I have a physics theory about Universe. Can you check my formula?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by PHA___, Jan 14, 2017.

?

Can you check my formula?

  1. Does my formula true?

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Does it have any help to physics and astronomy?

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. PHA___ Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Firstly I want to write a note here.
    Note:I'm Azerbaijani. If a have any wrong about grammar,dont care about it.

    So...
    I made this theory 2 month ago. First I think it is crazy idea, but I think that I need to write my theory here and I want to know what does people think about it.

    I called it Infinitum and first I want to start with the collision force. This force is become after collisions. Formula of collision force is like this.

    Fc=(m(1)×a(1) + m(2)a(2))/√1-v^2/c^2.

    The formulas of my theroies are much but I dont have enough time for write. But if you want I can write much
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    A "physical theory" is a communicable framework which precisely describes the observable behavior of a large domain of related phenomena.


    1) "communicable" because human beings can teach it to other humans who are willing and able. That way we can talk about THE quantum mechanics rather than "Joe's quantum mechanics" and "Mary's quantum mechanics." The best scientific theories are the inheritance of all humans.
    2) "framework" because physical theories define their own terms. Reality comes with no labels, so humans invent them to suit human purposes. "time" and "straight line" mean something different in Newtonian theories and post-1916 physical theories."position" and "momentum" and "particle" mean something different in Newtonian theories and quantum mechanics.
    3) "precisely describes" because it uses math and the math of uncertainty associated with physical measurements allows us to compare the output of theory with the observations of phenomena. Thus precision is valued and a universally more precise physical theory is valued over others.
    4) "observable behavior ... of ... phenomena" because physics isn't about what things "really are" but about how phenomena behave. Physics is about testable ideas about the behavior of things, not about making untestable claims about the "why" behind the behavior. No one has ever needed to say what an electron "really is" in order to explain how radios and computers work. Even if we learn something radically new about the electron, that won't change the precision of our existing physical theories.
    5) "large domain of related phenomena" because the history of physics has been one of unification. Someone observes that gasses can be compressed and the pressure goes up. Someone observes that gases can be heated and the pressure goes up. These empirical observational rules-of-thumb are unified in "the ideal gas law." These in turn are unified with chemical observations of ratios of pure substances in "atomic theory" which covers a large domain.

    I don't think your formula is part of a useful physical theory because you have not related it to any observable phenomena and we already have very good theories which precisely describe the behavior of so very many different collisions at all speeds.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PHA___ Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Thank for your reply. But I made this theory for the things that happen at space, not in world. And this is really really little part of my theory. My heart isn't finish with this equation.

    This equation ' The Collision Force ' is just beginning of my theory. It will be go to the collisions at space and more... Thank you again
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,463
    Your formula does not make much sense unless you explain what it is meant to represent.

    What collision force, between what pair of objects, are you talking about? Or are you saying that this expression relates to the force of collision between any pair of objects? And if it applies only to objects in space, why is this? What makes space special in this respect?

    By the way I ought to point out that the magnitude of the force between colliding objects depends on their compressibility. Two squashy balls will be in contact for longer during the collision than two hard ones, will transfer momentum more slowly and will exert correspondingly lower forces on each other while they do so. So leaving compressibility out of your formula looks to me like a fatal error.
     
  8. PHA___ Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Thank you for your reply. I will gonna try to work on it. I will gonna try too much experiments. And I will consider this. Thqnk you again.
     
  9. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    I have asked that the mods move this to Alternative Theories.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,463
    Good idea.
     

Share This Page