An interesting read . . . .I've included this post in the EEMU thread since I have alluded therein to a magnetic detector design that may interact with SQR. http://www.levitationfun.com/mfield.pdf What is a magnetic field? Does a magnet slow time? by David Sligar
FYI: The status of the EEMU Hypothesis (see here) From: From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_knowledge Knowledge in Science and Engineering Scientists attempt to gain knowledge through the scientific method. In this method, scientists start by finding a phenomenon of interest, which generates questions. A scientist then picks a question of interest, and based on previous knowledge, develops a hypothesis (EEMU is HERE!). The scientist then designs a controlled experiment which will allow him to test the hypothesis against the real world. He then makes predictions about the outcome of the test, based on the hypothesis. At this point, the scientist carries out the experiment and compares his predictions with his observations. Assuming that there were no flaws in the experiment, then if they match, this is evidence in favour of the hypothesis. If they do not match, then the hypothesis has been falsified. The next steps are peer review and publication, through which the results are distributed to other scientists. A hypothesis that has been shown to accurately and reliably predict and characterize some physical phenomenon, and has been sufficiently peer-reviewed and tested, may become a scientific theory. Scientific theories are widely regarded as knowledge, though they are always subject to further revision or review should new data come to light. The nature of human reasoning dictates that even a sound piece of scientific work might be regarded as incorrect by the scientific community at large. This is exemplified by Dan Schechtman's discovery in solid states for which he was criticised for some time.
FYI: To put the EEMU Hypothesis into perspective within this Thead . . . . see (EEMU is HERE!) below . . . . also . . . re: the Scientific Method . . . . a review . . . . From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_knowledge Inferential knowledge is based on reasoning from facts or from other inferential knowledge such as a theory. Such knowledge may or may not be verifiable by observation or testing. The distinction between factual knowledge and inferential knowledge has been explored by the discipline of general semantics. Knowledge in Science and Engineering Scientists attempt to gain knowledge through the scientific method. In this method, scientists start by finding a phenomenon of interest, which generates questions. A scientist then picks a question of interest, and based on previous knowledge, develops a hypothesis (EEMU is HERE!). The scientist then designs a controlled experiment which will allow him to test the hypothesis against the real world. He then makes predictions about the outcome of the test, based on the hypothesis. At this point, the scientist carries out the experiment and compares his predictions with his observations. Assuming that there were no flaws in the experiment, then if they match, this is evidence in favour of the hypothesis. If they do not match, then the hypothesis has been falsified. The next steps are peer review and publication, through which the results are distributed to other scientists. A hypothesis that has been shown to accurately and reliably predict and characterize some physical phenomenon, and has been sufficiently peer-reviewed and tested, may become a scientific theory. Scientific theories are widely regarded as knowledge, though they are always subject to further revision or review should new data come to light. The nature of human reasoning dictates that even a sound piece of scientific work might be regarded as incorrect by the scientific community at large. This is exemplified by * Dan Schechtman's discovery in solid states for which he was criticised for some time. * see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Shechtman
O.K. . . . I've attempted some preliminary "math" re: EEMU. Please check my math (I am a geologist!). Please examine and constructively comment/criticize as you see fit. Math may be inaccurate. Application of E=mc^2 is questionable (especially for use @ subplanckian). I have noted where I think portions apply to the EEMU Hypothesis. Keep in mind I am generalizing/speculating the interpretations! Please try these calculations yourself . . . "An Enquiring Mind Wants to Know!!" (<--Humor here) Calculations based on EM Relationships and Potential Mass Equivalence Wavelength (m) Frequency (GHz) Energy (GeV) Mass Equiv (g) f=1/wl e=h/f or e=c*h/wl E=mc^2 1.00E+10 3.00E-12 2.00E-36 3.57E-80 P 1.00E+01 3.00E-03 2.00E-27 3.57E-51 P 1.00E-01 3.00E-01 2.00E-25 3.57E-49 P 1.00E-10 3.00E+08 2.00E-16 3.57E-40 P 1.00E-20 3.00E+18 2.00E-06 3.57E-30 P 1.00E-30 3.00E+28 2.00E+04 3.57E-20 P 1.00E-35 3.00E+23 2.00E+09 3.57E-15 P 1.00E-36 3.00E+34 2.00E+10 3.57E-14 ~Planck 1.00E-40 2.00E+38 2.00E+14 3.57E-10 SubP 1.00E-50 3.00E+48 2.00E+24 3.57 SubP 1.00E-60 3.00E+58 2.00E+34 3.57E+10 SubP ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ 1.00E+120 2.00E-139 1.50E+138 2.70E+114??? Note: Mass Equiv calc assumes "c", which may NOT apply at subplanckian scale Note: Calculations are rounded and approximate P = Planckian, Observable, Detectible SubP = Subplanckian, Unobservable, Undetectible; ??? = EEMU's SQR Sorry 'bout the presentation (text/formatting - but REMEMBER! . . . I'm only a geologist!) I will have to try another way . . . . maybe scan/post as a jpeg . . . BTW: I will send the original xls file to anyone who wants to see it sooner . . . wlminex
Trying to post jpeg scans of the above posted calculations . . . currently awaiting moderator approval . . . .
Any endorsement from me would not advance your hypothesis, but you may (or may not) be familiar with my deluded model where the speed of light is invariant relative to the rate that particles function. Therefore any variability of the speed of light in varying energy density environments is undetectible; the clocks slow down in direct proportion to the slowing velocity of light as the energy density of the environment increases. I explain that by saying that the wave energy of which particles are composed traverses the same energy density environment as the light traverses, and so partilces function slower and clocks measure time as if it had slowed down. I'm sure that doesn't help but it is a perspective that supports the line I quoted.
Thanks Origin . . . I feel the same way! Will my jpeg of the calculations be posted soon? . . . .Thanks!
Note: I HAVE found some errors in the jpeg table of calculations . . . .correcting and will repost . . . . . disregard last data row in the table . . .sorry folks!
Thanks for your patience. Have redone the table and added a few reference items. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Prequel to Post #133: When the jpeg posts, on moderator approval, you will all note that I've included a back calculation for the estimated mass of the observable universe, and placed the data row within the subplanckian portion of the table. This placement us ONLY TO INDICATE that IF the total mass of the universe evolved from the subplanckian, SQR energy matrix, the indicated calculated energy is the minimum energy required to accomplish that feat. The speculation in my EEMU Hypothesis is that SQR is a phenomenally >>>> LARGE in extent and magnitude (possibly infinite, possibly finite) energy source and that transformation of SQR energy on the order of 10^88 is all that is required to account for the observable universe (Material;MR). The magnitude (eV) of SQR (quantum vacuum?) is far greater than that required to form the present material universe. IF my hypothetical model (Equilibrium Evaporation Model of the Universe) is viable, then the continuing (and increasing?) SQR --> MR transformational process provides a mechanism the observed apparent universe expansion.
Here is the calculation I will use for estimates of total energies in the EEMU Hypothesis saga. Please comment on whether this is correct. Thank you. Calculation of ZPE: Ref. http://www.ehow.com/how_8624930_calculate-zero-point-energy.html Divide Planck's constant by 2 and the constant pi. Planck's constant, which provides an estimate of the size of an individual quanta of energy, is 6.626 x 10^(-34) Joule seconds (J s). Dividing this by 2, and pi gives 1.055 x 10^(-34) J s. This combination of numbers is common in many quantum mechanical calculations and is referred to as h-bar. h-bar = 1.055 x 10^(-34) J s. Multiply the frequency (Hz) at which the particle is vibrating from equilibrium by the numbers 2 and pi, which gives the angular frequency, fa (rads/s). Multiply the angular frequency and h-bar together. Call this result A. Divide result A by 2. This is the zero-point (or ground-state) energy in Joules for this particular quantum system. OR: 1.055 x 10^(-34) J s. = h-bar 6.28x f (Hz) = fa (angular frequency in rad/s) fa x 1.055 x 10^(-34) J s = A A/2 = ZPE in J ZPE J x 6.24E^18 = ZPE eV Key and Conversions: J = joules eV = electron volts 1 gigahertz = 1 000 000 000 hertz (10^9) 1 joule = 6.24150974 × 10^18 electron volts
\(E=mc^{2}\) doesn't apply to electromagnetic radiation. Furthermore, if you think just putting in sets of values to extremely basic equations someone else derived in their work and which you haven't derived in your work, somehow adds some speck of credibility to your claims then you're sourly mistaken. Where's your derivation of those results? \(E=mc^{2}\) is derived in special relativity, it isn't just plucked from nowhere. Why are you only considering equations so simple a child can understand them? Anyone who has actually done any physics, engineering or maths (and plenty of other science related disciplines) will know that such equations are the exception, not the rule. They are constructed from more elaborate, fundamental, mathematical procedures. Where's the calculus? The vectors? The linear algebra? Heck, where's even the basic definitions of things such as energy? I don't think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of people presenting their pet theories on forums like this overwhelmingly either provide no mathematics or mathematics of a type taught to children. What little exposure you've had to actual physics you've clearly not grasped, else you'd not be doing something, to be blunt, remedial. The problem Reiku has, the constant messing around with coefficients, is a problem endemic to the pseudo 'community', as it illustrated how little you've looked into actual science and how poor your ability to formalise your ideas are. Putting numbers into an equation anyone can do. It's the derivation and the explanation of the equation which is the important bit. And in your case you've failed to provide such derivations. If I'm wrong and you do have a derivation please show how you derive \(E=mc^{2}\). I expect one of two answers; you don't have one or you just point at relativity and say "There", thus attempting to ride on the coat tails of actual science. Its posts like the ones you make here which are the reason I hold the views I elaborated on in my PM reply to you (I haven't yet read your response). This isn't a peer review website but if you are not thrilled some people question whether you have a PhD or any knowledge of science at all it's the complete disregard you show for its fundamental tenants. Forum posts aren't held to the same standard as papers and the fringe section isn't held to the same standards as the main section but even so, if you wish to quash people's doubts about your scientific ethos I'd suggest giving it more regard in threads like this one.
Hey AN . . . . I'm just a geologist . . . why not post YOUR CV on the About Members Thread so we can have a look at YOUR credentials? BTW: . . . you need to remember one of my favorite sayings when spouting your tripe . . . . . ."You've evidently confused me with someone who gives a damn! (<--humor here)
BTW AN . . . Looked for your PM . . . it's not listed . . . . are your sure you are not having delusions of grandeur??
