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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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.
I am really sorry for interrupting off topic, but for someone with the handle "laidback" you seem pretty uptight =]. anyway, sorry if you got flamed before, this site can dish some harsh criticism.
LB old chap. Y'know when I suggested perhaps rephrasing your initial posit - did you notice at all the codicil suggestion doing it in terms of the math - not the Lecture? I know I didn't mention that last bit particularly, however I had thought it fairly obvious by implication. If you've got the math to back this up LB, present it. Initial premises up. There's neither point nor need of reiterating in words what you've already posted and had removed once already. Present the math with the argument and no one's got anything to possibly complain about, have they - if this is how you're going to present your argument, exactly the same as you did the first time around - the consequences aren't likely to be any different now, are they?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! is that what you mean??? that electrons are field bodies, and always act so? -MT
Yes quite close to my reasoning Moshehis, but a while back I had great difficuty justifying the electrons force that gives the atom its defintion.. Therefore the following is the way I deal with everything. Abstract All Protons are compressed areas and or fields, which if allowed would gain momentum and or a velocity towards unity "outward force" and in essence it should be noted it is the only real force that defines everything. The Electron area is the outward forces exerted from other protons and or fields to a neighboring proton, these forces would be experienced as an inward force "electron" to the Proton. The neutron is the area/s where the outward force of a proton meets with the inward forces exerted to a Proton from neighbouring Protons.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Say whahhh! Having applied myself numerous times to the maths I must honestly say I have had a gut full of it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As you may guess I am not overly fond of calculus. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Besides If you refer to my first post you should note that I have insisted one should do the calculus for ones self anyway.
Oh crap! :bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sounds like I am in for some even more hard labour..
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... I told ya! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah Ok! Ok! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Obviously for this forum the given constructs and suggested variables given by my post are way over most individuals reasoning and capacity for them to apply given constructs to Variable/s and I guess in part this could be the reason why there are so many critics here! Tempting as it is to join the ranks, I will see if I can clarify the use of the infered variables <yawn> <mumble grumble> but dont hold me on that as I recall the agony it gave me on the previous occasions. <groan>
Ok LB. If you have a top-notch TOE, then it should be easy to derive an expression for the behavior of gravity at the quantum scale. All you need to do is show us a simple expression that explains the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces and ties them neatly together.
First of all - Strong and Weak Nuclear forces consist of electromagnetic and or electromotive forces, and yes the key word here is force and as you suggest some conversion to the same is in order for these forces. BTW I have my own conversion programs, so I wont be needing your suggested converter, anyway having such converters is actually what is responsible for my delema that I am in now! I have come to depend on them more than I really should, and now I am stuck! I mean My dawg! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Have you seen what is involved to do some conversions? :bugeye: <Mumbel grumble> Yeah and I bet thats why you chose the Strong and Weak forces.. RIGHT! Every one loves watching other people squirm! <LOL> BTW If one uses my given constructs, Gravity is not treated as some weak attractive force, rather Gravity is infered via different velocities gained towards unity, which should give reason why I express gravity is amalgamated with electromotive forces, Err~ well thats once we convert joules "E" to Newton-meter "Nm" Err~ Yeah~ Back to re-establishing the stoopid maths that every one here seem to need it spooned to em. { Mumble Grumble Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! }
Err~ thanks.. but... I already have numerous conversion programs and I was just wondering what other individuals here were using.. I am trying to avoid as moochus as muchus maths... <groan>
How did you expect to present anything without the math proofs? Right now, it looks like alot of flash and no bang.
Well to those that read my first post, had they taken in what I was implying, all they needed to do was to apply their own given variables.. For instance when I expressed one is to represent two moments of the Universe and or some percentage of it, by depicting the snap shot of an area as a cirlce or a sphere if we treat the moment in 3D, and this snap shot or area could include an area where one atom exists at the onset of change by the influence of an electromagnetic wave that is within the gamma spectrum {Yeah~ The gamma function and or String Theory} for instance. So when I expressed in my first post.. The first moment consisting of a given area can be represented by the joules at rest or via further functional properties that express's the mass and the area we are dealing with. And with the second moment we would depict where the joules had increased to its peak as a result of the gamma wave, or if dealing with the portions of the area with more details, the increased mass and or area depicted by an increase in Nm. Noting that both moments are frozen so there is no need for velocities to be consider, so using the following calculus.. Energy equals the mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. So theres just one example of the maths that should have been applied by most here. where E = Potential for work and or force "1 joule = 1Nm" or "The circlesand or spheres Area" where M = Sum of all Mass frozen in the moments " 1 gram = 0.00980665 newtons" Divisions or further expressions of what we are dealing with. where C^ = The contant referenced to calculate given area if area is allowed a state of unity. "8.98755179 × 1016 m2 / s2" And if we wanted to plot to some greater accuracy of the dynamics all we need do is to consider the use of a lot more frozen moments, "divisions of time" And by plotting the gamma wave experienced by our snap shots of area, we are actually able to depict what string theorists are messing around with, BTW now would be a good time to read my first post again.. Whoo~key back to spooning Err~ shovelling No wait! Ship containers of Maths <groan>
No! Electromagnetism is mediated by photons, weak nuclear by W bosons, and the strong nuclear by gluons. Gravitons are still up for grabs...
Good points if one is using basic particle Physics, But you are ommiting, If one does research on radio transmission 104~1215 Hz and perhaps then consider's reading a little on the Doulble slit experiment, where it gives a little more insight to all the dynamics of how the electromagnetic waves at frequencies between 1014~1015 Hz " Visible Light" is propagated one must concede a photon really is never with a given velocity as basic Particle physics suggests. BTW What do you think defines the area that pertains photons, electrons, leptons, muons and quarks and each of their respective form? what? more sub particles? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What do you think electromagnetism consists of? A bunch of really tiny spheres "particles at some velocity"? that may be fine by particle theory, but what then constitutes these particles form and whats more what defines each given particle its given area from another particle? and further more what forces are in play between these particles? have you noticed how many times force has been inferred? Let me suggest you should be going back to basics and simply work with just force, as it allows us to work with any area in the Universe as given areas and or fields consisting of certain momentum infering force/s for a given time that can even give calculated constructs that suggest potentials as Positive and Negative charge and or even the dynamics of strong and or weak nuclear areas of forces to their given fields that can even give inference we are dealing with nuclear mass that is quite solid to our given sensors or tools that extend our sensors.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! MY DAWG! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I just realized the above enraged state of posting I gave a very basic means of how to apply my constructs via calculus.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I only hope it isnt over everyones head.
