Formula for Everything

is there such thing as a formula for how all particles interact??

if so. I think I have come up with a simple one that moves in a 3d space but i need a little help expanding it to include other particles accurately.

E={π(m/v)(x)}d/(t) where pie is included for orbital masses.

or E=(D*S)d/t

where D=Density
m=mass
d=distance
x=speed in km/(hr or second)
t=time

I know the expansion is in simple algebraic form but im having trouble coming up with the answer. or is this all just plain wrong?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you don't include gravity then yes, we have a formula from which you can construct any particle interaction known in the Standard Model. Its the sum of the Lagrangians for the electroweak sector and QCD.

You honestly believe that you've got something? How did you arrive at it? Just guessing?

Yes, its just plain wrong. Randomly making up formula where you don't even define what all the terms mean, which you have no reasoning for when you are utterly ignorant of any experimental result you need to explain is not how you do physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've gone through experimental results.

and i can explain(= it is just your mind i can not read.

It is the density that is a particles containment field, but other energies bounce off the areas of lesser density such as in the atmosphere. in my strong opinion I see matter as a function of density and density as a function of matter. which to this day matter and energy are loosely defined terms.

like .9999999999....= (1) absolute value .0000000000000000000000001 might as well be zero. which would explain for the lack of mass in Einstein's thinking. it is an insignificant volume, and to say particles have no volume would be a crime against nature. even vacuums have a volume of space that is taken up. and black holes do to. It can also be said that huge mountains would feel smooth if the world was the size of a marble. the bigger the marble the less smooth it would become. and the faster the speed the less it's less its relative volume would appear. this would account for E=mc^2. so i would like to state E=(m/v) at rest (not at the speed of light^2) and the rest is all dependent on the way in which we are able to simply expand the equation mathematically on both sides therefore M/v=(m/v)d/t of two particles at rest in thermodynamic equilibrium. I am also encountering time and speed being one in the same on high moving particles which would apply for C^2 for all practical purposes on earth, but I am unsure of the density of space. how much of a vacuum in space can be created by air in side the container and the pressure by chance??

 

Holy fork, send in the white coats.....

 

Derive the boiling point of water.

 

pie and pi are both circular I just prefer pie. lol lol jk

E=energy
S=speed
V=volume

im lost in some of my own variables.... but I'm so close I can smell it... and its not that i suck at derivatives... I just kinda forgot unfortunately... so a simple example of how to derive a velocity equation in 0=x^2+2x+1 or something like that would help... lol sad i know.

 

What experimental results?
Your own? From what experiments?

 

What "distance"?
What "time"?
Aren't those two included the "x" (speed) term?
Why do you think two equally massive particles but of differing densities have differing energies at the same speed?
How does "pie" allow for "orbital masses"?

Why are you using Km/ hr (or km/ sec), what's wrong with SI units?

 

mathmatical results and proofs such as this from a guy named Cetonan

img517.imageshack.us/img517/1592/ proof A

a.yfrog.com/img198/439/29671705. jpg Older proofs

which we all can hopefully agree on. you have to put http in front of those sorry i can't post links yet.

first what is your definition of mass... IMO mass is a function of density in its nature so the volume would be the only change to the equation and the energy would be equal.

x(m/v)s=(m/V)s notice the big V where X=the difference in volume

you can use any relative units if you use them correctly. I do prefer SI units.

 

I can't get any hits from those "links", through Google or any other method.
Nor any hits on a Google search for "Cetonan".
But it appears that you're effectively saying you've gone through "experimental results" provided by some... guy (background unknown, qualifications unknown, [sanity unknown?]) and derived your *cough* equation from those...

 

What I do find "interesting" is that when asked questions about YOUR choice of units and parameters for YOUR equation you decide that rather than explain, you'll give links (so far failed links) to someone else's work.

 

here ill just write one its only well known proofs

Let "x" = 4.9999...
10x = 49.9999...
10x - x = 9x
49.9999 - 4.9999 = 45
9x = 45
x = 5

the older one is just in sigma notation...

 

I'm also led to believe gravity is a function of volume and responds at some inverse to speed as well. the more speed the less time an object has to assert its pull on another.

 

I call this formula the destroyer:

[111,111,111]x[111,111,111]====== 1.234567898765432e+16

 

Proof of what?
How does that relate, if at all, to the equation in the OP?

Why?

And? What deep and meaningful point is this supposed to make? Do you think the strength of the pull is any less?

 

It shows how m in einstein's equation could have been misconstrued to not include density. its negligible.

volume is related to gravity in the sense that the less the volume of a particle the less gravitational pull it has on another.

the strength remains the same there is just less time for the particles to be pulled to another. due to speed.

what you want me to explain everything in a couple seconds!! or posts thats physically impossible. im just looking for a little help on the subject here. and erase pi im not sure where it goes yet...

 

How does it show this?

Really? You don't think mass has something to do with it?

In other words you're not telling us anything we didn't know.

A couple of seconds?
It's 21 hours+ since you made the OP and you've made 5 posts since then (not counting this one). Not one of which has offered anything other than specious and apparently unrelated "equations" and/ or essentially meaningless statements.

In other words you're clueless as to what you're actually doing...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you were genuinely looking for help then the best method would be to explain your reasoning (assuming you have any) and not simply dump equations that you can't explain or justify.

 

alright newton's equation basically works for all energy because they are all particles. which have density. and everything transfers energy. the coriolis effect is based on the moon traveling across the equator making water or objects with a larger mass spin into a vortex, (gravity is a given in this instance). the moon's pull and push also makes the world spin 24 hrs a day and the same properties can be said for the tua and the anti-tau that spins around it. oh and gamma rays are wavy because they encounter the density of other particles before they reach us. which means at some point they might be traveling faster than the known speed of light at some point, as far a tachyons go. probably only for like .000000000002 seconds or something... and the koide formula tells us the efficiency of energy transference between the particles used in the equation.



I just can't put the right mathematical spin on the equation...

E=(m/v)s density times speed...

 

What are "all particles"?

No it isn't.

No.

Really?

Word salad.

Very probably rubbish, but, once again, you have to explain what this is supposed to mean.

Pseudosci or Cesspool...
Edit: Oops, I didn't see it had been relocated since my last post.