Nobel prizes for everyone! Congratulations you managed to see the the entire magnetic field from 1 volt to 300+ Teravolts.Have you solved the Basic Dimensional Analysis problem for mass? Mass is a one dimentional measure of an object's weight. Gravity is a two dimensional data structure that holds mass and distance. A Matrix cannot ever equal a vector * a vector, or a vector * a scalar. So I have serious problems with the concept of mass.Let's evaluate a real object and what mathematically occurs when you reduce the natural three dimensional traits to the one dimensional concept of mass. When reducing the object from three dimensions to two, you lose x,y,z, size of the object. You lose I,j,k position of the object. You lose temperature data. You lose E/M data. You lose spectral identification data. You have effectively disregarded vital information about the object just to have mass. More importantly you have no manner of retaining that information or using it.I know some recent reports proved that gold travelling through the particle accellators pass through the double slit test as waves not particles. I believe that was done at the LHC. I could be wrong as to where the test was done. But that alone kills the particle concept.Now let's again look at that funny concept of gravity. The larger mass will always attract the less massive object at a rate of... So if an apple hits the ground something more massive then the earth is the only thing that can reverse the apple's direction.Marketing in physics. I know we all need to get paid. Do the math. Don't just say we found the "GOD" particle. Show me the math that proves you found many particles in the Higg's range and how the attach.Another thing. Particle accellerators are showing what happens after traumatic collisions of proton beams. This is a decay model. It does nothing to show interactions of bosons prior to the collision. Archemedes disproved gravity by running naked yelling Eureka. It was not gravity that he discovered it was density!!! Using density you get to keep all your amazing data about an object. So good luck with the god thing. One more thing. Gravity requires omnisence,omnipresence, and omnipotence. Gravity requires that distance data travel instantanously from object to object. That exceeds the speed of light.The Standard Vibration Model as described here is an expression model. There is a vital difference in those two concepts.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
> A Matrix cannot ever equal a vector * a vector, or a vector * a scalar.
Actually, a matrix CAN equal a vector times a vector, given the right "times" operator. Vectors come equipped with two natural products, the inner and outer product. The former produces a scalar, and the latter produces a matrix. Cool!
Also, your [E = m c^2] example is terribly flawed. E, m, and c are all scalars. Take c, for example. It is the "speed" of light, not the velocity. c says nothing about which direction light moves, only how fast. It is a simple 1 dimensional quantity.
Likewise for E. Energy is just a simple number... -5 or 42 or 1.2e9. Yes, you can define an energy field, where you supply a value for energy at every point. But those are two different things. Energy is a simple number. An energy field is a bunch of energy values spread across space. The E in [E = m c^2] is the former, not the latter.
> When reducing the object from three dimensions to two, you lose x,y,z, size of the object. You lose I,j,k position of the object. You lose temperature data. You lose E/M data. You lose spectral identification data.
That makes little sense. You claim by eliminating a single dimension, that you lose x, y, z, i, j, k, temp, and whatever form you think e/m and spectral data takes. At the very least, that's 9 values, if not more. How does eliminating 1 dimension result in a loss of at least 9 dimensions?
We need to step back and define a dimension. There are lots of nice rigorous ways to do it, but let's keep it simple. Let's treat dimensions as independently variable quantities.
> The larger mass will always attract the less massive object at a rate of...
Where did this sentence go?
> So if an apple hits the ground something more massive then the earth is the only thing that can reverse the apple's direction.
No. Classical gravity is inversely proportional to distance. An object with less mass than Earth, but denser, could potentially act on the apple from a shorter distance, such that the resulting ratio exceeds that of Earth's.
> Marketing in physics. I know we all need to get paid. Do the math. Don't just say we found the "GOD" particle. Show me the math that proves you found many particles in the Higg's range and how the attach.
They are showing the math. Here is a link to the presentations being given at the CERN conference on the Higgs...
https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=197461
That's serious, concrete data. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
> It does nothing to show interactions of bosons prior to the collision.
What happens prior to the collision impacts what happens after. You can leverage your theory to predict the expected outcome of a set of conditions, set up those conditions, play it forward, possibly through some unmeasured states, measure the final outcome, and compare to the prediction. That's called science.
> Gravity requires that distance data travel instantanously from object to object.
300 years ago, perhaps. These days, no.
In the case of general relativity, gravity is NOT a force acting at a distance. It's a fundamental curvature of spacetime itself. Changes in mass propagate instigate changes in curvature at the speed of light.
And in quantum field theory, gravity is modeled as a force-carrying particle. This is obviously not instantaneous action as it must be transmitted by the particle, and this also agrees with classical gravity in the classical limit of quantization, showing that classical gravity can in fact be explained without instantaneous action.
Didn't like my previous comment?
Thank you for reading my work.
It is not that I did not like your previous comment. I am just dealing with my mother's multiple mylomia. So I am away from my home and work. But most importantly I am holding my mom's hand for the last times.
I will respond to every point. You bring to my blog an interesting discussion. I will be home on Friday. So by Monday I hope to post a decent response to every part of your envigorating comment. Every difficult comment provides more thought and improved results to the model.
You should find the basic equations in the 'Motion of a Baryon' and other papers on the non-mobile version of the blog.
Thank you
Good Day and thanks for the comment.
I knew the deminsional analysis had to be the strongest part of this model.
1st dimension. The data.
2nd dimension. The Data structure. This is creating an object Boson. It has data of its own existence and transmitted baryon data.
3rd dimension. The physical structures in stasis. This is a NOW function of Dark Energy to calculate at this point in rotation.
4th Dimension. Time. Data in motion. Functions interacting.
That is how Dimensional Analysis works!
So a bunch of summed vectors cannot equal an energy field?
I will add that to the next comment here.
Thank you
Aaron
> That is how Dimensional Analysis works!
But that doesn't show how it works. It's just vague words.
The first hurdle in acceptance of your theory is redefining well-known words like "dimension". You may want to find a better word that doesn't conflict with standard usage.
But more so, at least as a first step, I think to relate to people with more mainstream views, you need to calculate actual things using explicit math and show that they're consistent with empirical evidence.
For example, since you don't like gravity, show the math that predicts the fact that a person experiences an acceleration of ~9.81 m/s^2 when standing on Earth's surface.
Or since you don't like e=mc^2, what's the maximum at-rest energy potential of 1 gram of Unranium-235, using your theory? Is it different than mc^2? Why?
Or what percentage of vertically polarized photons will pass through a polarized filter rotated 83 degrees with respect to it, using your theory? Is it different than cos(83)? Why?
Answering relatively familiar questions such as these will go a long way to convincing the mainstream that you're brand of physics is at least capable of deriving answers consistent with what we observe.
Maybe you can't yet compute these. Is there something you can compute explicitly as evidence? If not, why not? What steps are required to get past it? And lacking these things, what exactly gives you confidence in your theory at this point in time?
Although a person standing on earth experiences acceleration of -9.81 m/s^2. But a helium balloon does not experience the same acceleration rate. This is due to baryonic density within a media. This is describe through out the blog.
I will work on the next point
A
You are right, my model is essentially worthless if it cannot describe and visualize in detail your questions. I am coding these interactions so as not to look like a fool when I bring this theory into a working visualization model.
This is why I am asking for the funding.
I am going to do this in stages. I will make sure classical e/m rules and this model are statistically close in operation in my current program. Then I will add non-linear and other chaos systems to improve the program.
> Although a person standing on earth experiences acceleration of -9.81 m/s^2.
Be careful when being precise, because that's not correct either. Acceleration is actually vector, and its magnitude is always positive.
> But a helium balloon does not experience the same acceleration rate.
No, it doesn't. However, it does receive EXACTLY THE SAME contribution from gravity as a person. But to offset this, it also receives a huge mess of forces from the surrounding air, which when all summed together, counteract the gravitational force to provide net lift.
I know your theory claims to provide an alternate explanation, which is completely acceptable. But you must first understand and accept that the existing theory does in fact accurately explain the phenomenon.
Because as it stands, if people can't accept that you know the existing theory, they won't accept your criticism of it, nor your alternative to it.
> This is why I am asking for the funding.
Speaking honestly, a blog post won't get you what you need, unless your situation garners enough media attention (which needs some sort of spark) to overcome the rather unconventional method your using.
Also, I assume you have a MUCH more detailed write up of what exact projects you intend to take on and what each one will produce as an outcome, as you won't get funding without it.
Also, check out kickstarter. It's all the rage right now, and a great way for good ideas to get funding from the masses. But beware: you need clear and achievable goals.
> I will make sure classical e/m rules and this model are statistically close in operation in my current program. Then I will add non-linear and other chaos systems to improve the program.
It's amazing what quantum theory can formalize that we don't have the capacity to calculate yet. Just a warning... you won't get the same level of success trying to build a computer model that you will get trying to build a mathematical theory.
Thankyou for the pointers about making the project more acceptable to being funded. I am working on all of the documents describing the clear and achievable goals. I hope the blog is a stepping stone for understanding this model.
I understand the force defined as Gravity is a vector and that the forces of the surrounding air impact the density of the medium and the object. This is why I asked these questions. Through out the blog I show a fundamental and objective view of other models. I show how e/m functions work as fundamental the interactions involved in this model. I show how particles defined by QCD interact to form energy, density and motion in this model.
I understand that existing models have solutions for these phenomenon, but we all know there are serious problems with current models. The fact that particles of mass like quarks are not affected by the earth's gravity. This shows that current models are only supported by mathematical models, not observation.
I am working hard on polishing this model. I feel I am at the point where interactions with others will produce better results in the end.
Thankyou
Aaron
> I understand that existing models have solutions for these phenomenon
Okay, but a quick search on your front page returns:
> 4) Gravity is a failure... Why, Helium balloons.
I'm very confused about where you stand.
I have several postings on helium ballons and how they rise in this model. But basically The helium in the balloon is less dense than then surrounding air. This allows the balloon material to rise. Excaped helium will rise to meet its medium density.
By using heat, hot air balloons rise and fall in the lower atmosphere. By changing the temperature inside the balloon this makes the baryons less dense causing the balloon to rise.
> But basically The helium in the balloon is less dense than then surrounding air. This allows the balloon material to rise.
There's a really big logical leap between those two sentences, but I'll assume that you were just summarizing, and that the details really are explained elsewhere.
In any case, that wasn't the point. I wasn't concerned with how your theory explains helium balloons, but instead concerned with the fact that...
a) you declared gravity a failure because, I assume, it can't explain them, and yet...
b) seem to claim earlier in this comment thread (July 19, 2012 10:36 AM) to accept that the standard gravitational explanation makes sense.
Which is it?
In this model, gravity is not necessary. That which is normally defined as gravity in other models, in this model, is easily defined as density within a medium.
I also show mathematically and logically as to why one dimensional data cannot exist, in this model, as physical structures in motion.
Aaron
> In this model, gravity is not necessary.
I was simply asking whether you thought gravity's explanation of how helium balloons rise was valid, because you made a statement implying that you did, which contradicts much of your blog.
> I also show mathematically
I have not yet seen you show anything mathematically.
Compute something. Anything. And show the equations, the work, and the solution.
I am working on the coding part to express the mathematics. I expect its precision to incease over time. I will be using classical Maxwell equations to start then move to more advanced systems of equations.
The more I read Maxwell, Planck, Tesla and others, the more I am impresses with what we already knew. We are discarding this wonderful work for Einstein's rehasing of Two dimensional physics. Even if you are bending the plane of space to show three dimensions, objects within space can only work on an x,y basis. That produces the science fiction of wormholes, timetravel, blackholes as attractors, and the Big Bang as the story is told currently. It is currently not relevant to think of objects in space as similar to balls on a fabric cloth. Yet it is the foundation of our current models.
Why did we move aside these impressive theorists for the simple solution? Media. It is easier to describe 2 dimensions than it is to describe the interactions in 3d.
I will post the math and logic that produces the most accurate result. This will take time since I am working alone.
Aaron
> We are discarding this wonderful work for Einstein's rehasing of Two dimensional physics.
I would claim you are doing the same injustice to Einstein's work.
> Even if you are bending the plane of space to show three dimensions, objects within space can only work on an x,y basis. ... It is currently not relevant to think of objects in space as similar to balls on a fabric cloth. Yet it is the foundation of our current models.
That is NOT the foundation of our models. The classic example of balls on a cloth and such is horribly flawed, and is only an analogy used to explain the idea in popular science articles and books, because laymen have a hard time beyond 2 dimensions.
The actual Theory of General Relativity does NOT deal with curved 2 dimensional spaces, but instead intrinsic curvature of the entirety of 4 dimensional space-time. There is no 2D simplification present in the real theory.
> Why did we move aside these impressive theorists for the simple solution? Media. It is easier to describe 2 dimensions than it is to describe the interactions in 3d.
Exactly. The version of general relativity you are describing is the popular science version portrayed in the media. It's not the real thing.
For a gentle introduction to the actual theory, I would recommend Susskind's 2008 lectures, available on youtube. (and as a pre-req, check out his lectures on classical physics and special relativity, and have a solid handle on vector calculus).
Thank you for the pointers. I have watched Susskind's lectures on youtube. I have even linked some of those lectures to this site.
Einstein came along with media based equations that were easier to publish and diagram on newsprint then it was to describe the amazing work coming from Planck's and others. Planck's and others working on E/M had their work pushed aside for something easier to explain.
Try explaining physics without metaphors or analogies.
1: In this model the descriptions of the dimensional analysis is laid out
2: In this model bosons store information
3: Bosons in stasis interaction (potential)
4: Baryons in motion causes bosons to dynamically interact.
Asymptotes in the equation are where boson interact. The asymptote of the electron occurs at n/0. Three major interactions occur at this electron. It is the junction of the photon, ZBoson, and the WBoson. The electron functions to convert received external baryon information an initallize transfer to the baryon through a vortex of Zbosons. The electron receives internal baryonic data and expresses it with a photon.
I have shown that the Zeeman Effect bends and stops the rotation of photons. This has nothing to do with gravitational lensing.
I have explaned information transformation through every boson. The real problem is this. This model is a non-linear equation. There are no constants. The real shapes are not the standard geometric shapes. All numbers are Real. So that Real problem becomes a series of ratios determining the density, energy, and position of a baryon.
Thanks
Trigonometry begins at the baryon. Three gluons are required to form a baryon. So every point where the gluon meets another gluon (quark) is the angle and the taut gluon is the line. This is a fundimental basis of mathematics that shows proof in the model.
In motion a triangle takes on the shape of a cone. This motion of the baryon is the basis proof for conics and conic section. This include Kepler's elipses and conic mathematics.
> Einstein came along with media based equations ...
What does "media based" mean to you?
His field equations were full solutions to gravitation in general relativistic 4D space-time. In no way were they dumbed down or simplified for any particular audience. They weren't for the media... they were the correct solution to the problem of gravity in the context of the special theory, and was compatible with classical electromagnetism. I'm struggling with how that is "media based".
> Planck's and others working on E/M had their work pushed aside for something easier to explain.
So you define "media based" as "turned out to be more media friendly than competing work". Okay. But do you honestly think that Einstein's theory won out because the media loved it?
And in what way was prior work pushed aside? Einstein didn't invalidate prior results... he built upon them. Maxwell's equations live on in fullly relativistic, curved glory. Planck's blackbody results lived on in the quantum, which Einstein himself helped solidify (and which Planck actually resisted). And the Quantum Mechanical ball which Planck got rolling has established itself fully, despite whatever media attention Relativity stole.
I just don't see where you're coming from.
> In this model ...
I (and other readers) have a hard time accepting any explanations of your model unless you can convince me (and other readers) that you understand the model you are claiming to replace in the first place.
But claiming that e=mc^2 fails "dimensional analysis", or that gravity can't explain helium balloons, or that gravity fails in the multi-body case, or that Einstein's equations are "media based" simplifications of prior work, or that light is bent in magnetic fields; make it nearly impossible to take you seriously when it comes to your own work.
For example, gravity DOES explain helium balloons (as commenters have explained on your blog), even if your theory ALSO explains them.
A more fundamental one that I see you mention often: E=mc^2. As defined, it forms a sound statement (independent of truth).
You may be inclined to argue that E, m, and c are not scalars in your theory. Okay. But if you choose to redefine E, m, or c, you can no longer plug them in to E=mc^2 and say anything about it, because you're now talking about different things. Einstein's statement was in the context of the E, m, and c which HE was using, not whatever alternative definitions you came up with. If you're going to make statements about E=mc^2, you must do so in the context in which the equation is defined.
> I have shown that the Zeeman Effect bends and stops the rotation of photons. This has nothing to do with gravitational lensing.
Another great example: I know of no support for light being bent in a magnetic field (but feel free to supply proper experimental evidence). And forget about gravitationally lensing... such a result would invalidate much more foundational pre-20th century principles such as superposition. As a result, little things like Maxwell's equations would be invalidated, interference patterns wouldn't look as they do, and the world as we know it would be a very different place.
My overall point is that you're not providing proper support for your statements about mainstream physics, which erodes the trust of your reader and serves to deter them from accepting your alternatives.
I would suggest either:
a) Providing proper, rigorous, explicit proofs of your objections to mainstream physics (which you have not done), independent of whether your theory provides an alternative, or
b) Accepting mainstream physics openly as a valid model, and simply promoting yours as an alternative (which may be more accurate or powerful in some ways you are free to elaborate on).
Thank you for reading my work.
I am not doing well at this time. Ill be back on Monday.
Aaron
I should add...
Although light can not be bent by magnetism directly, it can indirectly, since a strong enough field stores energy, which is mass, and gives rise to gravitation. But the effect is orders of magnitude smaller (except possibly in extreme edge cases of highly polarized black holes) than that predicted by computing lensing from gravitational mass directly. Additionally, light is delected in the direction of the magnetic field, which would likely be inconsistent with the bending of gravitational lensing.
I believe there are some quantum effects at very (very!) high energies that could deflect light as well.
I make these claims without reference, I know, but I just wanted to offer that there ARE situations where light bends to magnetism, but they are extreme edge cases, and would not enable you to explain away something like gravitational lensing, for instance.
Sorry... just an aside.
Post a Comment