LaidBack
09-23-06, 09:01 PM
Because my first post in this forum was treated with a lot of disrespect and what’s more with out even attempting for some sort clarification it was moved. :mad:
Now I consider myself rather reasonable, so I will give this forum another chance, but note I also have no time for individuals ”morons” who don’t consider with respect other individual’s failings or different directions of knowledge.
So before I proceed to re-establishing how one can work around the problem to amalgamating Gravity and Electromotive force/s, lets rid our selves of these individuals who don’t have enough sound Physics and or sense backing up their reasoning.
I hereby ask you to kindly refrain from posting in this thread insults and or demeaning inferences as they will be reported by me, and If I had my way they would be immediately banned!
Moving on...
Can you give your opinion on what defines a Particles definition/s
And have you ever considered what occurs at the onset of a collision in a Particle accelerator with respects to your particles definition/s?
Having considered your definition complying to all physical laws, let us now briefly turn to Quantum mechanics and if the below suggested construct seems gibberish or impossible to you, then let me suggest you gain a little more knowledge before you post any comments.
If your definition of a Particle gives no facility for its form to be manipulated
I. e. “Stretched, Squeezed and or Moved about” with respects to where and what area said definition can exist to, then I suggest you are also exempt to comment, and I suggest more research in Physics would lead to an advantage.
Finally if your definition of a Particle cannot be given mathematical representation, then may I suggest, you apply your self into mathematics until one is capable of doing so…
Theory Of Everything Cracked!
Before one proceeds into the basics of how Gravitational and Electromotive forces have been amalgamated let me refer to the basis of my reasoning and necessary calculus so that one may also be enlightened by ones very own calculus.
Previously, one had worked with five functional equations, which dealt with 11 variables, now to those that have and are still playing around with such calculus, may have instantly recognized what one has referred to, and had one mentioned 5 representations and or flavors leading to M theory which involves those 11 dimensions, Most String Theorists would now be hooked with keen interest with out considering why one has termed Variables over Dimensions.
Read one’s previous statement again as obviously the way one has expressed it was for a very good reason as one may find it difficult to comprehend such a concept possible, Err~ Let’s hope one has clarified some concerns without confusing anyone by ones constructs thus far.
Before proceeding any further we need to get the rest of the scientific community up to speed with what one may have been grappling with, and in doing so perhaps shed some electromagnetic waves Err~ Light on what is yet another problem to most if not correctly addressed as to how and why “c” the constant that refers to the maximum speed of electromagnetic propagation, commonly referred to as the speed of Light and note one has deliberately preceded with ones wording for good reason as well.
And no! It’s not because of the current contradiction to some ever increasing expansion of our universe, although if one considers how “c” came to be, the obvious should be that our universe is not expanding at an ever-increasing rate, and in fact is NOT expanding at all! And this will be Err~ expanded on and clarified by further reading or perhaps via familiarity with theories entailing electromagnetic transmissions.
FORWARD.
Let us draw two large circles and define to them a set quantum.
We also should state the circles drawn represent spheres that are the same "field" in dimension to each other.
Further more let us state these spheres are equal in quanta to our universe or should we choose to, to a given portion or percentage of the whole Universe. Noting the Whole Universe may not be currently pertaining to a spherical shape let alone a flattened one, although messing around with these spherical dimensions based on Physical laws gives for some really interesting results in where this just may be the case!
Moving on let us state that the first quantum or sphere defines moment one. Imagine one encapsulating and freezing Area/time and being able to apply means of calculus to it by divvying or dividing it to areas and or fields.
Let us state that the second quantum defines moment two. Note if this sphere and or quanta is a partial component "field" or portion of the universe, Time reference or data is a little more involved and therefore the snapshot of Area/time may not be relative to our observation point of time “unrelative” pronounced “un-re-late-ive” that’s if the Time rates are different, to which this second sphere should then reflect what data was availed to a time reference and hence should be defined accordingly proportionally smaller, taking into careful consideration the rate of data availed to time at our observing locality which is also governed by the same rule with respects to time, So for simplicities sake, for now this exercise will conform to current constructs of time used in current calculus used in every day science, so it will remain the same quanta as the first moments data availed to time because we have remained relative to the sphere or to the whole Universes time reference or moments. Whew what a mouth full! And if not fully understood may need re reading it!
So imagine encapsulating and freezing Area/time dimension without considering Times accruing data and its rate of data being availed back to the universe via momentum if one is dealing with a percentage or portion of the Universe.
Let us now portion or define the two snap shots of time references into some components, portions and or dimensions of whatever variables one wishes to work with, keeping in mind we are dealing with more than just two dimensions if we treat the Circles as Spheres and or as real time.
For those individuals that have dealt with String Theory one may wish to Portion Variables to ones spheres or Universe accordingly to proceed ones calculus using your favored equation to both moments by giving some indication of change or momentum to the plotting points that define ones current string/s.
Having allowed String theorist the luxury of partial first glory, the rest of the scientific community may also define portions and or variables to each snapshot of our universe pertaining to changes of state from area to area, and if we are to express changes, the portions "fields" from the first instance must then be different to the second moment of our universe. In doing so we must do two things and note that these changes suggest movement and or momentum or force with some unity to all momentum, and hence a set amount of time frames or references need to be considered “more spheres or snap shots!” just in order to express this movement via calculus more accurately, It is my hope this brings some insight gained from ones earlier inference of time being variable via given velocity to given mass.
But what has all this to do with the THEORY OF EVERYTHING?
The new dimension or rigid quanta introduced via the aforementioned into String theory is part of the key. But not the whole key of what we are dealing with, it only gives rise to a finite and an unchanging dimension for our Universe.
That along with depicting the universe at the very least in two moments as to why and how it it works, importantly we now can do calculus that gives rise to momentum representing change which is about to lead us to question if we are truly adhering to a rigid rule that concerns Time? Re-read ones earlier statements with respect to relativity and how important this is when one reasons what the speed of Light infers.
So far we have implied the universe is finite and what’s more, influences beyond it cannot change it, besides there is nothing left or beyond! Because everything has been assumed as part of the Universe, including time! Should we discover more to the universe all we need do is add yet more dimensions to our current Model.
Hence we exist in a closed system and what’s more no matter how many variables and or dimensions we work with we can still precisely predict and apply calculus to it all; as long as we apply a rigid rule in that,
If time is to accrue Data in order the Universe may exist by some record, All dimensions or “variables” that we define on what truly does exist, all must avail a portion “%” “or small image of its changing states” to the time reference and this suggests, as the Time reference accrues this Data “or images” of changes, The time references “image” involved must also avail or communicate back to the universe an image, and it is this reason why a Klein Bottle plotting is used to express these changes to our universe in order to simplify all the dynamics!
Read the previous paragraph in bold a few times, as it takes some getting use to, one also highly recommends one study Klein Bottle plotting if one really needs to understand the universes full dynamics and forces that pertains to "fields" that define mass and or force/s and even why the perception of gravity.
Getting back to our circles or Spheres that represent our universe with the respective portions that we have defined via known physical laws, Has any one noticed the implications with respects to times portion and the various possible implications if we apply the rule that all variables or dimensions MUST avail information to time, including time itself must avail data of its accruing changes back to the universe? Some serious shrinking is implied.
In the real world, time goes by and as changes occur, times quanta or data accrues and hence must increase times quanta or record taking up a greater and greater portion of the Universe, but this implies every portion or dimension must concede to times increasing quanta or portion, but if we are to truly deal with a finite quantum or quanta to the Universe as a closed system, this would be problematic if we don’t concede that time must portion itself back or avail its information or data back to the Universe so that equaliberium is maintained, so if we apply the same rigid Rule to Time but rather Time avails its data to the universe we complete and now adhere in the end to the rule where energy is not gained nor lost but rather is exchanged via momentum from area to area "fields" leading to our perception of Mass, Force, Gravity, Charge, Time Ect.
Perhaps some greater insight may be gained if we are to concede that our local area is availing to time due to data being dependant on change and hence local rate of data availed to Time being of a differing ratio to where we may be observing, and to prove this we need to observe beyond our local area and the further away from our Black Hole as our given time reference the more dramatic the ratio should be, to where a result of an increasing rate of expansion seems to be occurring, when in fact our local area has availed much more data to the time reference "Our Galaxies centre and or Black hole" than what other observed area to our galaxy has, hence it is proportionally with less momentum and or velocity to our time reference "Black Hole", now let us apply some plots to our Klein Bottle model to prove this involving reasoning, or we may simply envision to be situated as such in real time to such a momentum or velocity where it seems we are indeed entering a neck of a Klein Bottle and or to some inward momentum of our galaxy, which interestingly so happens indeed we do have a Black Hole conforming perfectly to ones plotting points of an extremely twisted and complex Klein Bottle neck, Err~ to which you may have to resort to calculus anyway if curious of its functional form pertaining to a Black Holes dynamics as being our current time reference, which we should note if not considered as part of our calculus one will never lead one to electromotive forces and the true momentums to the area that refers to the humble Atom considering Physics depicted merely as fields of forces.
NOW - If there is something that is confusing or doesnt make any sense, and or if you feel I have reasoned incorrectly then feel free to point it out, all I ask is it be done in a respectful manner.
Thankyou.
Now I consider myself rather reasonable, so I will give this forum another chance, but note I also have no time for individuals ”morons” who don’t consider with respect other individual’s failings or different directions of knowledge.
So before I proceed to re-establishing how one can work around the problem to amalgamating Gravity and Electromotive force/s, lets rid our selves of these individuals who don’t have enough sound Physics and or sense backing up their reasoning.
I hereby ask you to kindly refrain from posting in this thread insults and or demeaning inferences as they will be reported by me, and If I had my way they would be immediately banned!
Moving on...
Can you give your opinion on what defines a Particles definition/s
And have you ever considered what occurs at the onset of a collision in a Particle accelerator with respects to your particles definition/s?
Having considered your definition complying to all physical laws, let us now briefly turn to Quantum mechanics and if the below suggested construct seems gibberish or impossible to you, then let me suggest you gain a little more knowledge before you post any comments.
If your definition of a Particle gives no facility for its form to be manipulated
I. e. “Stretched, Squeezed and or Moved about” with respects to where and what area said definition can exist to, then I suggest you are also exempt to comment, and I suggest more research in Physics would lead to an advantage.
Finally if your definition of a Particle cannot be given mathematical representation, then may I suggest, you apply your self into mathematics until one is capable of doing so…
Theory Of Everything Cracked!
Before one proceeds into the basics of how Gravitational and Electromotive forces have been amalgamated let me refer to the basis of my reasoning and necessary calculus so that one may also be enlightened by ones very own calculus.
Previously, one had worked with five functional equations, which dealt with 11 variables, now to those that have and are still playing around with such calculus, may have instantly recognized what one has referred to, and had one mentioned 5 representations and or flavors leading to M theory which involves those 11 dimensions, Most String Theorists would now be hooked with keen interest with out considering why one has termed Variables over Dimensions.
Read one’s previous statement again as obviously the way one has expressed it was for a very good reason as one may find it difficult to comprehend such a concept possible, Err~ Let’s hope one has clarified some concerns without confusing anyone by ones constructs thus far.
Before proceeding any further we need to get the rest of the scientific community up to speed with what one may have been grappling with, and in doing so perhaps shed some electromagnetic waves Err~ Light on what is yet another problem to most if not correctly addressed as to how and why “c” the constant that refers to the maximum speed of electromagnetic propagation, commonly referred to as the speed of Light and note one has deliberately preceded with ones wording for good reason as well.
And no! It’s not because of the current contradiction to some ever increasing expansion of our universe, although if one considers how “c” came to be, the obvious should be that our universe is not expanding at an ever-increasing rate, and in fact is NOT expanding at all! And this will be Err~ expanded on and clarified by further reading or perhaps via familiarity with theories entailing electromagnetic transmissions.
FORWARD.
Let us draw two large circles and define to them a set quantum.
We also should state the circles drawn represent spheres that are the same "field" in dimension to each other.
Further more let us state these spheres are equal in quanta to our universe or should we choose to, to a given portion or percentage of the whole Universe. Noting the Whole Universe may not be currently pertaining to a spherical shape let alone a flattened one, although messing around with these spherical dimensions based on Physical laws gives for some really interesting results in where this just may be the case!
Moving on let us state that the first quantum or sphere defines moment one. Imagine one encapsulating and freezing Area/time and being able to apply means of calculus to it by divvying or dividing it to areas and or fields.
Let us state that the second quantum defines moment two. Note if this sphere and or quanta is a partial component "field" or portion of the universe, Time reference or data is a little more involved and therefore the snapshot of Area/time may not be relative to our observation point of time “unrelative” pronounced “un-re-late-ive” that’s if the Time rates are different, to which this second sphere should then reflect what data was availed to a time reference and hence should be defined accordingly proportionally smaller, taking into careful consideration the rate of data availed to time at our observing locality which is also governed by the same rule with respects to time, So for simplicities sake, for now this exercise will conform to current constructs of time used in current calculus used in every day science, so it will remain the same quanta as the first moments data availed to time because we have remained relative to the sphere or to the whole Universes time reference or moments. Whew what a mouth full! And if not fully understood may need re reading it!
So imagine encapsulating and freezing Area/time dimension without considering Times accruing data and its rate of data being availed back to the universe via momentum if one is dealing with a percentage or portion of the Universe.
Let us now portion or define the two snap shots of time references into some components, portions and or dimensions of whatever variables one wishes to work with, keeping in mind we are dealing with more than just two dimensions if we treat the Circles as Spheres and or as real time.
For those individuals that have dealt with String Theory one may wish to Portion Variables to ones spheres or Universe accordingly to proceed ones calculus using your favored equation to both moments by giving some indication of change or momentum to the plotting points that define ones current string/s.
Having allowed String theorist the luxury of partial first glory, the rest of the scientific community may also define portions and or variables to each snapshot of our universe pertaining to changes of state from area to area, and if we are to express changes, the portions "fields" from the first instance must then be different to the second moment of our universe. In doing so we must do two things and note that these changes suggest movement and or momentum or force with some unity to all momentum, and hence a set amount of time frames or references need to be considered “more spheres or snap shots!” just in order to express this movement via calculus more accurately, It is my hope this brings some insight gained from ones earlier inference of time being variable via given velocity to given mass.
But what has all this to do with the THEORY OF EVERYTHING?
The new dimension or rigid quanta introduced via the aforementioned into String theory is part of the key. But not the whole key of what we are dealing with, it only gives rise to a finite and an unchanging dimension for our Universe.
That along with depicting the universe at the very least in two moments as to why and how it it works, importantly we now can do calculus that gives rise to momentum representing change which is about to lead us to question if we are truly adhering to a rigid rule that concerns Time? Re-read ones earlier statements with respect to relativity and how important this is when one reasons what the speed of Light infers.
So far we have implied the universe is finite and what’s more, influences beyond it cannot change it, besides there is nothing left or beyond! Because everything has been assumed as part of the Universe, including time! Should we discover more to the universe all we need do is add yet more dimensions to our current Model.
Hence we exist in a closed system and what’s more no matter how many variables and or dimensions we work with we can still precisely predict and apply calculus to it all; as long as we apply a rigid rule in that,
If time is to accrue Data in order the Universe may exist by some record, All dimensions or “variables” that we define on what truly does exist, all must avail a portion “%” “or small image of its changing states” to the time reference and this suggests, as the Time reference accrues this Data “or images” of changes, The time references “image” involved must also avail or communicate back to the universe an image, and it is this reason why a Klein Bottle plotting is used to express these changes to our universe in order to simplify all the dynamics!
Read the previous paragraph in bold a few times, as it takes some getting use to, one also highly recommends one study Klein Bottle plotting if one really needs to understand the universes full dynamics and forces that pertains to "fields" that define mass and or force/s and even why the perception of gravity.
Getting back to our circles or Spheres that represent our universe with the respective portions that we have defined via known physical laws, Has any one noticed the implications with respects to times portion and the various possible implications if we apply the rule that all variables or dimensions MUST avail information to time, including time itself must avail data of its accruing changes back to the universe? Some serious shrinking is implied.
In the real world, time goes by and as changes occur, times quanta or data accrues and hence must increase times quanta or record taking up a greater and greater portion of the Universe, but this implies every portion or dimension must concede to times increasing quanta or portion, but if we are to truly deal with a finite quantum or quanta to the Universe as a closed system, this would be problematic if we don’t concede that time must portion itself back or avail its information or data back to the Universe so that equaliberium is maintained, so if we apply the same rigid Rule to Time but rather Time avails its data to the universe we complete and now adhere in the end to the rule where energy is not gained nor lost but rather is exchanged via momentum from area to area "fields" leading to our perception of Mass, Force, Gravity, Charge, Time Ect.
Perhaps some greater insight may be gained if we are to concede that our local area is availing to time due to data being dependant on change and hence local rate of data availed to Time being of a differing ratio to where we may be observing, and to prove this we need to observe beyond our local area and the further away from our Black Hole as our given time reference the more dramatic the ratio should be, to where a result of an increasing rate of expansion seems to be occurring, when in fact our local area has availed much more data to the time reference "Our Galaxies centre and or Black hole" than what other observed area to our galaxy has, hence it is proportionally with less momentum and or velocity to our time reference "Black Hole", now let us apply some plots to our Klein Bottle model to prove this involving reasoning, or we may simply envision to be situated as such in real time to such a momentum or velocity where it seems we are indeed entering a neck of a Klein Bottle and or to some inward momentum of our galaxy, which interestingly so happens indeed we do have a Black Hole conforming perfectly to ones plotting points of an extremely twisted and complex Klein Bottle neck, Err~ to which you may have to resort to calculus anyway if curious of its functional form pertaining to a Black Holes dynamics as being our current time reference, which we should note if not considered as part of our calculus one will never lead one to electromotive forces and the true momentums to the area that refers to the humble Atom considering Physics depicted merely as fields of forces.
NOW - If there is something that is confusing or doesnt make any sense, and or if you feel I have reasoned incorrectly then feel free to point it out, all I ask is it be done in a respectful manner.
Thankyou.