Simple Theory

[devin553344]

PDF file: see the following thread in this forum for the pdf file: http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36269-explaining-the-electromagnetic-fields-of-the-earth/

 

The strong force creates the full gravitation of the matter energy. Deuteron binding energy may be calculated as such considering a factor of 2 for 2 nucleons. Note: Typical binding energy at the proton-neutron wavelength for large atoms is 1.6E-12 Joules:

 

E = 2 * -(mc^2)/(4π * d^2/r^2 exp(2 * d/r)) = -3.564 788 E-13 Joules

 

where E is the binding energy of deuteron, m is the mass of the proton, c is the speed of light, d is the deuteron charge radius (distance between nucleons), r is the wavelength of the proton.

 

The strong force as a 5 dimensional system may play a role in the electric field of particles:

 

3/5 * Ke^2 = hc/(8/3 * π^2 * exp(4))

 

Where K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, h is the Planck constant, c is the speed of light.

 

The neutron is a relativistic electron orbiting a proton:

 

mn = mp+me/(1-(Ke^2)/((mn-mp)rc^2))^1/2 = 1.674 926E-27 kilograms

 

Where mn is the mass of the neutron, mp is the mass of the proton, me is the mass of the electron, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, r is the wavelength of the neutron, c is the speed of light.

 

The Hydrogen electron orbital binding energy relates to the momentum's kinetic energy of the electron:

 

mhc^2 = 1.504 096 281 338E-10 Joules

 

E^2 = (mhc^2 - mpc^2)^2 = me^2c^4 + p^2c^2

 

ve = ((me^2c^4 - E^2)^1/2)/mec

 

Eb = 1/2 * meve^2 = 2.231 203E-18 Joules

 

Where E is the electrons total energy orbiting the nucleus of Hydrogen, mh is the actual mass of Hydrogen, c is the speed of light, mp is the proton mass, me is the electron mass (rest mass), p is the momentum of the electron, ve is the velocity of the electron orbiting the Hydrogen nucleus, Eb is the binding energy.

 

The following sections are a current work and may reflect unfinished ideas:

 

The elementary charge remains the same for the electron and proton and is a 5 dimensional n-sphere volume with a slightly different solid angle:

 

V = (c^4K/(4πG))^1/2

 

Ve = h * 8/15 * π^2 * exp(5(2π+4π))

 

Where V is the voltage of space-time, c is the speed of light, K is the electric constant, G is the gravitational constant, e is the elementary charge, h is the reduced Planck constant.

 

The electron-positron pair come from a 5 dimensional electromagnetic energy:

 

2mec^2 = h * 8/15 * π^2 * exp(5(4π + 2π)/2)

 

Where me is the electron or positron mass, c is the speed of light, h is the reduced Planck constant.

 

The proton-antiproton come from a 5 dimensional n-sphere and requires 3 quarks per particle. The radius is modified by pi because the proton has a radius:

 

2mpc^2 = 6 * h * 8/15 * π^2 * π^5 * exp(5(4π + 2π)/2)

 

Where mp is the mass of the proton or antiproton, c is the speed of light, h is the reduced Planck constant.

 

The neutrino sum of 3 flavors may relate to a step down of the 5 dimensional energy:

 

3mvc^2 = h * 8/15 * π^2 * exp(5(4π + 2π)/3)

 

Where mv is the neutrino mass, h is the reduced Planck constant. This produces a total mass of 0.15 eV for all three flavors.

 

It's important to note that in order to calculate the exact electron-positron or proton-antiproton energy above, you must add the binding energy and subtract the electric energy for each pair. The binding energy is:

 

Eb = E/(4πexp(2))

 

Where Eb is the binding energy, E is the 5 dimensional energy.

20191123WaveCurvatures.pdf

Edited December 26, 2019 by devin553344

[exchemist]

I decided that our units of mass and charge were perhaps incorrect. So I modified them and worked out some math. I thought I would share the idea. It's not a genius theory, but it's something to think about:

 

20190614WaveCurvatures.pdf

The units? Surely they are simply convenient, standard chunks of the quantities concerned. In what sense can they be "incorrect"?

[Dubbelosix]

The units? Surely they are simply convenient, standard chunks of the quantities concerned. In what sense can they be "incorrect"?

 

I wouldn't dare look, but no doubt there will be errors, but as I explained to him the other day, he abused my good nature and I will no longer entertain him.

[devin553344]

The units? Surely they are simply convenient, standard chunks of the quantities concerned. In what sense can they be "incorrect"?

 

Einstein said that mass was a curvature of space-time. Going along that idea, then perhaps mass itself is an acceleration field instead of a magnitude. Why does it require a gravitational constant to create a meters^3/seconds^2? I simply say that charge and mass are the same thing, curvatures of space-time, while mass is pointed inward, charge is pointed outward. I mean the units for gravitation and electromagnetic were created long ago and simply the beginning of an idea.

 

So mass does something, it gravitates. Then mass should have units of meters^3/seconds^2.

 

Charge also does something by itself it repels. Then perhaps it should have the same units as mass: meters^3/seconds^2

 

Why do we say mass and charge are a measured magnitude instead of a mechanical unit capable of producing forces on its own?

[Dubbelosix]

Einstein said that mass was a curvature of space-time. Going along that idea, then perhaps mass itself is an acceleration field instead of a magnitude. Why does it require a gravitational constant to create a meters^3/seconds^2? I simply say that charge and mass are the same thing, curvatures of space-time, while mass is pointed inward, charge is pointed outward. I mean the units for gravitation and electromagnetic were created long ago and simply the beginning of an idea.

 

So mass does something, it gravitates. Then mass should have units of meters^3/seconds^2.

 

Charge also does something by itself it repels. Then perhaps it should have the same units as mass: meters^3/seconds^2

 

Why do we say mass and charge are a measured magnitude instead of a mechanical unit capable of producing forces on its own?

 

Yes... mass, curvature and energy are all co-dependent in the background metric. Mass is a type of charge, there is no reason to bring up the gravitational constant unless you are meaning the units, in which case yes, the relativity of charges, an article I have wrote already establishes this:

 

[math]Gm^2 = \hbar c = e^2[/math]

 

Stop trying to work with units first, you're not very good at it, and you're putting yourself in a type of ''swings and roundabouts'' when you keep saying ''this must have this, and that must have that.'' Just learn what physics is saying first.

[devin553344]

Yes... mass, curvature and energy are all co-dependent in the background metric. Mass is a type of charge, there is no reason to bring up the gravitational constant unless you are meaning the units, in which case yes, the relativity of charges, an article I have wrote already establishes this:

 

[math]Gm^2 = \hbar c = e^2[/math]

 

Stop trying to work with units first, you're not very good at it, and you're putting yourself in a type of ''swings and roundabouts'' when you keep saying ''this must have this, and that must have that.'' Just learn what physics is saying first.

 

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot a while back. Sorry.

 

Yes in my idea the gravitational constant and the permittivity of free space may have units and also may be dimensionless factors of space-times allowance for gravitation and electric repulsion of the charge/mass acceleration field.

[Dubbelosix]

There you go again, instead of apologizing, you keep bringing to the table idea's you don't fully understand and.......

[exchemist]

Einstein said that mass was a curvature of space-time. Going along that idea, then perhaps mass itself is an acceleration field instead of a magnitude. Why does it require a gravitational constant to create a meters^3/seconds^2? I simply say that charge and mass are the same thing, curvatures of space-time, while mass is pointed inward, charge is pointed outward. I mean the units for gravitation and electromagnetic were created long ago and simply the beginning of an idea.

 

So mass does something, it gravitates. Then mass should have units of meters^3/seconds^2.

 

Charge also does something by itself it repels. Then perhaps it should have the same units as mass: meters^3/seconds^2

 

Why do we say mass and charge are a measured magnitude instead of a mechanical unit capable of producing forces on its own?

This is gibberish. Anyone who can write this is not someone I can hold a useful discussion with. I'm out.

 

[click]  

[Dubbelosix]

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot a while back. Sorry.

 

 

You can that again, and again, and again... words don't mean very much, only your actions, so please change your ways.

[Dubbelosix]

This is gibberish. Anyone who can write this is not someone I can hold a useful discussion with. I'm out.

 

[click]  

 

I don't blame you really.

[devin553344]

And the two trolls set in. You're both super predictable.

Edited June 18, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

I don't blame you really.

 

I read your thread on the Ether which shows me where you're coming from. I kinda understand why you respond to me the way you do. Although exchemist looks like he enjoys trolling me.

[GAHD]

I decided that our units of mass and charge were perhaps incorrect. So I modified them and worked out some math. I thought I would share the idea. It's not a genius theory, but it's something to think about:

I'll just note that as of this writing I'm the only one to download the scary .pdf file attached despite the previous comments in thread, but I've got ~2000 posts to manually roll though right now so the most time I'm going to spend right now is typing this short preamble, and copy-pasting the (poorly formatted with strange character choice) pdf into a quote for yall to actually parse though without a scary .pdf blocking you.

 

 

Unification of the Forces

4 Dimensional Acceleration Fields, Space-Time Units, Space-Time Vacuum/PressureMechanics

By Devin Andrew Wintch

Started: Dec. 30th, 2015

Last addition: June. 15th, 2019

To unify the forces we consider that mass is an inward reflection of charge and both are 4 dimensional acceleration fields.

Charge is then an outward acceleration field. Therefore mass creates momentum similar to how charge in motion interacts with magnetic fields, with the exception that mass does not generate an outward field and therefore does not interact:

≈ =

Where is mass and is charge.

Permittivity is then an acceleration field/acceleration field like the gravitational constant and becomes dimensionless if desired. The matter field escapes as gravitation due to an inversion into a charge like condition at 180 degrees:

 

 

=

 

=

 

 

 

Electric charge is a compression of space-time, mass is an expansion of space-time. Each has an opposite force attempting to return to equilibrium which represents the electric force and gravitational force. This opposite force will also generate a mass from the charge. I will describe the quantum to the elementary charge, and thru that, it will define the charge to matter relationship for particles. Planck’s constant will vary slightly depending on the distance from the sun and the gravitational relativity involved, also the time of day:

 

 

=

 

 

 

(

) √ −

= . −

 

 

Also another possibility which may apply to quarks and fractional charge is a 4 dimensional solution:

 

 

 

( )

 

 

=

 

= . −

 

 

√ −

 

 

Where is the mass of the sun, is the distance of the sun from earth, is a frequency of 1.0 Hertz representing a quantum.

Another solution might be to bisect the gravitation constant and the electric constant and attempt to relate between two fields of matter and charge using a 180 degree spin:

 

≅

√

 

( )

 

 

( )

≅ ℏ

 

1

Neutron is a relativistic electron plus proton (this may prove that relativistic mass is not only momentum but also gravitational mass):

 

 

 

= +

= . −

 

√ − ( − )

Where is the mass of the neutron. is the mass of the proton. is the mass of the electron. is the wavelength of the neutron.

When a wave is created in space, the space must expand to fit the wave, this is Planck’s constant, and an opposite reaction happens that is a natural gravitation. This concept gives light to the strong force, which is then based off of the matter interaction. I will calculate Deuteron:

 

=

= . −

 

 

( )

 

 

Where is the binding energy of the strong force, is the radius between nucleons (Deuteron charge radius in this case), is the wavelength of the proton.

Since we’ve established that mass is an inward form of charge’s acceleration field, then gravitoelectromagnetism can generate voltage and magnetic fields. The voltage and magnetic field of the earth:

≈

≅ . /

 

≅ . −

 

̂

Where is the mass of the earth, is the radius to the surface of the earth, is the equatorial velocity, ̂

is a unit vector.

Standard Constants that may be used in this Theory (2010 CODATA):

where  is the Wien displacement constant:

= . ( ) −

where   is the Boltzmann constant (NIST 2017 data):

= . −

where  is the fine structure constant:

= . −

where Z is the impedance of free space:

= .

2

where µ is the Permeability of free space:

= . −

and where  is the Permittivity of free space:

= . ( ) −

and where e is the Elementary Charge constant:

= . ( ) −

and where K is the electric constant:

 

=

= .

 

and where G is the gravitational constant:

= . ( ) −

where  is the Speed of Light:

= , ,

where  is the Planck constant (super conducting watt balance measurement):

= . −

3

I'm going to note that because of the strange character set used it's mostly illegible to me, I'm going to shift this from an alternative theory into the strange claims section. Feel free to contest this after you switch it up to LATEX (1, 2) or UNICODE in the forum here so it becomes more than a garbles mess of NBS and random carriage returns. Readability is important, and this is a VERY short little blurb.

[Dubbelosix]

Blurbs usually happen because posters cannot follow consistently what they write.

[Dubbelosix]

I read your thread on the Ether which shows me where you're coming from. I kinda understand why you respond to me the way you do. Although exchemist looks like he enjoys trolling me.

 

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but I don't like you calling people intellectually dishonest, when you clearly are yourself. Call that trolling all you want, I call it the truth.

[exchemist]

I'll just note that as of this writing I'm the only one to download the scary .pdf file attached despite the previous comments in thread, but I've got ~2000 posts to manually roll though right now so the most time I'm going to spend right now is typing this short preamble, and copy-pasting the (poorly formatted with strange character choice) pdf into a quote for yall to actually parse though without a scary .pdf blocking you.

 

 

I'm going to note that because of the strange character set used it's mostly illegible to me, I'm going to shift this from an alternative theory into the strange claims section. Feel free to contest this after you switch it up to LATEX (1, 2) or UNICODE in the forum here so it becomes more than a garbles mess of NBS and random carriage returns. Readability is important, and this is a VERY short little blurb.

Thanks. This tends to confirm my previous impression. I'll stay out of it. 

[Dubbelosix]

I'll second that.