Simple Theory

[devin553344]

Added the Planck relationship to G at the end of the OP.

[devin553344]

I found the electron-positron pair energy from a 5 dimensional electromagnetic system. It's at the end of the OP. Also added the proton-antiproton energies which involved electron-like quarks.

Edited August 10, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

I finished unifying the forces. But the OP could not contain all the information. I removed the equation for the electromagnetic fields of the earth and the use of the Voltage of space-time and Magnetic field of space-time. I will add those here:

 

mc^2=Vq

 

mv = qvB

 

Where m is the mass of the matter field, c is the speed of light, q is the related charge of the mass, v is the velocity of the charge and mass, V is the voltage of space time:

 

V = (c^4K/(4πG))^1/2

 

And B is the Magnetic field of space-time:

 

B = (K/(4πG))^1/2

 

The charge of the earth is then related to its gravitational energy since I have described already that mc^2 cannot escape the wavelength very far, but gravitation does. Such that the total charge of the earth is:

 

Q = GM^2/(VR) = 1.27E+06 Coulombs

 

Where Q is the charge of the earth, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the earth, V is the voltage of space-time as previously described, R is the radius to the surface of the earth. This produced an electric field of 282 Volts per meter and a mangetic field of around 39 micro-Tesla.

Edited August 12, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

After looking for more quantization I realized that permittivity and permeability allow for a c^2 quantization. And I used a 1 dimensional surface area n-sphere for the distance and a exponent of the electromagnetic solid angle for the frequency. And there appears to be a Planck time dilation for mass that is slowing it down:

 

c^2 = (2exp(6π))^2 * (1-4πa)^1/2

 

Where c is the speed of light, a is the fine structure constant.

 

Electric charge uses this velocity difference between magnetism and electric force.

Edited August 27, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

Matter uses a different quantization which matches instead an acceleration to the speed of light:

 

A = 2(exp(3π))^2 * (1-4πa)^1/4

 

Where A is the acceleration which is meters divided by seconds squared, a is the fine structure constant.

Edited August 27, 2019 by devin553344

[exchemist]

Matter uses a different quantization which matches instead an acceleration to the speed of light:

 

A = 2(exp(3π))^2 * (1-4πa)^1/4

 

Where A is the acceleration which is meters divided by seconds squared, a is the fine structure constant.

Very clever, this actually checks out, more or less, in that the right hand side comes out to be ~3 x 10⁸, which is about the value of c..... in m/s! 

 

Which is  one of two snags, since the right hand side is dimensionless, a pure number, whereas the left hand side needs units. So the units do not balance in your equation, ergo it makes no sense.

 

The other issue of course is that a velocity is not an acceleration, rendering what you have posted incomprehensible.  

[devin553344]

Then matter may be an acceleration field that uses a 5 dimensional Riemann zeta:

 

(4πG)^1/2 = a/252

 

Where G is the gravitational constant, a is the fine structure constant. Then mass = meters cubed / seconds squared

 

And electric might be a velocity field which uses the speed of light time value:

 

(1/ε)^1/2 = 3/5 * a * exp(6π)/2

 

Where ε is the permittivity of free space, a is the fine structure constant. Then charge = meters cubed / seconds

[devin553344]

Very clever, this actually checks out, more or less, in that the right hand side comes out to be ~3 x 10⁸, which is about the value of c..... in m/s! 

 

Which is  one of two snags, since the right hand side is dimensionless, a pure number, whereas the left hand side needs units. So the units do not balance in your equation, ergo it makes no sense.

 

The other issue of course is that a velocity is not an acceleration, rendering what you have posted incomprehensible.  

 

Yes, I broke the units law if you look at it that way, in fact many math mathematicians are known to have broken the laws of their era and created great concepts we now use. The only thing I'm asking you to accept is that the exponent of the solid angles are quantization which can represent qty per second. Or frequency.

 

We have been in a stand still since Einsteins/Plancks era for the most part in physics, so we must move ahead with new ideas.

 

And the value should match 2.998E+08

Edited August 27, 2019 by devin553344

[exchemist]

Yes, I broke the units law if you look at it that way, in fact many math mathematicians are known to have broken the laws of their era and created great concepts we now use. The only thing I'm asking you to accept is that the exponent of the solid angles are quantization which can represent qty per second. Or frequency.

 

We have been in a stand still since Einsteins/Plancks era for the most part in physics, so we must move ahead with new ideas.

The problem is basic. The speed of light can equally well be quoted as 186,000 miles/second, which then makes your equation wrong. 

 

There is no reason to think the universe works in metric units, seeing as they were invented by the French in the c.18th. 

[devin553344]

The problem is basic. The speed of light can equally well be quoted as 186,000 miles/second, which then makes your equation wrong. 

 

There is no reason to think the universe works in metric units, seeing as they were invented by the French in the c.18th. 

 

Yes I also considered that error. But what I found is that from Planck's constant and the basic energy I could quantize up to electron, proton and elementary charge.

 

So then I realized (which is why I added it back in) that permittivity set the upper limit of a boundary, and permeability set the lower limit. And that allows for a quantization. Perhaps if you changed the units of permeability and permittivity both to miles/second you would get the same quantization magnitude? I'll check...

Edited August 27, 2019 by devin553344

[exchemist]

Yes I also considered that error. But what I found is that from Planck's constant and the basic energy I could quantize up to electron, proton and elementary charge.

 

So then I realized (which is why I added it back in) that permittivity set the upper limit of a boundary, and permeability set the lower limit. And that allows for a quantization. Perhaps if you changed the units of permeability and permittivity both to miles/second you would get the same quantization magnitude?

Oh dear, back to gibberish again, after a brief flash of relative lucidity.

 

I'll leave you to it. 

[devin553344]

Oh dear, back to gibberish again, after a brief flash of relative lucidity.

 

I'll leave you to it. 

 

Yes you're idea appears to work for the example of permeability to permittivity, but not the proton, electron, elementary charge from Planck. I'll work on it.

 

e = mc^2

 

And that is the same adjustment for Planck as it is for the proton, electron, elementary charge so switching the miles per second doesn't change anything for those previous equations that I put in the OP. That is the most common mistake in physics, units problems or so I've heard.

Edited August 27, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

OK, sorry for the brain malfunction and units error, now I've found the solution. What is this 3pi and what is this 6pi. It appears to be a quantization of the acceleration field as if 6pi could be length or time when viewed as an acceleration field! Here are the same equations modified to describe acceleration fields of the electron and proton:

 

Gme = 8/15 * π^2 * exp(-5*6π)

 

Gmp = 6 * 8/15 * π^2 * π^5 * exp(-5*6π)

 

Where G is the gravitational constant, me is the mass of the electron and mp is the mass of the proton.

 

Therefore matter and charge are both 5 dimensional and have similar nature. The acceleration field of the charge then becomes:

 

V = (c^4K/(4πG))^1/2

 

GVe/c^2 = 2 * 8/15 * π^2 * exp(-5*3π)

 

Where G is the gravitational constant, V is the voltage of space time I previously have described, e is the elementary charge, c is the speed of light.

 

And the total field of the charge:

 

(4πGV^2e^2)/(c^4) = Ke^2

 

Where G is the gravitational constant, V is the voltage of space-time (previously described), e is the elementary charge, c is the speed of light, K is the electric constant.

Edited August 31, 2019 by devin553344

[Vmedvil2]

OK, sorry for the brain malfunction and units error, now I've found the solution. What is this 3pi and what is this 6pi. It appears to be a quantization of the acceleration field as if 6pi could be length or time when viewed as an acceleration field! Here are the same equations modified to describe acceleration fields of the electron and proton:

 

Gme = 8/15 * π^2 * exp(-5*6π)

 

Gmp = 6 * 8/15 * π^2 * π^5 * exp(-5*6π)

 

Where G is the gravitational constant, me is the mass of the electron and mp is the mass of the proton.

 

Therefore matter and charge are both 5 dimensional and have similar nature. The acceleration field of the charge then becomes:

 

V = (c^4K/(4πG))^1/2

 

GVe/c^2 = 2 * 8/15 * π^2 * exp(-5*3π)

 

Where G is the gravitational constant, V is the voltage of space time I previously have described, e is the elementary charge, c is the speed of light.

 

And the total field of the charge:

 

(4πGV^2e^2)/(c^4) = Ke^2

 

Where G is the gravitational constant, V is the voltage of space-time (previously described), e is the elementary charge, c is the speed of light, K is the electric constant.

 

ya thats not how it works Crackpot.

[Vmedvil2]

[devin553344]

If you're into exchem's arguments then your into units which are a meter "yard" stick and a liter bucket of water for kilograms. In the case of the kilogram its a quantification of water molecules and how much energy 1/2mv^2 produces. The speed of light is also a quantification of meters per second. The problem in physics is the units, since it's a yard stick, a clock tick and a bucket of water.

 

What I've done is use a mathematical value that has significance and used it as a quantification. This allows the units to go away and reality to show itself. Physics are all quantification like Planck's constant, and distance itself is a quantification as well as time. The question then becomes, "do you comprehend that concept?"

Edited August 28, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

Planck's constant then also quantifies per it's meters cubed / seconds squared:

 

Gh/c^2 = 2exp(-5*9π)

 

Where G is the gravitational constant, h is the Planck constant, and c is the speed of light.