Notices
Results 1 to 46 of 46

Thread: Theory of Everything

  1. #1 Theory of Everything 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    I am ressurrecting this post because it is my most importan work. Thank you.
    It is not necassary to read all the comments unless you choose to do so.


    A Theory of Everything

    Albert Einstein was working on a 'theory of everything' and after 30 years of his effort, he failed to develope one.

    So, through a serendipitous discovery, I got involved in this idea when I bought a second hand book at a library entitled: 'Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics' by Henry Semat, 4th Ed. On page 588, there was a list of atomic mass numbers (AMN) that included all the isotopes of all the elements up to bismuth that is the heaviest of the elements that is stable. This is a complete list of all the isotopes from one to beyond the last stable element that is bismuth at 209. See chart below:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope...%28complete%29

    Then I noticed a glaring omission of 2 AMN's. They where 5 and 8. These were the only 2 missing numbers that did not seem to make sense since the 'strong force' (SF) was strictly an attractive force that could not explain why these 2 numbers were missing.
    There was another peculiarity about this SF that was its 'extremely' short range of 10^-15 meters. This is the diameter of a nucleon! The 'weak force' had a still shorter range of 10^-18 meters.

    So I decided to evaluate why the SF did not explain this discrepency.
    Since the SF is supposed to be created in the star fusion process, I thought about why it did not function as it should.
    So evalating the central region (CR) of the stars and their nature of fusion, I came to the conclusion that the real forces involved in the fusion process were the coulomb force and the magnetic component of these EMF's to bind together to create the SF.

    The CR is packed close together to cause the electrons to bypass the protons at very close OPEN orbital passages to cause the protons to spin at very high spin rates. This causes the protons to have very strong magnetic force fields. These protons will align to attract but an electron is needed in between the two protons to complete the bind. This then creates a 'deuteron' nucleus that acts as a powerful 'bar' magnet with an electron sandwiched in between two protons. Then two of these deuteron bar magnets will automatically clamp together to form a helium nucleus.
    However, these fusion binds do not create any energies!

    The high velocity electrons bypassing the protons generate strong magnetic pulses because of the high velocity variations that the electrons have, to create the photons in these CRs and then work their way up to the surface of the stars to radiate the light that we see.

    The fusion I described above that involved the fusion of the helium nucleus, explains why a 5th particle is not involved. A 5th particle here cannot attach to the high spinning protons. The magnetic field patterns and spin rotations are all compatible.
    Also, 2 helium nuclei will not bind together because their is no electrons attached to the sides of these HN to bind together to form an AMN 8. So 2 HN cannot attach to each other.
    So this fusion process is simply a Quantum effect that involves the EMF's only.

    So, we can then create a new Grand Unified Theory by adding the Force of Gravity as a component of the EM forces
    There is sufficient evidence for this also. Gravity has 3 similarities to the EM forces to link these forces together.
    They all extend to infinte distances, they reduce in strength according to the 'Inverse Square Law relative to distance and a recent find has discovered that gravity propagates at the velocity of light.
    So how does this weak force couple with the powerful EM forces?
    Well, my opinion is that the protons acquire synchronous spins with the electron orbital movements through the coulomb attraction to create bypolar magnetic fields.
    So the protons will align themselves to attract with other protons nearby to create the gravitational attraction. But these attractions will be considerably weakend by the orbital electron mutual repulsions that are cycling. So this is an alternating repulsion while the protons are steadily attracting.

    So then there are ONLY the effects of the EM forces that exclude the strong force and the weak forces to result in a GUT of only the EMF's.

    This solution cannot be solved mathematically because visualization or imaging is required to come to this conclusion.

    Cosmo



    Cosmo
    That was a great explanation.

    What do you think of Monopoles?
    _________________
    Smile and live another day

    Back to top


    Cosmo Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject:


    Forum Ph.D.



    Joined: 22 Nov 2007
    Posts: 781

    Harry Costas wrote:
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

    Cosmo
    That was a great explanation.

    What do you think of Monopoles?


    Well, they have been searching for them for many years. So, I think they do not exist.

    Seems like everything in Nature moves around in circles. So that includes the magnetic fields also.

    Cosmo

    Back to top


    425 Chaotic Requisition Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject:


    The Doctor


    Joined: 18 Jun 2007
    Posts: 3517
    Location: ???
    In a circle, to at least complete one there at least only need be one direction.

    Back to top


    Cosmo Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject:


    Forum Ph.D.



    Joined: 22 Nov 2007
    Posts: 781

    425 Chaotic Requisition wrote:
    In a circle, to at least complete one there at least only need be one direction.


    Magnetic fields are shown to be moving in circles that have 'directions'.

    So MFs that have motions in opposite directions will attract while on the other hand, fields that are moving in the same directions, 'repel'.

    So the fields that are formed by these Magnetic interactions around the bar or horseshoe magnets will bulge in the central regions when in 'open space' between the poles because all the fields (lines) are moving in the same directions..

    Around the electric currents, there are the left hand rules' that govern the movements of the directions of these fields.

    Fields between the electric charges have similsr characteristics.

    Cosmo

    Back to top


    kojax Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject:


    Forum Professor



    Joined: 27 Mar 2007
    Posts: 1179

    Ok. I'm kind of in over my head, but I'm curious if this theory has anything to say about why iron (and other magnetic metals) behave differently than other elements when confronted with magnetic fields.


    And another general question I've been having: in a permanent magnet, does the magnetic field have motion to it even when the magnet is sitting still?

    Back to top


    miomaz Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:55 am Post subject:


    Forum Junior



    Joined: 17 Oct 2006
    Posts: 292
    Location: Germany
    Interesting theory, I don't think i can fully comprehend it, yet. I have a question:
    You say that the EM force and gravity are unified by your theory, while the Higgs-field also tackkles the unification of those 2 foreces and the other two - should your theory support the Higgs-field theory?
    _________________
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.

    Back to top


    Harry Costas Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:29 am Post subject:


    Forum Junior



    Joined: 17 Jul 2008
    Posts: 251
    Location: Australia
    G'day from the land of ozzzz

    Iron properties, I had this in my computer.


    Magnetic Properties of Iron and Low-Carbon Steel for Soft Magnet Application.
    http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=get...fier=ADA134120

    Quote:
    Abstract : An investigation was conducted to assess the relative merits of five soft magnet materials proposed as alternatives to ARMCO Electromagnet Iron (EMI), which is no longer available. Four irons and an SAE J403 (1005)(Unified Numbering System UNS G10050) steel were considered. When annealed in 94% nitrogen-6% hydrogen at 843 degrees C (1550 degrees F) for 4 hours and aged at 100 degrees C (212 degrees F) for 400 hours, two of the irons were found to be equivalent to EMI with regard to both coercive force and magnetic stability. A third iron exhibited similar magnetic properties after annealing, but required a higher annealing temperature to reduce the coercive force to an acceptable value. The fourth iron and the 1005 steel met the coercive force requirement after annealing at 843 degrees C (1550 degrees F) in 94% nitrogen-6% hydrogen, but suffered significant increases in coercive force during aging at 100 degrees C (212 degrees F).


    Magnetic properties of materials
    http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/mu/


    Iron
    Iron and Magnetism
    http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/iron.htm
    _________________
    Smile and live another day

    Back to top


    Cosmo Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject:


    Forum Ph.D.



    Joined: 22 Nov 2007
    Posts: 781

    kojax wrote:
    Ok. I'm kind of in over my head, but I'm curious if this theory has anything to say about why iron (and other magnetic metals) behave differently than other elements when confronted with magnetic fields.


    And another general question I've been having: in a permanent magnet, does the magnetic field have motion to it even when the magnet is sitting still?


    I have been thinking about this also and I am curious myself as to why iron has this property.

    Cosmo

    Back to top


    Cosmo Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject:


    Forum Ph.D.



    Joined: 22 Nov 2007
    Posts: 781

    miomaz wrote:
    Interesting theory, I don't think i can fully comprehend it, yet. I have a question:
    You say that the EM force and gravity are unified by your theory, while the Higgs-field also tackkles the unification of those 2 foreces and the other two - should your theory support the Higgs-field theory?


    Since the Higgs field is still a theoretical concept that has not yet been confirmed to exist, I have not bothered to study it.

    Cosmo

    Back to top


    Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First


    Page 1 of 1

    Science Forum Forum Index » Astronomy & Cosmology » Theory of Everything Jump to: Select a forum Natural Sciences----------------Astronomy & CosmologyBiologyChemistryEarth SciencesMathematicsPhysics People----------------Behavioral & Social SciencesHealth & MedicinePhilosophical DiscussionHistoryReligionPoliticsCriminology and Forensic Science General Technology----------------Computer ScienceElectronicsMilitary Technology Information Technology----------------Business & EconomicsEducationEngineering & Transportation International Issues----------------Environmental IssuesIn the News The Science Forum----------------General DiscussionIntroductionsSciencctionExperimentationP seudoscienceLinksArt and Culture Site





    thescienceforum.com
    Hosted by Interwrx.com

    Sponsored by EnluxLED

    Partner Forums
    Politics Forum Radar Detector


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Theory of Everything 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    This solution cannot be solved mathematically because visualization or imaging is required to come to this conclusion.
    I've read your post and I'm visualizing a small, elf-like being dressed in green holding a pot of gold while riding a white horse with a single twisted horn coming out of it's head.

    Amazing! It works!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    There is sufficient evidence for this also. Gravity has 3 similarities to the EM forces to link these forces together.
    They all extend to infinte distances, they reduce in strength according to the 'Inverse Square Law relative to distance and a recent find has discovered that gravity propagates at the velocity of light
    If that is so, perhaps you can explain why gravity is caused by mass and electromagentism by charges? Also, the fact that gravity propogates a the speed of light is hardly a new discovery; Einstein invented general relativity to make gravity consistent with the special theory of relativity, which holds that nothing may go faster than light.

    So evalating the central region (CR) of the stars and their nature of fusion, I came to the conclusion that the real forces involved in the fusion process were the coulomb force and the magnetic component of these EMF's to bind together to create the SF
    So why does the strong force affect only quarks, as opposed to other subatmoic particles? surely they too possess the requisite requirements you state.

    Then I noticed a glaring omission of 2 AMN's. They where 5 and 8. These were the only 2 missing numbers that did not seem to make sense since the 'strong force' (SF) was strictly an attractive force that could not explain why these 2 numbers were missing
    The reason these numbers do not exist is because the strong force renders them unstable.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    If that is so, perhaps you can explain why gravity is caused by mass and electromagentism by charges? Also, the fact that gravity propogates a the speed of light is hardly a new discovery; Einstein invented general relativity to make gravity consistent with the special theory of relativity, which holds that nothing may go faster than light.
    The electric forces are intrinsic to matter and are 'fixed' in value. The magnetic forces are products of matter motions and are variable in values.
    So matter forces are a result of matter plus the motion that creates the magnetic component.
    The finite velocity was known before Einstein made that discovery.
    And the speed of gravity was recently determined here by experiment.

    So why does the strong force affect only quarks, as opposed to other subatmoic particles? surely they too possess the requisite requirements you state.
    Quarks are NOT real particles because they do NOT exist in a free state.
    Even the neutronsw are not stable particles since they have a lifespan of only
    10-15 minutes.
    The only stable particles are the electron and the proton. All other elements are fused in the starts by gravity.
    Do you understand the nature of the strong fprce? It is attractive only like gravity but has a very short range of 10^-15 meters that is the size of a single nucleon.
    Do you accept that" If you do than can you explain why the SF discriminates against a 5th particle (atomic mass 5) since it is an attractive force only.

    The reason these numbers do not exist is because the strong force renders them unstable.
    If gravity does not discriminate against mass sizes, why should the SF do that?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    The electric forces are intrinsic to matter and are 'fixed' in value. The magnetic forces are products of matter motions and are variable in values.
    How do you know that they are intrinsic to matter? The neutrino is chargeless, as is the neutron.

    So matter forces are a result of matter plus the motion that creates the magnetic component
    Not necessarily. Gravity can act on objects at rest and not necessarily in motion.

    The finite velocity was known before Einstein made that discovery.
    That is true. However, it was not proposed that the speed of light is always constant; the ether was still a widely believed phenomena. Einstein's first postulate said that this in effect: that the speed of light never changes in a vacuum. General relativity was later the fruit of Einstein's efforts to make gravity, which, according to Newton dynamics could act instantaneously across large distance, violated this sacrosanct postulate. As a result, we have known, for the past century, that gravity does not travel at the speed of light. It is hardly a new discovery.

    Do you understand the nature of the strong fprce? It is attractive only like gravity but has a very short range of 10^-15 meters that is the size of a single nucleon.
    Do you accept that" If you do than can you explain why the SF discriminates against a 5th particle (atomic mass 5) since it is an attractive force only.
    In this, you are utterly wrong. The strong force is not wholly attractive. After 10^-15 metres it is completely repulsive, preventing any nucleon from coming together. Only when this barrier is corssed does it become excfeedingly attractive, resulting in the nucleus.
    This is why any nucleus of atomic no.5 may not be made, because of the repulsive nature of the strong force.

    If gravity does not discriminate against mass sizes, why should the SF do that?
    Because the strong force depends not just on mass, but on the velocities and charges of the particles involved. That is why it discriminates against particles.

    Quarks are NOT real particles because they do NOT exist in a free state.
    That is true. I cannot deny this. However, they are required theoretically, so on a purely theoretical basis, please explain why the strong force acts on quarks alone, and not on other particles, such as the electron, neutrino, and other leptons.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    How do you know that they are intrinsic to matter? The neutrino is chargeless, as is the neutron.
    The neutrino is irrelavent to the universe, so I do not bother with these mystery particles(?)
    The neutron is also not a stable particle.

    Not necessarily. Gravity can act on objects at rest and not necessarily in motion.
    So what does that prove? It proves that gravity is intrinsic to the matter just as the coulomb forces are.

    That is true. However, it was not proposed that the speed of light is always constant; the ether was still a widely believed phenomena. Einstein's first postulate said that this in effect: that the speed of light never changes in a vacuum. General relativity was later the fruit of Einstein's efforts to make gravity, which, according to Newton dynamics could act instantaneously across large distance, violated this sacrosanct postulate. As a result, we have known, for the past century, that gravity does not travel at the speed of light. It is hardly a new discovery.
    It wa announced here about a year ago that gravity propogates as the velocity of light. This was detewrmined by experiment. Period.

    In this, you are utterly wrong. The strong force is not wholly attractive. After 10^-15 metres it is completely repulsive, preventing any nucleon from coming together. Only when this barrier is corssed does it become excfeedingly attractive, resulting in the nucleus.
    This is why any nucleus of atomic no.5 may not be made, because of the repulsive nature of the strong force.
    Can you quote the source of that last statement?

    Because the strong force depends not just on mass, but on the velocities and charges of the particles involved. That is why it discriminates against particles.
    Again, quote the sources of this?


    That is true. I cannot deny this. However, they are required theoretically, so on a purely theoretical basis, please explain why the strong force acts on quarks alone, and not on other particles, such as the electron, neutrino, and other leptons.
    That is for you to explain. I do not consider the SF to be as currently described

    Cosmo

    By the way, I have a HACKER here on my computer giving me problems again.
    He interupts my replies by cutting of the DESKTOP DISPLAT to blank my screen.
    Is he a buddy of yours?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    The neutrino is irrelavent to the universe, so I do not bother with these mystery particles(?)
    Despite the fact that neutrinos exist, have a small mass, and would have caused a completely different universe to be formed? The neutrino is more than relevant to the universe, so I suggest you bother with them.

    It wa announced here about a year ago that gravity propogates as the velocity of light. This was detewrmined by experiment. Period.
    Oh really? Could you tell me what the experiment was? I'm quite interested in knowing how someone managed to measure the speed of gravity.

    Quote:

    In this, you are utterly wrong. The strong force is not wholly attractive. After 10^-15 metres it is completely repulsive, preventing any nucleon from coming together. Only when this barrier is corssed does it become excfeedingly attractive, resulting in the nucleus.
    This is why any nucleus of atomic no.5 may not be made, because of the repulsive nature of the strong force.


    Can you quote the source of that last statement?
    Indeed, the strong force is repulsive at small distances as seen by this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force

    Pay close attention to the basic properties section.

    As for my last sentence, I spologise, I meant to say mass no . 5. Boron is atomic no.5, apparently. Indeed, I must admit, I cannot, although the information is given in Alan Guth's The Inflationary Universe. In the meantime, I will keep looking and give you a source.

    Quote:

    Because the strong force depends not just on mass, but on the velocities and charges of the particles involved. That is why it discriminates against particles.



    Again, quote the sources of this?
    Once again, I apologise. Instead of charge, it should be spin. This information comes from Frank Wilczek's The lightness of Being. Frank Wilczek was an important developer of the theory of the strong interaction.
    I am sorry I cannot give you a stronger source. However, I will also continue to search for them.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Liongold

    As I said before, I ignore all this theory that is not realistic.

    Quarks are NOT real particles and therefore, do not have anything to do with the universe.

    IMO, there are ONLY two real particles and that is the 'electron' and the 'proton'.
    These two particles have been thoroughly studied and have charge, mass and a physical size that is 10^-15 meters.

    The BBT that is accepted by the establishment science is not credible and if they can promote a universe that is not credible, than I cannot give their other sciences credibility as well.

    That Feyman diagram is called a virtual photon and IMO, there is no such a thing as a virtual photon. That interaction could be a magnetic interaction.
    Also, It does not explain the fusion of these particles to form a deuteron.

    Cosmo

    My theory explains how that is done.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Liongold

    As I said before, I ignore all this theory that is not realistic.

    Quarks are NOT real particles and therefore, do not have anything to do with the universe.

    IMO, there are ONLY two real particles and that is the 'electron' and the 'proton'.
    These two particles have been thoroughly studied and have charge, mass and a physical size that is 10^-15 meters.

    The BBT that is accepted by the establishment science is not credible and if they can promote a universe that is not credible, than I cannot give their other sciences credibility as well.

    That Feyman diagram is called a virtual photon and IMO, there is no such a thing as a virtual photon. That interaction could be a magnetic interaction.
    Also, It does not explain the fusion of these particles to form a deuteron.

    Cosmo

    My theory explains how that is done.

    Cosmo
    Yet quarks have been perfectly well observed, simply not isolated from other quarks. Why do you think quantum chromodynamics is so widely accepted? Because it manages to explain the curious properties of these particles.

    So you discard the existence of the neutron? I see. That makes no sense whatsoever, since every single particle that has mass must have gravity. Neutrons have mass and no charge. Therefore it must have gravity. By linking gravity as a component of electromagnetism, you deny the neutron the chance to possess gravity, contradicting Newton's lw of universal gravity.

    Besides, the fact that the neutron makes up quite a lot of mass in the nucleus must mean something.

    Why do you cosnider the big bang theory to be incredible? Can you explain why?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Yet quarks have been perfectly well observed, simply not isolated from other quarks. Why do you think quantum chromodynamics is so widely accepted? Because it manages to explain the curious properties of these particles.
    Because for the same reason that Einsteins Mass/Energy formula is accepted.

    So you discard the existence of the neutron? I see. That makes no sense whatsoever, since every single particle that has mass must have gravity. Neutrons have mass and no charge. Therefore it must have gravity. By linking gravity as a component of electromagnetism, you deny the neutron the chance to possess gravity, contradicting Newton's lw of universal gravity.

    Besides, the fact that the neutron makes up quite a lot of mass in the nucleus must mean something.
    Who said the neutron does not have gravity? The neutron is a component of an electron and a proton fused together. So it has mass.

    But this fusion is not permanent unless it has another proton to form a deuteron that is fused in the stars. But in isolation, the neutron decays back into an electron and a proton. So it is not stable as an isolated particle.

    Why do you cosnider the big bang theory to be incredible? Can you explain why?
    Incredible? I said NOT credible.
    There are several reasons for this. They are:

    Arps redshift anomaly that falsifies the expansion of space as the cause of the cosmological RS.

    The RS of the CMBR as a remnant of the BBT that is 1000.
    This RS if falsified by the RS of the Virgo Cluster.

    MY mathematical proof currently on the Cosmology Sector that supports Arps RS Anomaly.

    There are other reasons as well.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    Incredible? I said NOT credible.
    I think you misunderstand me. The opposite of credible is incredible. Just thought you should know that. Thanks.

    Because for the same reason that Einsteins Mass/Energy formula is accepted.
    I don't quite follow what you mean. is a perfectly valid expression, and has been experimentally verified.

    Who said the neutron does not have gravity? The neutron is a component of an electron and a proton fused together. So it has mass.

    But this fusion is not permanent unless it has another proton to form a deuteron that is fused in the stars. But in isolation, the neutron decays back into an electron and a proton. So it is not stable as an isolated particle.
    I was referring to your linking gravity as a component of electromagnetism, pointing out why it denied the neutron a chance to survive. It makes sense when the neutron decays, but how about when it hasn't?

    Arps redshift anomaly that falsifies the expansion of space as the cause of the cosmological RS.

    The RS of the CMBR as a remnant of the BBT that is 1000.
    This RS if falsified by the RS of the Virgo Cluster
    And this redshift anomaly is where? I think you're confusing the Big Bang with inflation, because the fact that cosmic microwave background exists alone is grounds for verification.

    Could you quote a source so I could look into this redshift anomaly more clearly?

    I would appreciate it if you elucidated the reasons for your opinion on the big bang theory.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    MY mathematical proof currently on the Cosmology Sector that supports Arps RS Anomaly.
    Is that another lie, Cosmo? Didn't you say you never use math and one must "visualize" your assertions?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    MY mathematical proof currently on the Cosmology Sector that supports Arps RS Anomaly.
    Is that another lie, Cosmo? Didn't you say you never use math and one must "visualize" your assertions?
    I never said you must not use math. I endorsed the Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr models of Math.
    But these are based on observations (technical visualization) and experimantations.

    So math here was preceded by these observations and experiments.
    That is why I say math is a 'sub' science based on the above.
    I do not consider math to be the 'ultimate' science in itself but since it is given so much credibility, I use it when needed.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    I don't quite follow what you mean. is a perfectly valid expression, and has been experimentally verified.
    I have refuted this formula on other threads. So I will repeat here:
    In any 'energy' formula that includes light or 'c' must include the 'frequency' because photons come in different ENERGY levels.

    I was referring to your linking gravity as a component of electromagnetism, pointing out why it denied the neutron a chance to survive. It makes sense when the neutron decays, but how about when it hasn't?
    From a universal view, its temporary existance is not that relavant.

    And this redshift anomaly is where? I think you're confusing the Big Bang with inflation, because the fact that cosmic microwave background exists alone is grounds for verification.

    Could you quote a source so I could look into this redshift anomaly more clearly?

    I would appreciate it if you elucidated the reasons for your opinion on the big bang theory.
    Arp's RS Anomaly is the strongest evidence with his examples with NGC 7603 and many others. Search this galaxy pair on the web.

    I esplained the CMBR RS on an earlier reply here on this thread. Check back.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    I never said you must not use math.
    But, you use it selectively, and that is your own personal bias.

    I endorsed the Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr models of Math.
    But these are based on observations (technical visualization) and experimantations.
    YOU endorsed? Are YOU the arbiter of when math can be used and when it can't?

    I use it when needed.
    Yes, selectively, to suit your agenda. Sorry, pal, doesn't work that way.

    Btw, Arp was a very bad mathematician, and it showed.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    I have refuted this formula on other threads. So I will repeat here:
    In any 'energy' formula that includes light or 'c' must include the 'frequency' because photons come in different ENERGY levels.
    Sorry, that's NOT a refutation. You need to show math that refutes math.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    I don't quite follow what you mean. is a perfectly valid expression, and has been experimentally verified.
    I have refuted this formula on other threads. So I will repeat here:
    In any 'energy' formula that includes light or 'c' must include the 'frequency' because photons come in different ENERGY levels.
    Now, that's easy: Replace . On the other hand: c is merely a physical constant here. It does not mean that particles actually travel with that speed. It is even only valid for particles that have a mass, i.e. not for photons. And massive particles never reach the speed of light. So, it makes no sense to even expect a relation to photon properties.

    There is another important relation that would add the dependency on a wavelength: the de Broglie's particle-wave dualism. According to him, you can attribute a wavelength to particles as much you can attribute a momentum to photons.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    Darn, Dishmaster, I was just about to refute him on that. :wink:

    I have refuted this formula on other threads. So I will repeat here:
    In any 'energy' formula that includes light or 'c' must include the 'frequency' because photons come in different ENERGY levels.
    where is the frequency and is Planck's constant.

    is also valid. Simply replace with the Plank-Einstein-Schrodinger formula, and voila! You get



    So there is no refutation.

    From a universal view, its temporary existance is not that relavant.
    I have already given you evidence that without the neutrino, the galaxies we know today would not have formed. Similarly, neutrons occupy a crucial place in the world. Atoms would not have the mass we know, uranium would not be radioactive, there would be no way to cause nuclear reactions, and many of the elements we know today would not have formed. Neutrons do matter, and if they don't, I would like to ask you to give me a suitable excuse for not including them, considering they comprise quite a bit of our universe.

    Btw, Arp was a very bad mathematician, and it showed.
    Won't argue with Q here, unless you can give me a specific site.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    I have refuted this formula on other threads. So I will repeat here:
    In any 'energy' formula that includes light or 'c' must include the 'frequency' because photons come in different ENERGY levels.
    Sorry, that's NOT a refutation. You need to show math that refutes math.
    I only accept math that deals with REAL single values like electron
    mass = 9.109x10^-31 kilograms or Plancks constant that = 6.626x10^-34 Joules.

    In Einsteins M/E formula, m is a variable while (c) is a constant regarding the velocity of ALL vavelengths. So when using (c) in an energy formula, you have to include the frequency to get an exact value.

    I provided a formula based on this principle with real values to give Plancks constant a 'physical' solution to represent the PC mathematical version
    This formula is similar to Einsteins E=mc^2.

    I substituted E with PC. m with the m of an electron. And c^2 with Lambda^2 that reduces to Lambda.

    6.626x10^-34 = 9.109x10^31 x Lambda^2
    Rearranging the formula to solve for Lambda, we get Lambda = PC/m

    6.626x10^-34/9.109x10^-31 = .000727412 Square root of L = .0727412 = .02697 meters

    You can say this wavelength represents the tiniest energy wavelenth in the universe that comes close to absolute zero.
    The CMBR wavelength is equal to about 2 milimeters or .002 at a temperature of 2.73K.

    So the PC physical component is just that. I do not think you can use it in any other way.
    It is all 'exact' values. No variables.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Now, that's easy: Replace . On the other hand: c is merely a physical constant here. It does not mean that particles actually travel with that speed. It is even only valid for particles that have a mass, i.e. not for photons. And massive particles never reach the speed of light. So, it makes no sense to even expect a relation to photon properties.

    There is another important relation that would add the dependency on a wavelength: the de Broglie's particle-wave dualism. According to him, you can attribute a wavelength to particles as much you can attribute a momentum to photons.

    I do not accept the particle/wave duality.
    Electrons 'generate' waves (photons) but do not substitute for waves.

    The electric fields surrounding the electrons are the carriers of the waves.
    In the normaly continuous standing waves of the hydrogen atom that radiates the one angstrom wavelength, the motions around the proton cause the electric fields to move with the electron to generate the waves. So the electron does not IMO act as a wave but does generate the wave.
    In other words, I do not consider the two to be interchangeable.
    Matter is matter and the waves are elergies that result from the motions of the particles.

    So light energies are determined by the frequencies of the photon wavelengths only.
    The Bohr atomic model explains how these energy levels are created.
    It is based on Quantum physics and the HA only.

    So E'sF is not practical for solving light energies and the energy in the universe is generated (95%) in the stars.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Now, that's easy: Replace . On the other hand: c is merely a physical constant here. It does not mean that particles actually travel with that speed. It is even only valid for particles that have a mass, i.e. not for photons. And massive particles never reach the speed of light. So, it makes no sense to even expect a relation to photon properties.

    There is another important relation that would add the dependency on a wavelength: the de Broglie's particle-wave dualism. According to him, you can attribute a wavelength to particles as much you can attribute a momentum to photons.

    I do not accept the particle/wave duality.
    Electrons 'generate' waves (photons) but do not substitute for waves.
    But you can create diffraction patterns with electrons, similar to the ones you get with photons. The detectors used in these experiments react on electrons, not photons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    I only accept math that deals with REAL single values like electron
    mass = 9.109x10^-31 kilograms or Plancks constant that = 6.626x10^-34 Joules.

    In Einsteins M/E formula, m is a variable while (c) is a constant regarding the velocity of ALL vavelengths. So when using (c) in an energy formula, you have to include the frequency to get an exact value.
    'M' must be a variable, that is the entire point.

    The frequency is irrelevant, as Dishmaster points out that we do not" expect a relation to photon properties."

    It is all 'exact' values. No variables.

    Cosmo
    Again, the mass MUST be variable, that is the entire point.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    I only accept math that deals with REAL single values like electron
    mass = 9.109x10^-31 kilograms or Plancks constant that = 6.626x10^-34 Joules.
    Maths, however, does not believe in REAL single values, as you say. If you want to show that all possible variations follow something, then you have to use variables.

    Also, there are two formulas: the Planck-Einstein-Schrodinger formula and the energy-mass equivalence one. The former is used to calculate the energy of waves, while the latter the energy of particles.

    Electrons 'generate' waves (photons) but do not substitute for waves.
    Incorrect. The only known way to accomodate electrons in their orbits is by treating them as waves, and indeed they display many similar properties to waves. Waves behave like particles, particles like waves: a fundamental, inescapable truth of the cosmos.

    The electric fields surrounding the electrons are the carriers of the waves.
    In the normaly continuous standing waves of the hydrogen atom that radiates the one angstrom wavelength, the motions around the proton cause the electric fields to move with the electron to generate the waves. So the electron does not IMO act as a wave but does generate the wave.
    In other words, I do not consider the two to be interchangeable.
    Matter is matter and the waves are elergies that result from the motions of the particles.
    Cosmo, up till now, I had you down as a reasonable, intelligent man who understands the way science works. I'm afraid you've just let me down on that count. Science is based on experiment, and theories are governed by experiment; a thweory can be discarded on the basis of a single wrong digit. If you do not consider the two to be interchangeable, then you will go wrong by following that hypothesis, because nature has already shown the wave-particle duality to be true.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    But you can create diffraction patterns with electrons, similar to the ones you get with photons. The detectors used in these experiments react on electrons, not photons.
    I have an answer for that too.

    The electrons going through the 'slits' react with the electrons in the edges of the slits.
    Even if the slits were reduced in 'width' to the width of one electron, there would still be interactions with the matter electrons of the slits.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    'M' must be a variable, that is the entire point.
    In the light energies, mass is not even used. It is the frequency that is used.

    The frequency is irrelevant, as Dishmaster points out that we do not" expect a relation to photon properties."
    Again, photons have NO mass. So all the light formulas use frequecy to dertermine the energy.

    Cosmo

    PS That hacker is here again blacking out my 'desktop display .
    A friend of yours (Q)
    To the HACKER, You are an ILLEGAL, So disappear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    PS That hacker is here again blacking out my 'desktop display .
    A friend of yours (Q)
    To the HACKER, You are an ILLEGAL, So disappear.
    Come now, Cosmo. I may be abrasive, arrogant and rude, but not malicious to that extent.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    In the light energies, mass is not even used. It is the frequency that is used.
    But, M must be used as one is deriving a MASS/energy equivalence.

    Again, photons have NO mass. So all the light formulas use frequecy to dertermine the energy.
    That may be for energy, but not for mass, which is what we're talking about. Are your referring to e=hv?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Again, photons have NO mass. So all the light formulas use frequecy to dertermine the energy.
    I still don't understand, why you don't understand. is the formula for the equivalence of energy and mass. This is e.g. applied in pair formation or annihilation. The relativistic total energy (rest energy + kinetic energy) of a positron and an electron is . As soon as they annihilate, they produce a photon of the energy . Both energy values are equal because of conservation of energy. This leads to:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Maths, however, does not believe in REAL single values, as you say. If you want to show that all possible variations follow something, then you have to use variables.

    Also, there are two formulas: the Planck-Einstein-Schrodinger formula and the energy-mass equivalence one. The former is used to calculate the energy of waves, while the latter the energy of particles.
    DE Broglie is the creator of the 'matter wave' concept.
    His formula is simple .

    Lambda = h/mv v stands for velocity.

    His formula for light is E = hv v here is frequency.

    Incorrect. The only known way to accomodate electrons in their orbits is by treating them as waves, and indeed they display many similar properties to waves. Waves behave like particles, particles like waves: a fundamental, inescapable truth of the cosmos.
    These waves are the 'standing' waves generated by the electons and are completely useless.
    The Planck Quanta are the waves that are important and these 'quanta' are not waves, but 'pulses' of energy that are the energies of interest .
    See the Bohr model of the HA.

    The photons are the only light we need to be interested in.
    They are the only sources that transmit energy

    Cosmo

    PS That HACKER did it again. Its too bad there are no web cops to dispose of these illegals .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    DE Broglie is the creator of the 'matter wave' concept.
    His formula is simple .

    Lambda = h/mv v stands for velocity.

    His formula for light is E = hv v here is frequency
    The latter formula you quote is exactly what I wrote. Further, he did not create the formula, but Planck did.

    And weren't you against using maths without REAL single values, as you called them?

    These waves are the 'standing' waves generated by the electons and are completely useless.
    Oh, really? How does that allow them to revolve in specific orbits?

    Electrons revolve in those orbits where their waves do not overlap each other i.e. the waves form a complete ring. Bohr's original paper used this concept to explain why the electrons revolved in specified orbits. I assure you, the "standing waves" you speak of weren't integral at all to the process.

    The Planck Quanta are the waves that are important and these 'quanta' are not waves, but 'pulses' of energy that are the energies of interest .
    I thought you just said that you didn't believe in the particle-wave duality. The very fact that you use the word photons implies that you do. Before 1905, people were firmly convinced that light was a wave, thanks to several experiments that validated this idea. After that, however, both Max Planck's idea and einstein's paper managed to convince parts of the scientific community that light was both a wave and a particle.

    What, then, according to you is the true nature of light?

    The photons are the only light we need to be interested in.
    They are the only sources that transmit energy
    Dude, photons are light. What other kind of light can we be interested in?

    Also, what about bosons of the strong and weak forces? Don't they have energy too?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by liongold
    Dude, photons are light. What other kind of light can we be interested in?

    Also, what about bosons of the strong and weak forces? Don't they have energy too?
    The word energy is a very broad term.

    Before Planck, light was considered to be a continuous wave.
    This would apply to the standing waves as portrayed by DeBrolie.
    These waves are useless because we do not see them.
    But in electronics, they serve a purpose as 'carrier' waves that can be modified to transmit intelligence. So this requires the 'magnetic' component' to modify these waves.

    Photons, on the other hand, are just pulses of energies. So they are not waves since they have a frequency of 'one'.
    This is the light we see and also feeds the plants for energy.

    So how can you associate these photons with mass? These energies are determined by their wavelength only. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy because shorter pulses have higher frequencies that gives them higher energies.
    These are not particles and do not have any mass.

    Cosmo


    _________________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    By linking gravity as a component of electromagnetism, you deny the neutron the chance to possess gravity, contradicting Newton's lw of universal gravity.
    Weightlessness was an indication therefore natures physical properties contradict Newtons law of universal gravity as well, I think.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Theory of everything? How do we even know that there is an "everything"? Personally, if one form of existence holds the capacity of infinite, then life indeed is infinite. Many believe numbers are infinite, many know that there is an infinite amount of space between 0.9 and 1; infinite is infinite - it simply never ends. However, when you create infinite, it has already gone on forever; it has never had a beginning and thus, has existed forever! - it never has an end either!

    And this brings me to my conclusion, that you cannot create a theory of everything, simply because life is infinite; if life is infinite, it cannot contain "everything" as it only contains "infinite".

    Considering this, you will know that M theory is automatically justified; there are an infinite quantity of universes, and infinite of everything that is thus, infinite.

    However, consequently, infinite life introduces the fact that infinite has already occurred, will occur and is occurring simultaneously; in order to pertain an infinite quantity of possibilities, one must initiation upon infinite occurrences.

    It's strange, odd, wonderful, disgusting and beautiful; consequent to life being infinite, anything will occur; it's a mere coincidence that we're in the world we're within, but consequently, one could spontaneously disappear into another world. An infinite life also suggests that one will proceed throughout an infinite capacity of both suffering and pleasure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    An infinite life also suggests that one will proceed throughout an infinite capacity of both suffering and pleasure.
    This bit seems oddly familiar..... Been here before?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    An infinite life also suggests that one will proceed throughout an infinite capacity of both suffering and pleasure.
    This bit seems oddly familiar..... Been here before?
    Where? - Was that sarcasm? :P
    Well, ultimately by the principles of infinite life we have already communicated and in one occurrence, I'm on Mars telepathically talking to you over to Earth
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    Theory of everything? How do we even know that there is an "everything"? Personally, if one form of existence holds the capacity of infinite, then life indeed is infinite. Many believe numbers are infinite, many know that there is an infinite amount of space between 0.9 and 1; infinite is infinite - it simply never ends. However, when you create infinite, it has already gone on forever; it has never had a beginning and thus, has existed forever! - it never has an end either!
    The ToE applies only to the forces of the physical universe or in other words, the Grand Unified Theory.

    And this brings me to my conclusion, that you cannot create a theory of everything, simply because life is infinite; if life is infinite, it cannot contain "everything" as it only contains "infinite".
    As I said, this theory applies only to the physical universe.

    Regarding life, although life is a replicating form from an animal egg or the seed (plant egg), it cannot exist just anywhere. Its environment must be hospitable for its existance.

    However, life can also have an infinite existence in the universe if the STEM CELLS can live in a dorment state at 3K that is the temperature of the CMBR.

    Considering this, you will know that M theory is automatically justified; there are an infinite quantity of universes, and infinite of everything that is thus, infinite.

    However, consequently, infinite life introduces the fact that infinite has already occurred, will occur and is occurring simultaneously; in order to pertain an infinite quantity of possibilities, one must initiation upon infinite occurrences.

    It's strange, odd, wonderful, disgusting and beautiful; consequent to life being infinite, anything will occur; it's a mere coincidence that we're in the world we're within, but consequently, one could spontaneously disappear into another world. An infinite life also suggests that one will proceed throughout an infinite capacity of both suffering and pleasure.
    regarding the M T, This is just speculation.

    These last words of yours can be describing the spiritual world that I believe in and know exists.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    Theory of everything? How do we even know that there is an "everything"? Personally, if one form of existence holds the capacity of infinite, then life indeed is infinite. Many believe numbers are infinite, many know that there is an infinite amount of space between 0.9 and 1; infinite is infinite - it simply never ends. However, when you create infinite, it has already gone on forever; it has never had a beginning and thus, has existed forever! - it never has an end either!
    The ToE applies only to the forces of the physical universe or in other words, the Grand Unified Theory.

    And this brings me to my conclusion, that you cannot create a theory of everything, simply because life is infinite; if life is infinite, it cannot contain "everything" as it only contains "infinite".
    As I said, this theory applies only to the physical universe.

    Regarding life, although life is a replicating form from an animal egg or the seed (plant egg), it cannot exist just anywhere. Its environment must be hospitable for its existance.

    However, life can also have an infinite existence in the universe if the STEM CELLS can live in a dorment state at 3K that is the temperature of the CMBR.

    Considering this, you will know that M theory is automatically justified; there are an infinite quantity of universes, and infinite of everything that is thus, infinite.

    However, consequently, infinite life introduces the fact that infinite has already occurred, will occur and is occurring simultaneously; in order to pertain an infinite quantity of possibilities, one must initiation upon infinite occurrences.

    It's strange, odd, wonderful, disgusting and beautiful; consequent to life being infinite, anything will occur; it's a mere coincidence that we're in the world we're within, but consequently, one could spontaneously disappear into another world. An infinite life also suggests that one will proceed throughout an infinite capacity of both suffering and pleasure.
    regarding the M T, This is just speculation.

    These last words of yours can be describing the spiritual world that I believe in and know exists.

    Cosmo
    I agree with you here, although I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Stem cells and such. M theory is indeed a mere speculation, but all other cosmic theories are also; they may have more evidence, but other theories depite a lack of observational evidence, display rational evidence of their plausibility. Anyway, M theory may work, but only under the conditions of possibility; we think our universe is unique and that it is a pure coincidence that life can exist within it. However, this to me, is a delusion; we think so, but we're wrong. We adapted to this universe based on its quantum possibility. Let's consider that a singularity particle is the reason for each universe to exist - an infinite quantity - and that each singularity is the expansion of the quantum possibility - or particle. So, in theory you could have a universe in which gravity is distinct to that of our own universe but life adapts to that and appears different; the fundamentals however, are different. Due to the fundamentals differing and although we think that if ours were altered, life would still adapt due to the possibility. In universes identicle to our own consisted with their possibilities near identicle, but with an altered fundamental force, then life may not evolve.

    To clarify, let's consider that e = 1 (Equal to our universe; e is the model or equivilence of behaviour) and that g = 5 (Gravity is higher to that of our universe), life couldn't adapt. However, if e = 2 (The model of the universe or its behaviour is altered, allowing for alternative possibilities to function), then g = 5 can allow for life to adapt to that universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Blue

    Stem cells can reproduce into different forms in the body like all the body parts.
    The great majority of cells reproduce into only one type.

    I forgot to mention that 'plant seeds could have a greater probability of surviving at 3K.
    Some plants are animated where they can move like some of these plants that feed off of insects.
    But whether plants could transform into animals on another planet is questionable.

    To get back to my ToE, there were 4 forces and graavity that could not be integrated to the other 4.
    So when I read about the nature of the strong force snd the weak force and their very short ranges, I just could not believe such forces could be real.
    So my reason for a different solution was called the Grand Unified Theory.

    But I read later about Einsteins quest for a ToE, caused me to use that term because of its greater populsrity.

    So a second hand book and its list of atomic mass numbers (AMN) provided me with the solution.

    Like I said, this theory applies 'only' to the physdical nature and its forces.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman ultraviolet_catastrophe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I do not accept the particle/wave duality.
    Electrons 'generate' waves (photons) but do not substitute for waves.
    so how do you explain phenomena like the debye-scherrer diffraction? and the compton scattering? and when you say photons are waves, then how can they provide a definite result when its location is measured? and if electrons arent also waves, explain the heisenberg uncertainty principle.



    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Dude, photons are light. What other kind of light can we be interested in?
    this is not correct. most photons as a matter of fact are not light, considering proportion. only photons that belong in the visible light frequencies are light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraviolet_catastrophe
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I do not accept the particle/wave duality.
    Electrons 'generate' waves (photons) but do not substitute for waves.
    so how do you explain phenomena like the debye-scherrer diffraction? and the compton scattering? and when you say photons are waves, then how can they provide a definite result when its location is measured? and if electrons arent also waves, explain the heisenberg uncertainty principle.



    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Dude, photons are light. What other kind of light can we be interested in?
    this is not correct. most photons as a matter of fact are not light, considering proportion. only photons that belong in the visible light frequencies are light.
    My opinion on light is thst Planck transformed light from a continuous wave to a 'pulse' of energy called a Quanta. So this would give these pulses a frequency of ONE with a single wavelength.

    These pulses can bounce an electron into a higher (outer) orbit where its energy is transferred to the electron. But this is only temporary because the outer orbit slows the electron and threrfore reduces its momentum and magnetic field strength that results in the electron being drawn back to its original orbit to create a photon.

    So these interactions with the electrons and photons are responsible for the Comptom effect. In the wave mechanics like a double slit experiment, the electrons interact with the atomic electrons along the material slits to create the waves.
    The electrons in the glass composition will also cause some variations in defractions to the photons to create these diversions in their passage through the glass according to their energy levels.
    So these waves are caused by 'interactions' only and not any transformation from particle to wave.
    The photon as a single pulse would act like a particle.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman ultraviolet_catastrophe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    My opinion on light is thst Planck transformed light from a continuous wave to a 'pulse' of energy called a Quanta. So this would give these pulses a frequency of ONE with a single wavelength.

    These pulses can bounce an electron into a higher (outer) orbit where its energy is transferred to the electron. But this is only temporary because the outer orbit slows the electron and threrfore reduces its momentum and magnetic field strength that results in the electron being drawn back to its original orbit to create a photon.

    So these interactions with the electrons and photons are responsible for the Comptom effect. In the wave mechanics like a double slit experiment, the electrons interact with the atomic electrons along the material slits to create the waves.
    The electrons in the glass composition will also cause some variations in defractions to the photons to create these diversions in their passage through the glass according to their energy levels.
    So these waves are caused by 'interactions' only and not any transformation from particle to wave.
    The photon as a single pulse would act like a particle.

    Cosmo
    so the electron spontaneously jumps back to a lower energy orbital without any kind of pushing force? i dont know man, very unlikely. this would be the same as saying that the possibility of an atom to collapse under its own gravity, or call it magnetic field, exists. it denies the principle of inertia.
    if fotons arent particles, how can they carry momentum and energy? if fotons arent waves, how can they be responsible for the fotoelectric effect?
    your explanation of the compton scattering is basically the thompson scattering, when the incident waves agitate the eletrons in such way that they irradiate electromagnetic waves in the same frequency as the first, which is pretty easy to comprehend because its basic classical physics. however it doesnt explain why is it that some fotons are irradiated in the same frequency as the incident waves and others are irradiated in a lower frequency.
    you didnt explain heisenberg's uncertainty principle which is basically the most known confirmation of the dual nature of matter. besides, if photons arent also particles, why is it that they only interact with one electron, and not a bunch of them.
    btw, thanks for replying man, i think this is a pretty interesting and worthwhile argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Ultraviolet

    This is off topic since it does not deal with the forces involved in the ToE.
    The nature of particle duality as applied to the heisenberg principle requires some study that I am not intrested in because it does not have anything to do with cosmology and does not interest me as to the outcome.

    Photons have a frequency of one. So they may act like a particle but that still does not make them a particle because they have no mass..

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman ultraviolet_catastrophe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Ultraviolet

    This is off topic since it does not deal with the forces involved in the ToE.
    The nature of particle duality as applied to the heisenberg principle requires some study that I am not intrested in because it does not have anything to do with cosmology and does not interest me as to the outcome.

    Photons have a frequency of one. So they may act like a particle but that still does not make them a particle because they have no mass..

    Cosmo
    look, dude. its very easy to go on and say " oh yeah, i dont think this is such and such because i said so."
    nobody really cares what you think, physics its not about opinion. its about understanding the nature of verifiable reality. so unless you can prove this absurd theory of yours with some backup data, stop going about and saying ' i dont believe in this dual nature of matter". go to church or something for that. you cant go on about denying all sorts of things just because you think its cool to do so. back up with theory and experiments or stfu dude. this is how it is. a

    and btw, its not off topic at all. you just dont have any arguments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraviolet_catastrophe
    look, dude. its very easy to go on and say " oh yeah, i dont think this is such and such because i said so."
    nobody really cares what you think, physics its not about opinion. its about understanding the nature of verifiable reality. so unless you can prove this absurd theory of yours with some backup data, stop going about and saying ' i dont believe in this dual nature of matter". go to church or something for that. you cant go on about denying all sorts of things just because you think its cool to do so. back up with theory and experiments or stfu dude. this is how it is. a

    and btw, its not off topic at all. you just dont have any arguments.
    Who are you?
    A Joe Stalin clone or YHWH?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraviolet_catastrophe
    look, dude. its very easy to go on and say " oh yeah, i dont think this is such and such because i said so."
    nobody really cares what you think, physics its not about opinion. its about understanding the nature of verifiable reality. so unless you can prove this absurd theory of yours with some backup data, stop going about and saying ' i dont believe in this dual nature of matter". go to church or something for that. you cant go on about denying all sorts of things just because you think its cool to do so. back up with theory and experiments or stfu dude. this is how it is. a

    and btw, its not off topic at all. you just dont have any arguments.
    Who are you?
    A Joe Stalin clone or YHWH?

    Cosmo
    I'd rather think of him as someone, who asks very valid questions. They are basically the same questions I have asked you before, but maybe in a somewhat more aggressive manner. Indeed these questions are valid and are supposed to be asked by anyone, who really follows the path of science. You claim something, then prove it. Don't just repeat it. Repeating is not a scientific way to acceptance. And you cannot deny anything without knowing what it's about. Simply saying you don't like it is just not good enough. Simple as that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraviolet_catastrophe
    so the electron spontaneously jumps back to a lower energy orbital without any kind of pushing force? i dont know man, very unlikely. this would be the same as saying that the possibility of an atom to collapse under its own gravity, or call it magnetic field, exists. it denies the principle of inertia.
    if fotons arent particles, how can they carry momentum and energy? if fotons arent waves, how can they be responsible for the fotoelectric effect?
    your explanation of the compton scattering is basically the thompson scattering, when the incident waves agitate the eletrons in such way that they irradiate electromagnetic waves in the same frequency as the first, which is pretty easy to comprehend because its basic classical physics. however it doesnt explain why is it that some fotons are irradiated in the same frequency as the incident waves and others are irradiated in a lower frequency.
    you didnt explain heisenberg's uncertainty principle which is basically the most known confirmation of the dual nature of matter. besides, if photons arent also particles, why is it that they only interact with one electron, and not a bunch of them.
    btw, thanks for replying man, i think this is a pretty interesting and worthwhile argument.
    This thread is about the ToE as the title says.
    So these qestions and your discussion about the nature of photons is off topic.

    I wrote an article on the Creation of Photons that would answer your questions.
    I will repost it on the forum page.

    The ToE is based on the missing AMN that I explained in the article.
    So these missing numbers are very important to the reason why I wrote this article .
    So did you read this entire article and check out the element AMN's in the Wiki web site?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •