Joined: Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 95 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:10 pm Post subject:
QuantumArtist wrote:
Ultimately, I believe matter in its purest form is nothing more then a place where action/energy occurs. I believe it is, at its most fundimental, grass roots, a point in space.
I agree with the first part and have shown in my thesis why not the second.
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:04 am Post subject:
Hard to say when you're talking about something which is infintely small, along with pure action. Who knows what the limits are? _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject:
Wanted a bump! Just wanted to see if any of the new peeps wanted to add some thought to this idea. I really do think I'm onto something here. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
So if there were two equal waves of energy, one was out of shift, current physics or math says: "There added value is 0..."
+1....\......../\......../\......../............/\....... /\......../\
----.....\..../....\..../....\..../.....+...../....\..../....\..../....\.....= 0
- 1........\/........\/........\/............ /.......\/........\/........\
With the theory you presented it would be the greatest attraction, may even add the energies of the two waves combined?
±1........../\......./\........./\
±1...../.........\/........\/..........\
(stretched out to show more energy in, just ignore the dots)
This is the two waves added to make a larger stress wave in the "greatest attrection"(I call it ether, you may call it what you may) By the way good job on explaining yourself...
Is this assumption I’ve made correct?
Oh, just a thought, an particle of antimatter + a particle of matter= tons of energy, NOT 0
How could your theory explain the phenomena?
I'm not trying to be critical, I actually agree, I'm just getting your opinion,
Cryptoscientia
[quote="QuantumArtist"]Wanted a bump! Just wanted to see if any of the new peeps wanted to add some thought to this idea. I really do think I'm onto something here.[/quote]
I believe that energy is separate from matter but you're saying the energy can be positive, negative or neutral. I would say energy is a wave and therefore it can't have a sign (unless you want to call the crest positive and the trough negative but that just depends on your frame of reference). Maybe I'm just misunderstanding but when I think of positive and negative energies I think of protons and electrons, respectively, and the addition of those would make something neutral. I don't know, I might be stuck in my old habits of thinking and missing your point completely.
Were you saying gravity is this neutral energy (positive energy + negative energy) or just a neutral energy?
I think I've read this explanation from a couple different books. Gravity is the curving of space time. If you can imagine the universe as a 2-D piece of plastic wrap wrapped around the top of a bowl and you put a marble on top of that plastic wrap, it's going to stretch the plastic wrap. Here's a link to a picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spacetime_curvature.png
My explanation problem isn't the best read but it's getting late here.
One more thing. I do think there are areas in space where there is no gravity (or where gravity is so small it can be neglected). If you look at the universal law of gravitation:
F = GMm / r^2
F is force from gravity
G is gravitational constant (6.67 * 10^-8 )
M and m are the masses of the bodies in questions and
r is the distance between the bodies.
If we take the sun (M = 1.98892 × 10^30 kg) and say someone who's mass is 100 kg at a distance of one light year (r = 9.4605284 × 10^15 m)
We get
F ~ 1.5 * 10^-7 or 0.15 micro Newtons.
Before we start pointing out errors I chose the sun because its the most massive body in our solar system and I chose to ignore the other bodies of our solar system because I don't have the patience. Also note that the closest body to our solar system, I believe, is Proxima Centauri at ~ 4.2 light years. I'd also like to point out that the person floating in space is creating his own gravity but I just used that person to get a number out of the above equation (he/she doesn't necessarily have to be there).
To make this a fair calculation I would have had to take every body in the Milky Way galaxy and add up all their gravitational contributions. I just wanted to show that if I can find a place where the force of gravity is so small it can be negligible there are probably places were the force of gravity is even less. And the universe is expanding (everything is moving away from everything else), if there isn't a place where the force of gravity is zero, there will be one day.
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:14 am Post subject:
The thought that energy is a wave or a current actually is not rudimentary enough! You have to think even more simply to understand what I think really is. For example,
A wave is a pulsing and rythmic, motion. These are actions which define a wave. Point is, the wave is not the energy, the actions which define it are. Ponder this thought long enough and you'll find yourself asking questions like, what defines the parameters of a "wave"? Action governing action within parameters. Its the parameters that set ranges of reactions, and possible outcomes of any action. A simple exercise using very simple verbs we all understand... consider the following words and what you first think of when you read it;
Fly
Run
Shock
hot
These 4 simple words define for actions we all recognize. Whatever you recognize it to be is from an understanding of the bounds which define that action.
Also, to point out the NEED for action to have matter, each of these words makes no mention of an object which is flying, running, getting shocked or is hot. We presume there is a thing performing or having the action performed on them, because these verbs would not exist were it not so.
Energy is an action. The key here is to understand actions NEED for matter. Without matter, an action doesn't have meaning.
The reason I point this out is that most every explanation I've read about the existence of an energy is associated with a specific particle.
THIS IS KEY- I believe that the reason gravity eludes us is because its either not associated with a particle at all, or effects all particles of matter.
I lean toward the latter. I believe gravity, which I propose to be this neutral entity, exists everywhere, but like any action- effects matter most where matter is most prevalent.
I believe it doesn't act as polar energies for all the mathematical reasons I posted earlier, because it is both polar forces fused together.
In the wave picture presented by CryptoScientia (thanks by the way), the polar wave relationship remains true. But what you'd see from a neutral energy is not suprisingly....
____________________________________
Though I gather your picture is effectively the same;
±1...../.........\/........\/..........\
If this neutral entity existed, it would not travel the same way as a purely polar force. This explains why we have been unable to track it, validate it, or quantify it. It simply doesn't travel in the same fashion as any other force.
In fact, the only force I propose that gravity is attracted to... is itself.
0=0
Or, I could also rewrite it to say,
(±1)+(±1)=0
In other words, neutral forces are attracted to themselves.
This might explain why larger planets have stronger gravity then smaller ones. The key is the amount of matter which is effected by the gravity. The gravity is there regardless. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:22 am Post subject:
Oh, and in reply to this question;
"Oh, just a thought, an particle of antimatter + a particle of matter= tons of energy, NOT 0
How could your theory explain the phenomena? "
Thats what I've been saying! 0 is not nothingness. Its a lot of something we don't understand well enough to quantify or utilize. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:26 am Post subject:
Oh, and now that I think about it...
Matter reacts to action. Anti matter would be no different. One could say that antimatter is simply a universal means of converting matter to energy, potentially even vice versa. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
You know that Electrons and protons and positrons and antiprotons are super stable partials. There stable ability is most among partials we know (quite possibly trillions of years), the next is the neutron. It has a life of around 11 to 15 minuets. The neutron will brake down into a Proton and Electron. According to research at CERN there is a special condition a certain probability of neutron will brake down into a positron and antiproton. The times it does not brake down into a positron and antiproton is when it sprays a number of elementary particles and especially Leptons.(see CERN Datalogs Pg 1254 sect. 4 vs's 2-6, I put it into my words)
Seeing that the neutron will "brake" into mostly electrons and protons and sometimes positrons and antiprotons, one might say that the "neutron IS an electron and proton (or in some cases a positrons and antiproton) mashed into one"
IF this is true, it could mean that there are LOTS of anti matter around us or even in us, but the antimatter's annihilation effect (when matter meets antimatter) is "canceled" because of the manner in witch the positron and antiproton are stuck into each other to form a neutron.
Oddly enough it could be that the “neutron” is a ±1 particle and a proton is a +1 and a electron is a -1 and positron is a +1(electron) and an antiproton is a -1(proton).
Thanks
Cryptoscientia
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject:
I really do think that the problem up to now has been a lack of understanding of the 0 value. With simple math, 1-1=0. So when we base most of our understanding of the nature of energy upon positive and negative powers, and mathematically prove them its VERY hard for us to conceive a power that actually does act upon us in terms that equal 0.
This whole thread is a theory that this 0 energy can exist, and how it acts in relation to the other polar powers we know so well already.
I believe that this force existing in the perpetually 0 state, or as ±1, is gravity. I believe this for all the reasons posted, and that all matter is effected by it. This includes electrons, protons, and neutrons, or gluons... no matter what level of matter, or how small it is, this force effects all matter.
I believe this simply because any force existing in a 0 polarity completely ignores any force existing in a +1 or -1 polarity. This allows it to effect any and all matter, regardless of their polarity.... This explains why protons and electrons have weight. They're being acted on by the 0 force, in spite of their polarity.
This explains other things, like how gravity keeps you on earth if you're standing on the charged poles of earth. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:27 pm Post subject:
Just seeing if there is still interest in this topic... _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:50 am Post subject:
Nobody have new input? I'm SLOWLY constructing a much more polished version of this theory. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
All times are GMT - 10 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
