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

[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 dependant 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.

 

[PRyckman]

If so, you weren't telling us anything new (and that was my point).
Why did you bring it up?

No I'm not telling you new facts, just why they are.
We already know light Time and distance are related. Watch,
Light travels one light year per year. Right there shows you.

Man I had written a lot here and it deleted it, i don't feel likewriting it again.

So i'll skip to important stuff.

I said before how i think gravity is just time.
what if the equation was G=E(t) and t=D/E

Ps. When I'm up to it I'll rewrite what I had written on Hawking radiation and the expansion speeds of our universe in it's infancy

 

[PRyckman]

okay. Hawking Radiation comes out of a black hole in fluxes that despite peoples best efforts, they can't pin the math down correctly to explain it in all circumstances.

What my theory suggests, is that a black hole, is an entire universe like our own. The energy waxing and waning comes from galaxies of stars climaxing together. The energy in the universe is expelled in bursts. The reason we cannot pin that down in math but can ALmost do it, is because of chaos theory. The chaos of that energy is so immense that it averages out, however if you ever want to be exactly precise you would have to account for everything in the universe, including life.
The reason the wavelength is stretched is because the expansion of the universe inside.

Expansion speed at birth: We know that our universe expanded faster than the speed of light at the point of big bang. That distance is equal to the circumference of our macroscopic universe
(the size of the black hole our universe is). That distance is determined by the amount of mass energy contained. Defined as D=E(t) ,note that time can be seen as energy density.

 

[PRyckman]

more on black holes, The larger they are the longer they take to lose their energy through Hawking radiation. This is because, a black hole actually does have a relative time to you. The less energy it has the faster time goes relative to us. I've given enough examples with the equation, you can look at it again if you need to see it work.
The more energy you have in the black hole the slower time goes by relative to us. That black holes time frame rate can be determined by it's mass energy and it's size.

As the mass energy in black hole evaporates conditions inside get closer and closer to absolute zero. Obviously absolute zero could be seen as time standing still. The closer it gets to that point the larger time frame rate, ours being much higher, the black hole dissipates much faster.

 

[zeta101]

PRyckman, none of your posts make sense and your theories just seem to be a "mish-mash" of stuff youve just read and obviously not understood correctly. You don't justify or explain anything you state, and infact i really did think that you were typing meaningless drivel just as a joke to see who would actually take it seriously. However looking at the amount of time youve put into writing these posts i don't think that's the case.

You have a creative mind, but you are wasting it, you will not accomplish anything in the field of science unless you decide to learn some BASIC PRINCIPLES in physics/science. I'm sure the people here will help you with that.

You will never be able to formulate a theory of everything without having studied physics in depth, its just not possible. You either accept this and decide to learn something about physics (ie learn to walk before you can run) or you can continue ranting, and I am pretty sure most of the people here will stop reading your posts (if they haven't already...)

 

[PRyckman]

k, an easy question does Planck distance equal Planck energy X time ?

And I've studied physics in some degree, but only in my own time. And I don't know enough formulas to figure things out. But I understand both in language. Also when I look at the question of the theory of everything, I think of the universes purpose, God or whichever. Theres only two possible things. The universe is here for a reason, and life may or may not be wanted.

Since if we die we don't know if we get to see god there is only one thing we can do, one purpose life can have. Use energy use as much energy as possible.

 

[russ_watters]

k, an easy question does Planck distance equal Planck energy X time ?

One thing that may be helpful to you in your quest here is to be able to figure out these things on your own. Look at the units of energy, time, and distance. When you multiply an energy and a time, what are the resulting units? Are they the same as distance?

This is critical to being able to accurately interpret equations you see.

 

[Alkatran]

I have a question, PRyckman. Are you just randomly throwing symbols and exponentials into your equations, hoping for a correct answer? Because that's what it looks like.

k, an easy question does Planck distance equal Planck energy X time ?

I have no idea what Planck distance, Planck energy (or time, in a way) are. But I know the units associated to DISTANCE, ENERGY and TIME (according to my high school courses to date, I'm sure they left out some crucial points).

Distance: m
Energy: m^2/s^2*kg
Time: s

Energy*Distance = (m^2/s^2*kg)*m= m^3/s^2*kg
Now, does m^3/s^2*kg==s?

There you go. Figure it out for yourself next time, jeez.

 

[lightbeing]

possibilities?

Ok, I 've noticed that PRyckman, you have an interesting thing started. I think you may be onto something by redefining the distance model you proposed. On a side note , and I am sure you realize, to aviod the deterrent effects that others try to create when one thinks out of the box! It is important to accurate perception when one decides to deviate from the 'normal' and mostly inaccurate existing theories of modern science. Unified Theory to me, takes less than any measurement of time to assess. But, an infinite amount of time (seemingly) to convey. Your distance = 1 for all distances actually makes more sense than to quantize by any other measure. This why it is potentially vague to some. I think when you answered B to your question, it was A to be accurate. Anyway, maybe we all should rethink some of how we describe simple concepts such as distance to really be able to reach anything close to a unified theory of the universe. If we rid ourselves of inaccurate descriptions (assumptions)of time and distance, then we can more accurately provide answers to things that create growingly complex equations to "theorize" inaccurate fundamentals. Ok, the very thought processes that contemplate the theory cannot vidicate the existence of the theory. In part due to the fact that it knows it is somewhat redundant on trying to convey by communicating, or, creating an equation to "sum it up", since, the mind already intimately and completely understands without the equation. This consideration or lack of considering, reveals the infancy of western (modern) physics.
Quite possibly, the unified theory may reveal that distance actually may be irrelevant when the theory is accurately assessed.

Keep going!

 

[billy_boy_999]

PRyckman, this is a really interesting idea, don't be deterred by people who demand that you flesh out every conceivable equation before you pursue a qualitative idea...

sometimes the mentors ask pertinent questions and demand relevant equations, other times they spend three pages trying to convince you that a relativistic mass dilation is locally applicable and when they have lost the argument they insist the conclusion is meaningless...we are all internet goons here...

 

[PRyckman]

Ok

Alright, well yes russ waters, Multiplying E and T gives me a distance in two ways, I'm still struglling with this as much as you are to understand me though. In any case, Energy travels a certain speed. And given a time that gives a distance. The other way Energyx time gives a distance is if in the case of a black hole. The mass is so concentrated that It tears space, And the size of the hole it creates is directly proportional to the mass contained.

Figure out that equation, and simplify it until you get to the smallest distance or that exists. At that point you will have it's relative time frame rate. Given time may equal 7.34 which would mean that for every second that goes by on your watch 7.34 seconds go by in the black hole.

A thought experiment.

Okay, What if I was one lightyear away from you. And then I suddleny traveled at 99% the speed of light towards you, while shining a flashlight on you.
Since the light I was shining at the beginning of my journey doesn't hit you until I'm 99% done my journey, you receive 100% of that energy in 1% of the time. So you receive 365 days worth of flash light energy over the period of about 3 days.

So does this prove that D=E(t) or does this prove E=mc2 once again.
Further, what if i was going even closer to the speed of light, so that beam of light was squished even more, packing increasingly more energy into a smaller space, at some point would this create a gravity well? or something else extraordinary?