The equations are my observation of the obvious. These charged particles i.e. compressed state energy, travel in a vortex. This is evident in the image and has lead me to this hypothesis. Further more it makes more sense, this can explain the negative and positive forces of electro magnetism. It also is very simple, it explains gravity and its relation to EM. See image. http://forums.hypography.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=640&stc=1&d=1151685434 What you may be observing in this image is the straight lines of GR being compressed into quantum mechanics. This could be the simple link. This may also may explain anti matter the undoing of mass back to 3D space vacuum. So here we go. Gravity Mass are cause, effect, force (this is true established scientific fact) (svv*e)C2=M=G (Spatial Volume Vacuum times Energy) times the Speed of light squared equals Mass and Mass equals or is the cause of Gravity. This equation is to show the relation between Mass the Vacuum of 3D space, energy and Gravity. Now I realize that energy must be nothing more that compressed 3D space vacuum. This must be how energy and space are related. When 3D space enters the vortex created by an outside force it creates both negative and positive pressure of Electro Magnetism. This one understanding explains how an exhausted Star can supernova send charged particles into surrounding space and create new energy to give birth to new stars and heavier elements. Without this hypothesis how do we explain an exhausted source of nuclear fuel creating new nuclear reaction? The energy (3D space) is never used up it only exists in a cosmic flux of compressed, non compressed states.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 3D spatial volume vacuum times energy (because 3D space vacuum compressed into a vortex makes up that of energy) times the speed of light squared equals Mass and Mass equals Gravity. Really all the rest are details.
Looks like the trappings of a field theory of some sort. Are you building particles out of empty space?
Yes exactly, what is overlooked is the vacuum, vacuum is a negative energy that when set into the motion of the vortex also creates positive pressure or charge.
Do you realize that in your theory, the most elemental components of the vortex must move at the invarient speed of light. If that is true you must realize you've just re-discovered the true cause of relativity phenomena. It was H. Ziegler who first told Einstein of this in 1906
http://forums.hypography.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=640&stc=1&d=1151685434 Look at the image you see lines of charged particles in motion within a EM environment. Their vector is in the straight line (General Relativity) until they disturb 3D space then they gain in angular momentum until they form a vortex, (Quantum Mechanics) Notice the residual vortexes the particles create. This is so simple, I can not believe scientist's have never envisioned it. What happens is when the vacuum of and area of 3D space it is distorted by whatever disturbed it. This action takes what used to be a constant equalized form of vacuum and spins it into the vortex in the wake of the disturbance. Now that the vortex is in motion what used to be only a negative vacuum now has an positive pressure or force caused by the singularity of the vortex. This act is accomplished every time we generate electric power. This is in effect the basis of the electron.
I think what he means is this point: Mass equals the speed of light squared divided by energy times its spatial volume. m = c<sup>2</sup>*V/E It's mass is constant, correct? It's energy is constant, correct? You can change an object's volume (this is variable). Hence, c is variable.
A fundamental theory such as yours has to stand up to all observations ever made in the past and all that will be made in the future. In order to do that, the vortex must have something, in your case I think the most fundamental something that exists, that it is made of. I assumed from your writings that this would be the vacuum of space, with its permittivity and permiability as described by Maxwell. Those two things propagate change through space at the invarient speed of light. So you have at the very bottom of your theory, a most elemental component that must move at the invarient speed of light. As soon as you have that you have solved the puzzle of relativity, as pointed out by H. Ziegler and published in Einstein's paper of 1909.
Ok this sounds like what I am trying to work with, Is he saying that what I am trying to do here, has already been done. Or is this support for the idea I have been trying to realize here?
No your theory is uniquely yours. I'm pointing out a common component of all field theories, yours included, that solve the puzzle of relativity.
What exactly is this "puzzle of relativity?" I went to the page you were refering to, but I was a bit lost.
The link was targeted to H. Zieglers comments in the Einstein paper. Maybe the target didn't work for your browser, but my browser goes directly to the comments. Basically H. Ziegler told Einstein that if the most elemental components of mass all moved at the invarient speed of light, relativity phenomena would be a naturel result. You have to realize that Einstein had just published his Theory of relativity, and this flew directly in the face of that. If what Ziegler said was true, Einstein's theory was pointless because relativity phenomena required classical space time. (edit: not to infer that the Theory of Relativity is not useful, it correctly describes observations, it is just that space and time do not change to accomidate motion, matter, being made of stuff of invarient speed, must distort to accomidate motion. That distortion is what is observed and correctly predicted by the theory of relativity.)
Vern is this you "Vernon Brown PTE" Thank you for your wisdom. I only ask to be your student for a minute or so. Let us say this vortex is the invariant speed of light. Let us now create a formula to show that everything is relative to the vacuum of space. What impact will this have on Relativity? "We now know that this is the correct cause of the phenomena of relativity." Who is we? Is the phenomena understood?
Starman: I thiink you need to go off and learn something about conventional physics before you try reinventing it. At present, it seems to me that your theories are no more than fanciful imaginings, without any theoretical underpinning or observational evidence to support them. Also, you are using well-defined physical language in ways in which make no sense at all to physicists (and this is NOT a virtue, in case you're wondering). You refer to a structure of spacetime which involves vorticies, but which is itself unspecified. You need a solid mathematical foundation for your notion of what spacetime is. Otherwise, it is just a nebulous thing that you can alter for any purpose, but which is useful for nothing, since it makes no quantitative predictions. Here are some statements from you which make no sense: What are the "straight lines of GR"? How can a line be compressed into a physical theory - quantum mechanics? This is not a true, established scientific fact. Physicists use the terms "gravity" and "mass" in completely different ways. They are not at all the same thing. If you want a hand-waving way to describe it, you could say that mass causes gravity. So you say, but where does this come from? You just made it up, didn't you? If you're serious about physics, you need to go away and learn what current physics says about our universe, and how it says it. Then, after you have got yourself a decent education in it, you might be able to pick holes in current theories. But until then, you're wasting your time.
Could it be because A ) the particles are charged and B ) they are created in a charged environment - deliberately so that particles with one charge will go off to one side and those with the opposite charge go off the other way. And strength of charge on the particles is indicated by curvature of their path. It is done deliberately in the lab to distinguish one particle type from another - it's nothing to do with "disturbing 3D space" as such.
Quantum physics and the theories of relativity are useful to understand and predict nature. The theory of relativity and the phenomena of relativity are two different things. The phenomena is real. The theory is a collection of rules to explain and predict the phenomena. Relativity is not explained well by QM theory.
What do you mean? Quantum electrodynamics has special relativity built into it. One of the main aims of current physics is to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity - something string theory apparently does quite well.
