I'm quite certain I've discovered the grand theory

[chroot]

but if you move infinitely closer to the event horizon more and more mass is being separated into energy?

No.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

Gravity plays no effect, only the minima and maxima of the waves interacting makes the interference?

 

[chroot]

Wave interference has nothing to do with gravity. Currently, there are two major theories in physics: quantum mechanics, which deals with the double slit experiment and so on, and general relativity, which deals with gravity and black holes. Currently, the two are not related to each other in any way.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

what if gravity and black holes were determined instead by time? Would that relate them? Instead of gravity being a force of energy it is described as I had described it in "what is energy" thread

 

[chroot]

What if green were really four?

Your ideas make no sense. The gravitational force does not depend on time, and indeed it cannot. The invariance of physical laws to translations in time is equivalent to the conservation of energy. If gravity changed its character over time, then the conservation of energy would be violated, and no one has ever shown even a single example, ever, of energy conservation being violated.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

Well time is relative to the amount of energy right? Therefor the amount of energy is greater on Earth than halfway between Earth and mars. I'm not saying gravity changes character over time, I am looking at one frame of time, not time passing. Energy: kinetic,gravity etc alters the speed at which time passes relative to other areas with diferrent energy.

Are you saying the conservation of energy would be violated if the Earth lost mass over time by putting out a gravitational field? If that's what your saying then Gravity must not be energy huh?

 

[chroot]

I have no idea what "the amount of energy is greater on Earth than halfway between Earth and mars" means.

"Energy: kinetic,gravity etc alters the speed at which time passes relative to other areas with diferrent energy" is almost correct. Gravitational fields to affect the passage time, cf. gravitational time dilation.

And yes, if the Earth lost mass over time simply by virtue of mainting its gravitational field, then energy conservation would be broken.

- Warren

 

[Antonio Lao]

Which comes first: the chicken or the egg? Do we quantized distance first then quantized matter and energy? Or do we quantized matter and energy first then quantized distance?

The quantization of matter is the beginning of the atomic theory.

The quantization of energy is the beginning of quantum theory.

The quantization of one-dimensional space (distance) is the beginning of quantized space. This is my research.

Quantized Space = c Energy

Energy = mass c^2

Quantized Space = mass c^3

Note: the three equations above are based on the assumption that continuous space and quantized space are equal but in truth they are not when look upon in microscopic and macroscopic point of view.

 

[PRyckman]

Sorry to be vague, Energy existing as a potential whether it be infared or xray measured at some point on Earth would be greater than the Energy existing as a potential than in space away from such a large body.

Ok now Since Earth isn't losing mass over time maintaining it's gravitational field, then gravity must not contain energy. To again obey the laws of conservation of mass.

If gravity doesn't contain energy is it still a force of E?
Is it not possible that energy creates a force on time and Gravity is just a byproduct of that?

 

[PRyckman]

That's interesting Antonio, I wonder what chroot will have to say on that.

 

[chroot]

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Gravitational potential energy increases with distance.

No one ever said gravity "contains" energy, whatever that means. Gravity is a conservative force.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

It takes energy to push or pull something. Gravitational potential energy increases with distance, If you increase the distance in my equation either energy or time could rise. Showing either the potential energy of such distance or the time it would take for them to meet.

 

[chroot]

I'm not really interested in discussing your little equation, since it isn't even dimensionally consistent. It's also riddled with absurdities. Sorry. I'll let you talk to someone else.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

I'm really interested in those quanta you said antonio.
If I had any mathmatical background I'd make my equation CE=mc^2(mc^3)
and see if it works out.

 

[PRyckman]

I see how it is riddles with absurdities, which I just haven't explained well enough obviously. But as far as not being dimensionally constant I don't see where your coming from.

 

[chroot]

Do you know what it means to be "dimensionally consistent?"

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

no i suppose i do not, unfortunately i never went to university.

 

[Antonio Lao]

To be dimensionally consistence, the proportionality constants in all the equations (e.g. c or h) must be capable of lowering or increasing dimension. I am still looking for a way to do just that.

 

[chroot]

To be dimensionally consistent means the units on one side of an equation are the same as on the other side.

For example, in your equation T = E / d, let's look at the units:

T has units of time. E has units of (mass * distance^2)/(time^2). d has units of distance.

E / d therefore has units of (mass * distance)/(time^2), which is the same as force.

(time) does not equal (mass * distance) / (time^2), so your equation is entirely meaningless. The quantity on the right cannot be compared with the quantity on the left, because they represent two completely different units.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

Antonio If you put your quanta into the equation D=E(t) would it be correct.?

EC^3=mc^2(c energy)

See if you can find a textbook answer to fit that, I've done all the thinking I can for today, bedtime for me.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you saying the conservation of energy would be violated if the Earth lost mass over time by putting out a gravitational field? If that's what your saying then Gravity must not be energy huh?

"Gravity" isn't energy.

Hopefully, in your few days of this conversation, PRyckman, you've come to a realization: what you know about physics is barely scratching the surface of what is known by the scientific community. What you have isn't even close to the Grand Unified Theory - in fact, it appears you didn't even know what a GUT until warren explained to you the two halves of physics.

You have a lot of homework to do...

 

[Antonio Lao]

To make

Continuous space = c Energy,

the assumption that force is equivalent to time is needed.

One definition of force is that it is the time rate of change of the linear momentum.

If the linear momentum is proportional to the square of time then S=cE can be dimensionally consistent.

 

[Antonio Lao]

To make linear momentum equivalent to square of time, the mass must be inversely proportional to distance and directly proportional to the cube of time. All these reduces to one proportionality that is the following:

mass is inversely proportional to the time rate of change of acceleration.

m = \frac {1}{\frac{da}{dt}}

 

[PRyckman]

"Gravity" isn't energy.

Thanks for restating exactly what I just said, which you also did in the other thread.

 

[PRyckman]

So continuous space =Ec
E=Mc2
and by defatul Ec^3=Mc^2(Ec)

If not for mass that calculation would be correct. Hmm, chroot what if we take mass out saying this is something with no rest mass.

Antonio continuos space is ec ? so (Mc^2)c ?

 

[Antonio Lao]

Yeah.

Continuous space, S is related to mass by the following:

S = mc^3

the proportionality constant in term of power of c are related to the individual probability of occurrence for space (continuous and quantized), energy and mass.

It is most probable (almost 1) for quantized space to change into mass but the rate is very, very, very, very slow. In other words, this high probability process takes a long time to complete.

It is very, very, very, very fast for mass to change into quantized space but the probability is almost zero. In other words, this low probability process takes a short time to complete.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for restating exactly what I just said, which you also did in the other thread.

RE:

Are you saying the conservation of energy would be violated if the Earth lost mass over time by putting out a gravitational field? If that's what your saying then Gravity must not be energy huh?

I assumed from the question mark at the end that you were asking a question, so I answered it. Was it meant to be rhetorical? If so, you weren't telling us anything new (and that was my point).

Why did you bring it up?

 

[PRyckman]

It was rhetorical, sorry I'm not telling you anything new, these are thoughts i came to on my own conclusion. In coming up with this equation I thought of a few of these things myself without prior knowledge that they already exist, including Plancks constant, heat death, and gravity not being an energy.
One further, black body radiation.
I came to the conclusion for that because I believe this equation says that our universe is just a black hole in another, and the black holes in ours are universes as well.

I read up on hawking radiation and found the math for it quite perplexing, seem's they can't really put a finger on why it is in bursts

Well I'll tell you why. Stars and Galaxies burn off their energy in stages. There are peak periods of stars, and there are low times. The reason there is no math to fit it is because it is chaos in it's grandest scheme. Not only do you have chaos inside of energies and matter, but you may also have life. Who would harness the energy and do who knows what.

There is another thread, no theory complete without GOD
Well I haven't figured out what he wants but I have narrowed it down to only two possible things.
1. He wants us to rule the universe.
2. He wants us to die.
That's the only two logical choices. Pick yours, I know what I choose.

 

[PRyckman]

And what about my question there.
Can you take mass out of that equation if Were talking about light.

Because if you did, then the equation would be balanced
Ec^3=c^2(Ec)

Anyways, I'll let you know what I think that equation means. Dimension is always 3 dimensional for matter to exist. Energy and time creates 3 dimensional space. The precise size and shape they create is dependent on the energy. Gravity is not a force but just a footnote in this equation. Since Time and energy directly make space then space could be considered a 3 dimensional space bent and curved. This curving is time. Stretched and compressed at different points in space. Time itself is what gravity is.
Imagine an electron spinning around a nucleus. It only exists at any given point in time in probability. Therefor the force it creates is spread around that probability field. With the higher places of probability having more force.

If an electron had a probability to be found at any given time 50% on the left of a line and 50% on the right of a line, then the affect time has on it's force can be easily shown.

With the time frame rate on the left being 1.1
And the time frame rate on the right being 1.2

So if the electron spent 1.1 seconds on the left then it actually spent 1.2 seconds on the right which would move the force of the electron on the rest of the atom, which would move the entire atom.

 

[russ_watters]

And what about my question there.
Can you take mass out of that equation if Were talking about light.

No, that equation exists to show the relationship between mass and energy: removing mass makes it meaningless.

There are other equations for dealing with light.