# String Formula

1. Jun 18, 2004

### Dlockwood

M = E < C.

Resolves duality of matter/energy (wave/particle) characteristics of electrons and quantum level absorbtion/emmision characteristics of electrons.

In other words, all matter consists of energy below the velocity of light.

Why does electical current travel at near the velocity of light?

Why do electrons emit photons when they drop to a lower quantum level?
Where do the photons come from?

Everything fits. Think about it a little.

More later, maybe. If I don't get deleted again.

2. Jun 30, 2004

### jtolliver

i wouldn't be surprised if you got deleted again; This really belongs under Theory Development

3. Jul 17, 2004

### Dlockwood

I appreciate not being deleted.

Posts to theory development seem to get buried in endless pseudo-intellectual dribble and ‘fall off the end of the earth’ into a mindless abyss. Besides, if string theory is correct then this theory belongs here where it will be of the most use to the people with the highest interest. Perhaps the theory development section could be ‘sectionalized’ so that people could more quickly find their areas of interest. However, I do enjoy the sometimes wildly speculative and theoretically impossible and find these very stimulating. It’s just that I don’t have a lot of time these days, having to work for a living.

I tend to think of electrical current like Newton’s cradle. You know, the little game with (usually) five steel balls? When you lift the first ball and drop it, the fifth ball bounces up with the same velocity as the first, less losses. If it’s well designed, the center balls don’t move at all. When you inject electrons into a high valence conductor, they cause a reaction similar to Newton’s cradle. The electrons move into the conductor with near light velocity energy and, like Newton’s cradle, other electrons exit with the same energy, less losses. The current velocity is near the velocity of light because the electrons move at that velocity. Also, like Newton’s cradle, the electrons in the center hardly move at all.

What does energy look like below the velocity of light? Maybe it’s the stuff we grew up with all our lives… matter. With electron velocities at near light velocities, we can see how easy it is for an electron to exhibit both wave and particle characteristics. With only mild external stimulus the particle could transition to its energy state. This makes for some pretty exciting possibilities. Can energy have characteristics that cause energy bonding? What would be the criteria for bonding? Would it be based on quantum energy? Frequency? Is it this bonding that forms matter? Are there other forms of energy, yet undiscovered, that are required for this bonding process? You can easily see many opportunities for scientific experimentation and inquiry here. However, this does put a damper on interstellar travel. Do you know why? Well, maybe it doesn’t. More later.

4. Jul 20, 2004

### Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
...but you are being moved to Theory Development. That is where personal theories are to be posted.

That's because most people who post their ideas in Theory Devlelopment are the same ones who do not know very much about physics.

This theory of yours is not going to be of much interest to string theorists, I'm afraid.

5. Aug 16, 2004

### Dlockwood

**That's because most people who post their ideas in Theory Devlelopment are the same ones who do not know very much about physics.

I've noticed that most physicists, like the rest of us, do not seem to know very much about physics. Most are, at least, arrogant, convinced that the dawn of knowledge rest on their shoulders, and when asked simple questions that they do not know the answer to, dodge the question entirely or throw out a bunch of facts that have nothing to do with the question.

Case in point: A while back I asked (in this forum) what the absorption frequencies were of the various quantum levels of hydrogen and what research has been done to verify these absorption frequencies. I was told that they were the same as the emissive frequencies and was referred to a web site that I had already been to in the past. The web site held no information regarding the history of determination of the absorption frequencies and my question remains unanswered. Did somebody just assume that the absorption frequencies were the same as the emmisive frequencies? What I still want to know is how were these absorption frequencies verified? What scientific experiment was done to prove that they are the same as the emissive frequencies? Was the 5000 volt experiment referred to at the web site done in a dark room? If so, how were the exicited hydrogen atoms able to absorb light from the same frequency? If they absorbed light from the quantum emissions then the experiment would eventually wind down because most of the emitted light would be lost outside the container. If they continue then the applied voltage must be part of the equation (or other phenomena) and the results mis-leading.

I have to admit that I have a hard time reading about the 'proofs' of many of the technologies that I study. They are sometimes so hopelessly flawed that I get disgusted just reading about them. So, if I seem a bit 'testy' sometimes, please forgive me. I have many questions I would like answered because I have been studying technology intensely for over 40 years. I love every type of technology, but I am only good in mechanics, hydraulics, pneumatics, electronics, and physics. I have given several of my theories to others and made several millionares. I have little desire to be rich but an intense desire to learn how everything works.

More later, maybe.

Last edited: Aug 16, 2004