I'm writing a paper right now i am contemplating sending to be peer reviewed. But in my work today, the more i looked over an iota of equations i was presenting, the more it didn't look right. Ever read a word over and over again until the word no longer means what it did to previous knowledge? Well, i'm having the same problem right now. Have i presented these correctly? Would someone generous round here have a look for any mistakes... (E- M) Which means that energy is proportional to mass or a given mass to any system. However the density of an object is found by its mass divided by its volume: (D=M/V) Since the Energy of the system is found to be inversely proportional Mass of a system, to the power of two: (E- M^2) Then the Volume of the system is found proportional to the Energy: (V- E) Thank's for any help. I think it's right. I'm just not 100% sure.
I assume your - means proportional to. I'll use ~ because it is a more common notation. Sure. E ~ M. But then how is E~M^2 also???
Oh... right mate... What i meant was that we must put mass to the second power, to account for renormalization. Usually, in nearly every particle-energy combination gives off a superfluous amount of energy - or as you might know it, a non-zero total. Do you know what i mean?
For instance, when three quarks comes together, they actually have more energy than mass to contribute to the gluon energy...
''(E- M^2) Then the Volume of the system is found proportional to the Energy: (V- E) Thank's for any help. I think it's right. I'm just not 100% sure.'' Here, the renormalization between the energy and the mass, which is no more than a linear configuration of a non-linear (E- M). Because of this transformation, the volume is found to be perpendicular to the density, and density is found through the measure of a volume raised to the power of 2. (D=M/V^2) It allows us to measure the velocity into a proportionality with the Energy... yes???
Here, i think... i might be wrong... its been a while since i;ve done this stuff, use some kind gravitational acceleration factor? I think the gravitational acceleration, is given by the formula; g=(GM)/d^2 Remember, a free falling object will have the force of gravity totally cancelled out as it’s that weak. We know that from Newton’s Force Equation is derived as f= ma, where this also shows an inertial system to derive the acceleration due to gravity. So the gravitational acceleration is the mass of a gravitationally warped object M, and the distance d from it. Also, instead of working out the mass of a black hole in the conventional way, you could measure it against the gravitational acceleration formula, by; M=gd^2/G
Not really... The units aren't right. In natural units mass has the same units as energy, length as time, and energy as inverse time. Renormalization is a bit more subtle than this---you have to draw Feynman diagrams and understand loop calculations pretty well. You can't just take a new mass/energy relationship and hope to have it done with.
If i am understanding you right Ben, you mean that i cannot present an equation with superfluous energy, because fundmentally the matter and energy have the same units? I think i knew this, but i this work above was only the variables needed for my base when i do some subsurface calculations describing what the small equations are describing.
You can't just fool around with mass-energy relationships. There are very specific equations that are predicted from special relativity. Changing these relationships means that you are no longer guaranteed things like Lorentz Invariance.
Good observation. Indeed, i needed to take in all Lorentz and Einstein contributions to Relativistic history. It is, i hope, alright.... You see, if this antimatter is radiationg into our universe, then that micro-universe looses mass, and thus it will begin to expand - i predict slowely.. don't know how everyone would feel about that.. Our universe then will begin to contract, because of the dark matter embedded in the vacuum's 5th dimension, radiating it our own universe from this ''hypothetical black hole sea.'' I have math for this as well.
Also, it would answer why we are finding more antimatter scatering from the ''so-called'' center of the cosmos, from the singularity (if it exists). It would also answer why our universe isn't just a mix of deadly gamma ray particles.
Hi Ben Soz... I'm sooo bloody vague sometimes. Here is what my proposal is: John G. Cramer has reproprosed a concept defining black holes as dark energy stars. It's a good arguement: You can find a thread i made on it in Cosmology... but it was this part i focused on> ''Is there any evidence that the Chapline view of collapsed stars is correct? Perhaps so. There have been several space-based X-ray and gamma ray telescopes launched in recent years, and the resolution and sensitivity of these instruments has been improving, year by year. When these instruments look in the direction of our galactic center, they observe a remarkable and puzzling thing. There is a stream of antimatter electrons, the so-called “Positron Fountain,” coming from the galactic center region and producing a large quantity of 511-keV*** annihilation radiation there. This is probably related to another observation, of the population of charged particles in cosmic rays, which show that above a certain energy (~500 MeV) there is a definite excess of positrons over electrons in the population of charged particles reaching the solar system. These preferences for positrons are a mystery, since fundamental interactions, e.g. electron-positron pair creation, produce matter and antimatter electrons in an even-handed way, favoring neither one nor the other.'' *** This is what i mean by (M^2) without c, making this non-linear. I had an idea that maybe the antimatter(being not isotropic), is flowing in from a weakness in a certain thickness in the barrier of spacetime. We have all heard of the ad hoc theory proposing that parallel universes could ''merge'' creating the illusion of ghosts... then why not the same arbitrary rule of dimensions seperated intuitively via size. We deal with only a very small value of what is possible in this universe. It is has infinite variables proportional to energy, space , matter and time (E- M- S- T), and yet, the is an equal proportion to possibilities as well. Another idea i proposed was a diluted sea, found in the fifth dimension, consistant of micro extremal black holes, that would (I now speculate), cause what is known as illumineferous aether caused through frame-dragging... like the phenomena of a distortion through spacetime found round the photons as a wave. It seems to me that the hidden dimensions, curled into very tight spaces, are in fact perfect micro-chambers, to contain the idea I had in mind concerning the gravitational field’s need for the presence of dark matter; I propose that it doesn’t. Instead of saying that the mysterious matter is the extra source, created mathematically by scientists to answer for the gravitational source of the universe, saying that it might be stuck inside the hidden dimensions of spacetime. But why should it be this exotic substance? Why can’t it just be something we are struggling with at the moment already? Like a diluted sea of microscopic extremal black holes? An extremal black hole will have a ground state of mass that is proportional to its charge and angular momentum. This means that the black hole will either radiate particle pairs at a much slower rate, or they won’t emit the particles at all. The following equation describes the curvature of spacetime round a massive spherical body; ds^2=-c^2(1-2GM/c^2r)dt^2+(1-2GM/c^2)^-1_dr^2+r^2d Omega^2 The curvature produced by this weak sea of black holes i predict would sufficient to stabilize the gravitational forces needed. Black holes are predicted to form from the collapsed states of certain large stars, about several times larger than our star. They do so, because of gravitational acceleration, given by the formula; a=(GM_ ß)/d^2=mg Remember, a free falling object will have the force of gravity totally cancelled out as it’s that weak. We know that from Newton’s Force Equation is derived as f= ma, where this also shows an inertial system to derive the acceleration due to gravity, and thus; g=(GM)/d^2 So the gravitational acceleration is the mass of a gravitationally warped object M, and the distance d from it. Also, instead of working out the mass of a black hole in the conventional way, you could measure it against the gravitational acceleration formula, by; M=gd^2/G We use the same method to work out the mass of the earth. The G is Newtons universal gravitational constant (6.7×10-11 m3/(kg sec2). We find the Earth's mass = 9.8 × (6.4×106)2 / (6.7 × 10-11) kilograms = 6.0 × 1024 kilograms. To make an accurate measure of the gravitation being produced in the hidden dimension, we would need to take the content of the proposed dark matter, which is about 25% of matter in the universe (as predicted by NASA), and spread that out in a uniformal distribution throughout the dimension, take the gravitational affects of the black holes, but we are dealing here with very small calculations for each extremal black hole. We would need to work out how many of these micro black holes would be needed, and if they represent particles, then the sea of black holes would have a finite number of particles consistent. The gravitational acceleration, is then simply given as g=(GM)/d^2, and calculating the mass is gd^2/G. To take into account the mass of this black hole sea, we can estimate the amount of matte required, proportional to the what the theory predicts. Dark matter coves 25% of all matter, so, in theory the same amount of matter would be needed to make up the gravity needed in the sea. Even just as important, we would need to scale the density D of the universe, against the radius 10^26, and measure how diluted this matter really is. We can measure the density, and radius of a black hole in a series of proportionalities. The radius R of a black hole, even a micro black hole is directly proportional to its mass (R- M). And the density of a black hole is found to be given by its mass divided by its volume (D=M/V). I work out that there will be something like 10^9 particles that make up the black hole sea. This would mean that there is about a billion more particles making this sea, than there is the normal baryons found in matter. Neutrinos might be so lightweight that they can travel between dimensions. They would also naturally form under the relativistic effects on the energy deposition rate via neutrino pair annihilation near the rotation axis of a black hole normally, but here we are talking about a Kerr black hole. And also, these black holes won’t radiate photons or neutrinos. They’re stable radiatively. Electron neutrinos or even antineutrinos are generated whenever neutrons change into protons or protons into neutrons, the two forms of beta decay. As we already know, about 50 trillion neutrinos pass through our bodies in just under one second! They originally came from sun. They are a gravitational king for this matter, and are themselves classed as being a form of dark matter. A source of frame-dragging at a very small scale would radiate from this sea of black holes. The black holes will spin at the speed of light, just like macroscopic black holes. The Centripetal force is proportional to the centrifugal force (F=mrW^2). A black hole need to be of Planck Mass at smallest size 2x10^-8kg. The Compton Wavelength given as lambda=h/mc=2pi(h/mc) of a black hole is proportional to its Schwartzchild Radius 1 / (2M − r); very small black holes are very hot. This is because the decrease in size and magnification of density makes these little things extremely hot. A typical micro black hole would have a temperature of 10^16 K, which is 200 GeV. Might the curvature produced from the extremal black holes be seeping into the other dimensions, producing the gravitation thought to be answered through the use of Dark Matter?
Not only this, but these streams of antiparticles in large enough critical concordance would create the first stable gravitational contributer to galactic central masses. Eventually, after something like 10^7 light years, certain explosions would have occured, because the gravitational attraction at the center of the galaxy N, would be affected by the ravitational acceleration found its structure, (which is much like the curvature produced round a whopping gravitational body equivalant to a black hole), so the math would be: N = ds^2=-c^2(1-2GM/c^2r) In other words, the antimatter ''tunneling'' under the thickness and into our universe, are confined around their entrance due to the gravitationally curved spacetime around it, preventing them to escape N<-1. Then, negative matter that are in free-fall states, given through f=ma is given by: g=(GM)/d^2 Will come into contact with the antimatter! This energy would result in twice the magnitude it currently had to begin with. The result as you know is a sea of gamma radiation. Currently, i am predicting that this would have been very freuqent. Around 10^100 ocurrances of this phenomena due to a certin Planck Energy level, and the production of gamma rays given in proportional amount throughout the universe would be suffice to explain the isotropic background of the cosmic background temperatures. It would also account for the loss of matter, because it has been converted into gamma energy, (E=Mc^2), and Dark Matter is no longer needed, because the effects of galactic formation where done previous to its creator t<1.
