- Thank you received: 0
The Theory of Invariance
13 years 7 months ago #21187
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Sloat, You are an honest person to admit the question can't be answered and it is really great to know you can at least think about this detail. As I see it there have been way too many inventions made to keep the model alive. What has that process accomplish?-it is the exact same kind of thinking done to protect the Earth centered model we had when Rome was ruling the known world. It is quite clear to me (for example) the photon has force, but that is ignored because it makes problems for the model. I don't want to develop new theory as you suspect, but, when I can I try to at least explain why the way science is currently being done is never going to accomplish it's stated goal of finding particles like the kind you and others kick around.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 years 7 months ago #21188
by evolivid
Replied by evolivid on topic Reply from Mark Baker
Hey everyone !
Can I chime in on this one ?
I think that neutrinos are a product of the electric field and magnetic field being the same
size!
for instance a electron has electric field thats bigger then the magnetic field making it overly
capacitance or electric
a positrons magnetic field is bigger then its electric field making it overly inductive
does that sound logical...
MARX
Can I chime in on this one ?
I think that neutrinos are a product of the electric field and magnetic field being the same
size!
for instance a electron has electric field thats bigger then the magnetic field making it overly
capacitance or electric
a positrons magnetic field is bigger then its electric field making it overly inductive
does that sound logical...
MARX
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 years 7 months ago #24243
by evolivid
Replied by evolivid on topic Reply from Mark Baker
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Yes, neutrinos were accepted as useful and required 80 years ago and that invention lead to more inventions. All those inventions still have not resolved the basic problem of data not matching theory and so more and more invention is needed to (as you say) fill the gaps. Data tends to get lost and distorted in this foolish process.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I have been thinking a lot about this one...
and it leads me to define a new dimension of [space]
and that [space] = 1 = [mass]^0[length]^0[time]^0[current]^0
and its velocity is c so that E = m*c*[gravity]velocity
so its light moving & space moving making mass creating energy!
what do you think about that... then one could say that the higgs
(gravitational electric in my elementery theory)
has no spin because all the force is in its velocity
and that spin and velocity share wavelength and frequency type
qualitys in that if the velocity increases then the spin decreases
let me know what you think !
Cheers
MARX
<br />Yes, neutrinos were accepted as useful and required 80 years ago and that invention lead to more inventions. All those inventions still have not resolved the basic problem of data not matching theory and so more and more invention is needed to (as you say) fill the gaps. Data tends to get lost and distorted in this foolish process.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I have been thinking a lot about this one...
and it leads me to define a new dimension of [space]
and that [space] = 1 = [mass]^0[length]^0[time]^0[current]^0
and its velocity is c so that E = m*c*[gravity]velocity
so its light moving & space moving making mass creating energy!
what do you think about that... then one could say that the higgs
(gravitational electric in my elementery theory)
has no spin because all the force is in its velocity
and that spin and velocity share wavelength and frequency type
qualitys in that if the velocity increases then the spin decreases
let me know what you think !
Cheers
MARX
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 years 7 months ago #21189
by evolivid
Replied by evolivid on topic Reply from Mark Baker
Hey Stoat can you think about this
if [space] = 1 = [mass]^0[length]^0[time]^0[current]^0
what is the dimension of gravity (not gravitational aceleration) ?
Thanks & Cheers
MARX
if [space] = 1 = [mass]^0[length]^0[time]^0[current]^0
what is the dimension of gravity (not gravitational aceleration) ?
Thanks & Cheers
MARX
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 years 7 months ago #21192
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
first off I have to admit to making a stupid maths error. I took a square root where I shouldn't have. So the speed of light is reduced in the space of the sun, its uncontracted speed is then 1.000002 times light speed
So I thought, what's the extra galactic speed of light? I've assumed that the speed of gravity is the Schwartzchild rasiu of the universe. That gives us 2.919E 25 = 2Gm / c^2 the mass comes out at about 1.965E 52 kg Divide that by the mass of the sun, then take the sqrt and we hav about 9.9E 11 galaxies. So that's not bad at all.
Now we say g / r_s (r / c)^2 = 0.5 Where r_s is the Schwartzchild radius. Make g equal to G and we get a radius of 1.402E 26 metres. Which is damn close to the event horizon of our universe. Then we get 2Gm / r c^2 = 0.20818
Pop that value into the equation c-0 = c sqrt (1 + 0.20818) to get an uncontracted speed of light of 3.2952E 8 metres per second. Wow! I thought that can't be right, way too high. But then I looked at 0.20818 * 2pi /360 and that gave me twice the fine structure constant. I'm not sure what to make of that. I had hoped that the uncontracted extra galactic speed of light would have been simply the cube root of the speed of gravity.
Hi Evolvid, I'll get back to you on that one, I'm having one of those snared in Einstein sort of days.
So I thought, what's the extra galactic speed of light? I've assumed that the speed of gravity is the Schwartzchild rasiu of the universe. That gives us 2.919E 25 = 2Gm / c^2 the mass comes out at about 1.965E 52 kg Divide that by the mass of the sun, then take the sqrt and we hav about 9.9E 11 galaxies. So that's not bad at all.
Now we say g / r_s (r / c)^2 = 0.5 Where r_s is the Schwartzchild radius. Make g equal to G and we get a radius of 1.402E 26 metres. Which is damn close to the event horizon of our universe. Then we get 2Gm / r c^2 = 0.20818
Pop that value into the equation c-0 = c sqrt (1 + 0.20818) to get an uncontracted speed of light of 3.2952E 8 metres per second. Wow! I thought that can't be right, way too high. But then I looked at 0.20818 * 2pi /360 and that gave me twice the fine structure constant. I'm not sure what to make of that. I had hoped that the uncontracted extra galactic speed of light would have been simply the cube root of the speed of gravity.
Hi Evolvid, I'll get back to you on that one, I'm having one of those snared in Einstein sort of days.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 years 7 months ago #21193
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
I was not a happy bunny on getting an extra galactic speed of light which was 9.9% faster than the local speed of light. so I did a google search for is the universe bigger than we thought. It seems so, by as much as fifteen percent from a very detailed look at M33. Of course it was all wrapped up in dark energy theory but if that uncontraacted speed of light is right, then we don't need anything so exotic. It might also explain some gamma ray phenomena. On occasion an extra galactic photon might enter our galaxy and have more energy than it should but it would be a Cerenkov gamma ray.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.287 seconds