Thread: Using the Concept of Subspace to Define Energy

My theory is shown at Subspace Science - Home I won't repeat it here but will give some ideas on how to prove/disprove these ideas.

1. All particles that we see are made out of equal parts matter and antimatter. So I think you can break an electron down into particles of 10^-8 grams.
2. The gravity of matter and antimatter particles are both attractive.
3. The electrostatic forces of an elementary particle drops off at GM/C²distances.
4. A ray of light is made out of two subspaces.
5. A elementary particle is made out of two subspaces.

Your ideas are unsupported nonsense.
What evidence do you have for these speculations?

"1. The gravity of matter and antimatter particles are both attractive."
No - they are both negatively repelled inwardly in an outward direction.

"2. The electrostatic forces of an elementary particle drops off at GM/C²distances."
No - it drops off at OmG.

"3. A ray of light is made out of two subspaces."
No - it is made of three subspaces and one superspace.

"4. A elementary particle is made out of two subspaces."
No - it is made of two antispaces, one contraspace and a tomato.

Unsupported assertions can be fun - but they aren't particulalry useful.

Taking random terms from Star Trek and mixing them into a hodgepodge of nonsense might certainly be entertaining, but nothing more.
Waste of time, utterly devoid of any scientific meaning.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Taking random terms from Star Trek and mixing them into a hodgepodge of nonsense might certainly be entertaining, but nothing more.
Waste of time, utterly devoid of any scientific meaning.

'No, it is impossible.'

'But wait... What if we inverted the polaron emitter and rerouted it through the main defector to emit a tachyon burst... That might destabilize their warp field somehow altering their spacetime reality and snapping them back into our temporal space without creating a singularity.'
'LiKe PutTiNg tOo mUcH aIr iN A bAlOOn!'
'Make it so.'

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Your ideas are unsupported nonsense.
What evidence do you have for these speculations?

Are you certain you are not being a touch too critical here? Perhaps David's speculations have some scientific merit.
My own ideas, mainly in the field of psychology, have also been attacked in the most brutal fashion, but I still hope to become an author sometime soon!

Originally Posted by cameron buttle

My own ideas, mainly in the field of psychology, have also been attacked in the most brutal fashion

Good, then the process is still intact for making ideas run the gauntlet.

Originally Posted by cameron buttle

Are you certain you are not being a touch too critical here?

I'm certain that I could be FAR MORE critical.
I've had the misfortune of actually reading the book where these, er, ideas, are expounded upon.
But, in this thread, I've limited myself purely to what was written in the OP - and what was written is unsupported AND nonsensical.

Perhaps David's speculations have some scientific merit.

And perhaps my cat is the next Mozart or Kilminster.
David's first "point" is scientifically contradictory - matter and antimatter mutually annihilate. Therefore how is it possible for a particle to be comprised of equal amounts of both?

My own ideas, mainly in the field of psychology, have also been attacked in the most brutal fashion, but I still hope to become an author sometime soon!

Science works like that.
There's no point deciding to accept a "theory" just because it sounds good, or the proponent had a bad day yesterday.
Science is expected to work.
The more rigorous the "vetting" the higher the chance the result will produce something viable.


I have been published ¹, and have stuff that I'm considering putting forward for publication.
My problem is finding qualified proof-readers who are sufficiently brutal - each time I look at what's come back from checking I find things they've let slip.
The LAST thing I want to be available in public is work that contains flaws and that has my name on it.


1 Not, I hasten to add, in professional science.

energy and space should be together at the same place always. without energy you cant have space , and without space you don't have space for energy. so what do you mean by sub space?

Just what we needed, another scientific illiterate joining in.
On either side...

Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall (HQ) - YouTube

I actually see a crumb of positive response here. Yes a particle of matter and antimatter will destroy each other. This is my thoughts of a matter particle made out of two subspaces (a line in the forth dimension and a circle in the three dimension of space) hits another particle which is antimatter made out of two subspaces making two rays of light (double helix of two subspaces each). My model for the electron is in the book where two matter particles of 10(-8) grams each circles an antimatter particle of 2x10(-8) grams. Its a very heavy particle for being so light 9x10(-31)grams. It would take a lot of energy to separate the pieces. Of course circle is a bad term in quantum mechanics. Its more like a smear across space.

Uh huh.
And what evidence do you have for this?
What, exactly, led you to these *cough* "revelations"?
Or are you prepared to acknowledge that:
A) you invented them out of whole cloth.
B) you have no evidence.
C) there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to support your claims?

In other words, it's as scientific and factual as claiming "fairies do it all".

David but why you beleive mater and anti mater? What it has to do with energy? And space? Because i dont really understand what you say

Ok; here's the details that I have. Particles of matter exists in space, they have gravity from their mass, electromagnetic forces from their charge, they can get only so close and then the nuclear strong force affects them. Higher energy particles decays into lower energy particles and then they are stable. A moving particle has kinetic energy and momentum. A moving particle can not move faster than the speed of light. Light can not move at any other speed than light although it is slowed down in medium where electrons are present. Both particles and light have a wave nature and a particle nature.
Einstein improved upon Newton's concepts when he determined from Lorentz's math that mass, momentum, and kinetic energy were a triangle with the hypotenuse being the kinetic energy and the cos of the angle between this energy and the momentum was (v/c). Einstein's concept of gravity was that particles wrap space around themselves and this wrapping creates gravity.

Which is a "reply" to nothing that has been asked.

Try these questions, again:
And what evidence do you have for this?
What, exactly, led you to these *cough* "revelations"?
Or are you prepared to acknowledge that:
A) you invented them out of whole cloth.
B) you have no evidence.
C) there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to support your claims?

Ok matter but where is antimatter?

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~rur/issue1_...nal/morris.pdf

Now Maxwell came up with the wave nature of light by saying that the curl of an electrical field (calculus differentiation in a circle) produces a change in the magnetic field differentiation along time in the center of the circle. Also the curl of a magnetic field made a change in the electrical field differentiation along time. But what are these electrical and magnetic fields? Main stream science is so afraid of the word "ether" they refuse to answer. The same question exists in Quantum Mechanics where the wave nature of matter is shown. Schrodinger had no center to the particle, it had to be placed in an energy well. Dirac had a system of matter / antimatter pairing during particle movement. What is energy? We only see the world because of energy. The universe might not exist without it.

Originally Posted by davidAuthor

Main stream science is so afraid of the word "ether" they refuse to answer.

Utter garbage. There is simply NO EVIDENCE of ether. It's funny how you cranks glom onto such unsupported things while ignoring the mountains and mountains of things mainstream science does accept because those concepts are supported by observational evidence.

Liar.

No one fears ether. Like gnomes, there is no evidence for it. I do not fear gnomes. But if you say gnomes stole my underwear; I am not showing fear of gnomes by saying, "That's absurd- offer a more plausible hypothesis."

Originally Posted by davidAuthor

Main stream science is so afraid of the word "ether" they refuse to answer.

And what's your excuse for not answering my questions?
Is that fear?

Oh, PS mods: could you move this to Trash please?
It's certainly not a hypothesis, by any stretch of the imagination.

So this is the question "what is energy". And if we can answer energy then we can show matter / antimatter. Solving Einstein's gravity for light only reveals that there is a real fourth dimension that is not time. Time is actually curved on the gravity or in other words time is the light that gravity attracts. And to make it worse there are two types of gravity; one that has light coming from the negative fourth dimensional side and one where light is coming from the positive fourth dimensional side. One is matter, the other is antimatter. But there was more to the model because there were forces involved. It's a parabola which is a balance of forces. The outer force turns out to be the force of the electrical field. The inner force is the force of the magnetic field.

Unsupported speculation piled on unsupported speculation.
Not only do you have no evidence you also, apparently, have no personal integrity.
Or do you believe that by not answering questions you're somehow "proved" correct?

So then the question is what are forces? This is simply locked energy and the energy is the subspace.
Understand that the subspace is infinite space. And this infinite space viewed on this space appears as energy. It exists in light and in matter.
I have no proof of course. The 5 steps listed at the start can be used to prove/disprove this idea. However this simple concept holds together rather well in explaining gravity, electromagnetic forces, and nuclear strong forces.

Daffy :"have no personal integrity"? For shame. These are ideas shared to bring insight. If you don't like them fine. I am not trying to reach you. Someone else will come along and dust these ideas off and will go in some other direction. Here's a theory that explains light, life, and love. I haven't seen anyone else do that.

Originally Posted by davidAuthor

Someone else will come along and dust these ideas off and will go in some other direction.

Yeah... the wrong one...

Originally Posted by davidAuthor

Here's a theory that explains light, life, and love. I haven't seen anyone else do that.

It's not a theory. Do you know what qualifies a theory as a theory? What the difference is between a theory and a hypothesis?

No, you may be right. You have never seen someone put forth your ideas. Just because no one else got your wild ideas does not mean your wild ideas are magically validated just because most other people thought better of doing it.

Originally Posted by davidAuthor

Daffy :"have no personal integrity"? For shame.

You're the one that has consistently failed to answer questions.

These are ideas shared to bring insight. If you don't like them fine. I am not trying to reach you. Someone else will come along and dust these ideas off and will go in some other direction.

Your "ideas" are worthless.

Here's a theory that explains light, life, and love. I haven't seen anyone else do that.

Maybe because you haven't come across anyone quite as deluded and ignorant as yourself yet.

I'll ask AGAIN:
And what evidence do you have for this?
What, exactly, led you to these *cough* "revelations"?
Or are you prepared to acknowledge that:
A) you invented them out of whole cloth.
B) you have no evidence.
C) there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to support your claims?


PS: you're not the first crank I've come across who's tried putting all three into one "theory".
They were equally wrong, and equally baseless, in their claims.

Another ether crank. I wonder how long before he starts going on about Tesla.