A Pet Theory... will probably need some guidence in any mistakes

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Green Destiny, Sep 27, 2010.

  1. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    First, Guest. This should finally give you your answer. All that time you thought when I said I can explain my actions, but never did, you must have thought I was lying. Well below is a pet theoretical work I have been doing. When I asked that algebraic question you punnelled me for so many times, was because when I expressed the equations for the field density below, I just wanted to make it as proper as possible - the way Maxwell would have written it. Trivial to you maybe, but not to me.



    First deriving the property of our electric field \(\mathbb{E}\) takes the form of:

    \(\mu_0 D= c^2 \mathbb{E}\)

    Rearranging gives:

    \(\frac{\mu_0 D}{c^2}= \mathbb{E}\)

    Squaring both sides, and then multiplying by the permitivvity gives:

    \(\epsilon_0 (\frac{\mu_0 D}{c^2})^2= \epsilon \mathbb{E}^2\)

    We will now employ our rules, having a conservative electric field irrespective of any external magnetic changes. Now I consider the equation:

    \(\mathbb{E}^2(qt^2)^2 \int v dt= I^2\)

    Again we take a similar route and do the following:

    \(\epsilon_0 \mathbb{E}^2(qt^2)^2 \int v dt= \epsilon_0 I^2\) [*]

    If we take one half of the quantity \(\epsilon_0 I^2\) where \(I\) is the inertial moment, gives us on the right hand side a relation to the field density (hence Guests insideous attempts to make me reveal why I asked certain questions),

    \(I \sqrt{\epsilon_0} = u_eqt^2 \frac{1}{2}\int v dt\)

    where the left hand side has been simplified to give one whole value of the inertial moment. This equation as I interpret it, describes the electric field strength as being inversely related to the inertial moment of the particle, and so this would be related to a certain type of electromagnetic inertia.

    The equation with the star [*] is like most of the equations, describing a charge in an electric field in a state of motion.


    The electric field is something which describes spacetime surrounding electrically-charged particles or even a time-varying magnetic field. However, the above is seen in light of a conservative electric field with no magnetic field present. Thus the electric field in this case can be seen as exerting a force on particles.

    If a field can exert a force on a particle, why may it not give rise to a force associated similar to that of an inertial force?

    The force resisting acceleration could very well be related to the field densities acting as a type of electromagnetic inertia.



    Einstein never ruled out completely the cause of inertia, but in a series of work, he did show it was possible that the inertial energy of a system could cause inertia, which is slightly different to the above, but shares a fascet in which (and I can thank CPT bork for this) that the field density can be verbally replaced but not mathematically equivalent to an energy desnity itself, since the electric field is not a field which has the dimensions of energy.

    The conservative field equations I have been using, are themselves a type of equation of motion, where the integral must govern a change in position, with a velocity which by choice of the observer, can change. It's linear however, but this can still invoke a more complicated set of dervations I would have presumed which we could allow a system to experience a varying magnetic field.

    Einstein, as I said, involved the genious idea that perhaps the rest energy of a material system is what causes the inertia of matter, but in a sense, energy and matter are but fascets themselves of the same manifestation under Einsteins mass-energy relationship - but, with a little thought, I question the methodologies of using energy to explain inertia alone. Afterall, saying energy is responsible for inertia in a material system is just trivial as saying matter is what causes the inertia of trapped energy - neither really are enlightening to the cause of inertia itself, other than something pointing to the inherent structure of the particle (intrinsic structures).



    In response to Einsteins idea, it was then a consideration to see if we could see the above equations, in a slightly different light, this time concerning energy.

    I came to the equation:

    \(\epsilon_0 \frac{(\frac{\mu_0 D}{c^2})q^2t^4}{t^2} \delta \int v dt= \epsilon_0 E_0 \ell\)

    where \(E_0\) is for inertial energy and \(\ell\) is basically a distance travelled, with obviously dimensions of L. Here I have used a minilizing integral on the change of position, which in the sense is meant to indicate it takes the least energy required to move that distance. This means that it satisfies a ground state of energy, so I am assuming this eq. can be altered to the following form;

    \(\epsilon_0 \frac{(\frac{\mu_0 D}{c^2})q^2t^4}{t^2} \delta \int v dt= \epsilon_0 (\hbar \omega) \ell\)

    Where \(\hbar \omega\) is the lowest frequency, or ground state of energy per unit volume of spacetime.



    I then considered a rest inertia, and I decided it catagorically and fundamentally cannot exist for particles subjected to UP. Because of the UP, particles are never at complete rest, if they where, their locations would be predictable, and that is completely forbidden with total accuracy. So if rest inertia was to simply be related to mass as \(I_0=M_0\), this could only apply to macroscopic bodies.

    I'm am still trying to reconcile how to unify the energy in concordance with an understanding of my hypothesis concerning electromagnetic inertia.



    I am going to ask if anyone can help me if I have made any mistakes. As I have said, many times, my knowledge on calculus is mediocre to the scientists here. So a little help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    If you're not Reiku then you suffer from all the self delusions that he does. You're just pulling equations out of your backside and just making things up. Your algebraic manipulation is sloppy or just wrong and your qualitative descriptions which go with your equations have little or no support from your equations.

    To give an example of how bad even the most basic algebra you've done is, you half \(I^{2}\epsilon_{0}\) to get \(I\sqrt{\epsilon_{0}}\). That's not half, that's the square root. But it gets worse, as the thing you claim \(I^{2}\epsilon_{0}\) is equal to, \(\epsilon_{0}E^{2}(qt^{2})^{2}\int v dt\), is not divided by two or square rooted, you mangle it to \(u_{e}qt^{2}\frac{1}{2}\int v dt\). You square rooted some bits and divided by two other bits. Even if your equations were originally valid your ability to do basic algebra is non-existent. You magically change notation, dropping \(E^{2}\) and \(\epsilon_{0}\) and come up with \(u_{e}\). No reason other than (I suspect) you are just making shit up and hoping people accept it.

    You name drop Maxwell or Einstein but you have no understanding of their work, you have non-existent algebraic abilities and you have no clue how actual physics derivations are done and you just want to make it seem like you do. If you aren't Reiku then you should certainly take it as an insult that people think you are, because he was (and likely continued to be on other forums) one of the most self deluded hacks ever seen on these forums. He does precisely as you've just done, posts a mishmash of equations which he's copied from other places (but tried to change notation which he doesn't understand and failed miserably) and tries to convince himself (because no one else buys it) that he's not wasting years of his life. He's spent so much time lying about his abilities that if he's started at the basics by now he'd actually know how to do the advanced stuff but instead he's spent years lying and still can't do anything. If you aren't him then you should take a lesson from his behaviour and not go down the same path, lest you waste years of your time you could spend learning.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Green Destiny, You and I have been exchanging private messages on this and since AlphaNumeric has publicly confronted this, I will also add to it in public.
    Because his post sums up what I mentioned to you in PM and I see no need to copy it to a PM when it exists in full view here. Let it be your test.

    Because, you see, I've done it.
    I probably will again, too. I would like to think better of myself- that I won't... But I can't guarantee it.

    My ego gets bruised.

    And I might try to 'prove' to the person that corrected me- That I'm not stupid.

    It's what's known as foot in mouth syndrome. And I can describe the flavor of each of my toes at this point...

    There is an underlying problem with that: If people thought you or I (Or others) were stupid... They wouldn't bother to correct. Why bother? A stupid person would not understand... But one that has the capacity to understand should be able to receive correction.
    They then have the option on how to deal with that. Apply the correction or get defensive.

    AlphaNumeric was Blunt. You need to read the entire blunt post and take it to heart. But, he was not mean or insulting. He never said you were stupid. He said you need to learn Math.
    That's nothing to be ashamed of. Boy do I ever need to learn math. If that is something to be shameful about, I need to buy a mask and hide in a cave.
    AlphaNumeric also needs to learn math. That's why he's been in school.

    But this is not the place to receive an education. I hinted at this in another thread before I saw this post. I was trying to be subtle. Well, it's out now...
    If you desire to learn the math- That's Outstanding!
    And consider yourself fully encouraged to do so.
    And find yourself a Teacher.

    In the meantime, I suggest you uninstall TeX or LaTeX and come over here next to myself and the other uneducated muttonheads and patiently wait until such time that you have the skills you need to do the work. Demonstrate that you are capable of learning as that is far more worthy of respect and praise.

    I can tell you this much. I'm a Plumber. And had you been my apprentice, I would have fired your butt by now.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Alphanumeric

    I will not entertain any of the conspiracy or non-related atatcks on me.

    Now, I thought the square root was the half of something. If it wasn't then why does squaring the quantity remove the square root sign? That must go for the other two examples I gave.

    Secondly, I did not pull anything out my arse. If you take the half of the quantity \(I^2\epsilon\) and then look at the other side and multiply all that by a half, then inevitably \(u_e\) will show up, because it's quantity is exactly \(1/2 \epsilon \mathbb{E}\) - which is the maxwell energy density of the field.

    How could I pull something like \(u_e\) out my arse when it's a common usage in electrodynamics?
     
  8. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    '' posts a mishmash of equations which he's copied from other places (but tried to change notation which he doesn't understand and failed miserably) and tries to convince himself (because no one else buys it) that he's not wasting years of his life. He's spent so much time lying about his abilities that if he's started at the basics by now he'd actually know how to do the advanced stuff but instead he's spent years lying and still can't do anything. If you aren't him then you should take a lesson from his behaviour and not go down the same path, lest you waste years of your time you could spend learning.''

    First it's not a mishmash of equations - I truely did arrive at multiplying many of the variables and constants in there because I sat down to do it. The only part I will admit, is the above again - When I halfed the quantity, I saw \(u_e= \frac{1}{2}\epsilon E\)... That's about as much copying as I ever did. So don't superfluously blame me for any more than that.

    And I can't get offended when you call me Reiku. I don't know him, and that's only your opinion - oh and prometheus - but I think you's two are close friends, so that's expected... along with guest, rpenner... it's like a cult here.
     
  9. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    I should be allowed to freely post a pet theory in the psuedoscience area, neverfly. I kind of expect attacks, but... hey. That's life.
     
  10. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Before I become subject of derailing my own thread, there are two more things I want to say.

    1. Alphanumeric, you seem to believe, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to indicate the mathematics would have been correct, if it were not for a poor understanding of algebra. That's a good start, because it means it just requires a small nip-and tuc somewhere along the lines.

    2. You are a bit of a hypocrite. I haven't been in an algebra class for over 10 years. Did you, or did you not just admit rceently in a thread in physics concerning a topic *which I forget* that you could have explained a complicated series of equations a little clearer, but it has been six months and you were quite surprised how fast it is all faiding? In the same context, multiply that to the length in which I have not studied algebra in a general class, but you seem unsurprised that one can even become hazy on it? If you're not surprised, then should we all go about and make fun of you because you can't remember something after six months? Mmmm?


    Think about it pal. Seriously. You just seem to be a nasty piece of work, and I had formed this opinion well-before we began talking - by reflecting on threads you had already spoken to members in not only the psuedoscience area, but in other subforums as well. Moreover, you still continued this attitude when the other person(s) tried to remain civil and obviously indicated they wanted to learn... in my case, look above. I did clearly state:

    ''I am going to ask if anyone can help me if I have made any mistakes. As I have said, many times, my knowledge on calculus is mediocre to the scientists here. So a little help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.''

    Now, I will continue with my work. The fact you never said anythin concerning the last two equations, I will assume they were perfectly fine, which is good, because that was the main basis from where my investigation was going to be heading. If you want to help me, or others in the future, do so that they may want to listen, but not to be deterred by your insolent attitude.
     
  11. alephnull you can count on me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    147
    I don't think AN is a nasty piece of work, he is just brutally honest. With special emphasis on the "brutally", and even more special emphasis on the "honest". He doesn't need anyone to defend him though.

    As for your work, it's almost entirely nonsense I'm afraid.

    You set up equations without explaining some of the variables, you think dividing by two and square rooting are equivalent and then mish-mash them at will, your equations are dimensionally incorrect, you substitute E for hbar*omega which would suggest you are talking about a photon, but then proceed to say:

    "Where hbar*omega is the lowest frequency, or ground state of energy per unit volume of spacetime. "

    This makes no sense at all. hbar*omega is not a frequency, it is frequency multiplied by h-bar. Nor is it "ground state of energy per unit volume" as that is dimensionally incorrect.

    You talk about using a "a minilizing integral on the change of position, which in the sense is meant to indicate it takes the least energy required to move that distance"

    You didn't think of this yourself, so you are obviously creating some Frankenstein's monster by cobbling together bits of other people's work you think are related.

    Either way, you've evidently spent _some_ time on this so my advice to you would be to invest your time more efficiently. Learn the basics, and I mean the real basics (what a square root is for example)

    http://khanacadamy.com/

    will help.
     
  12. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Dimensionally inconsistent? Show me where please?

    I spent a good couple of hours checking twice the dimensions where correct... I cannot learn if I thought it was right, and no one shows me my errors?
     
  13. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Take one equation for me, and tell me the dimensional inconsistency... please.
     
  14. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    The definition of brutal, brutally is:

    '' 1. The state or quality of being ruthless, cruel, harsh''


    Brutally honest then, is a cruel and nasty wasy of action.
     
  15. alephnull you can count on me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    147
    The bit where you go from one equation to another by taking "half the quantity", but actually square root some bits, cannot be consistent.

    If the first equation was dimensionally consistent, then the second one isn't as you haven't done the same to both sides.

    Zeus knows why you've started picking apart individual words for meaning now.

    Here's another definition of brutal:

    4. Disagreeably precise or penetrating

    But who cares? Brutally honest is a well understood phrase, you don't need to start picking apart the words.
     
  16. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Right, this is good. I think I know the dimensions are correct, the algberaic manipulations seem to have distorted it. Let me see if I can re-write it. Give me 10 mins please.
     
  17. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    You say the first equation is dimensionally correct, but the second isn't - this is why I think it's correct - but of course, the whole point of the thread to help to show me my mistakes:

    first equation:

    \(\mu_0 D= c^2 \mathbb{E}\)

    Rearranging gives (perhaps I should have said, divide both sides by c^2?

    \(\frac{\mu_0 D}{c^2}= \frac{c^2 \mathbb{E}}{c^2}\)

    The c^2 squared vanishes on the right, and the left hand side keeps the c^2 term to simply yield the electric field.

    so ultimately it's:

    \(\frac{\mu_0 D}{c^2}= \mathbb{E}\)

    so... corrections please so I may learn again.
     
  18. alephnull you can count on me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    147
    I said if.

    Also, that isn't the bit I was on about, sorry. I was too lazy to copy the tex.

    I meant the equations before and after this paragraph:

    "If we take one half of the quantity where is the inertial moment, gives us on the right hand side a relation to the field density (hence Guests insideous attempts to make me reveal why I asked certain questions),"
     
  19. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    I will rewrite that again then. Give me another 10 mins. Hopefully I will get it right this time.
     
  20. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Then let us assume up to equation 5 everything is fine. Then to this:

    \(\epsilon_0 \mathbb{E}^2(qt^2)^2 \int v dt= \epsilon_0 I^2\)

    Which is dimensionally consistent, I think. The next part caused Alphenumeric discomfort, to say the very least: so now I modify it in hope I get it correct this time:

    \(u_e(qt^2)^2 \int v dt= \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_0 I^2\)

    where \(u_e=1/2 \epsilon \mathbf{E}\)
     
  21. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Is that better sir?
     
  22. alephnull you can count on me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    147
    It's better in that you can legally go from one line to the next. (dividing by two)
    As for whether or not they are both consistent dimensionally, I do not know as you haven't defined all you variables (as I pointed out in my earlier post)

    Besides, even if everything was mathematically sound in that sense, as AN pointed out, you derivation and motivation are severely flawed.

    You pull equations out of somewhere (a book? a paper? your arse?) and don't define them properly.
     
  23. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    No.

    I sware on Gods good grace that I never copied anything from anywhere. The dimensions for the energy density became evident when one multiplied both sides by the half-quantity. There is not really a great deal to the equations, I can't see how I copied it anywhere.

    The history started when I considered the quantity \(\mathbf{E}^2(qt^2)^2\) - I noticed this had dimensions of ML - this quantity truely was something I made myself one night. I was just scribbling away because I thought I took slight enjoyment from messing around with the dimensions.

    I then decided to place an integral in front of the expression to retain the constant nature of the variables used, so in effect, I took the integral of velocity with the dummu variable of dt. This gave me an extra dimension of length, so giving in total ML^2. As far as I know, I have been the first to define the electric field under the description of \(\frac{\epsilon_0 D}{c^2\), so I decided to use this in a series of replacements in some of the derivations. Again, the idea of the electric field density did not become apparent until I took the half quantity of the inertial moment.

    The inertial moment was not by mere choice; I did before that an even more elementary derivision of \(E_0t^2=I\) where this time E_0 is for the energy, or inertial energy. Because of this, the rest was reasonably simple, but the end result was interesting, at least for me.

    Don't just agree with alphanumeric because he has a good track record. He's quick to accuse without any basis.
     

Share This Page