Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By RedPanda

Thread: Using the Concept of Subspace to Define Energy

  1. #1 Using the Concept of Subspace to Define Energy 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    17
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,966
    Your ideas are unsupported nonsense.
    What evidence do you have for these speculations?


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    "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.
    Markus Hanke and Dywyddyr like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    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.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    very cosmopolitan.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by cameron buttle View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,966
    Quote Originally Posted by cameron buttle View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 26th, 2013 at 11:00 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    117
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,966
    Just what we needed, another scientific illiterate joining in.
    On either side...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    117
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    17
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,966
    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".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    117
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    17
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,966
    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?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    117
    Ok matter but where is antimatter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    17
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by davidAuthor View Post
    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."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,966
    Quote Originally Posted by davidAuthor View Post
    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?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,966
    Oh, PS mods: could you move this to Trash please?
    It's certainly not a hypothesis, by any stretch of the imagination.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    17
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,966
    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?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    17
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    17
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by davidAuthor View Post
    Someone else will come along and dust these ideas off and will go in some other direction.
    Yeah... the wrong one...
    Quote Originally Posted by davidAuthor View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,966
    Quote Originally Posted by davidAuthor View Post
    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Another ether crank. I wonder how long before he starts going on about Tesla.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Define Atheism
    By ox in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: March 26th, 2013, 11:44 AM
  2. Define Faith
    By RamenNoodles in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: March 20th, 2013, 02:10 AM
  3. define dead
    By dejawolf in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: June 13th, 2008, 05:14 PM
  4. How do you define God?
    By Mike NS in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 24th, 2007, 12:39 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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
  •