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1356
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #699 on: 17/09/2016 01:27:38 »
I am interpreting multi verse as being more than one universe.

I do appreciate Feynman!  A true acrobat of intellectualism and wicked sense of humour to boot, but...

"an ever expanding and unobservable infinity of possible outcomes"

...I couldn't disagree more!  The way I see it the mechanics of the universe can only work as a cause and effect unit in one specialised precision arrangement...  Like a jig saw puzzle of dimensions and parameters that can only fit together as one to reveal the entire picture by finding each piece its corresponding shape...

I'll have to make a study of Bach versus Mozart and understand what you refer to.  Philistine me rarely bothers to note the artist or composer, but I find classical music to be predictable.  There are only so many variations of scale and rhythm that can follow on.  Jazz oriented complexities can be far less predictable, but given time, and ear adjustment, I find that patterns will still emerge all the same. 

Yes, we observe active black holes in the observable universe.  General Relativity predicts that black holes will be predominant in the far flung future of the universe.  In a universe that is developing particles into bodies of mass in the contraction period of the cycle, (this being GR minus dark energy, minus Hubble's red shift "velocities"), gravity will pull particles into bodies of mass, masses will continue to build in size, black holes will form, eventually black holes will become predominant, start merging together and end up as a singular black hole.

Is there any other model apart from mine that gives cause and effect mechanics of big bang, inflation period and contraction?