MDT Theory; physics for the engineer

[HydrogenBond]

The MDT cube is different than exsiting theory in the sense that it is grounded on both a speed of light reference (CCC) and a zero reference (000) instead of just a zero reference. This may seem a little odd, but if you think about it, at C, things converge. While at zero reference things diverge. By using both one gets integration and diversity instead of just diversity.

 

Relative to the twelve edges of the MDT Cube, there are three axis which stem from (000) and three axis which stem from (CCC). The three axis from (000) define three parameter MDT particles, which amounts to matter. While the three axis that stem from (CCC) define two parameter MDT particles, which amounts to the three light speed wave phases.

 

If we start at matter at (000) as we add velocity in any parameter or combination of parameters the potential increases at we head to (CCC). A straight line from (000) to (CCC) would define special relativity where all three parameters are adjusted by the same velocity. Departure from this line implies a disporportionate change in velocity with respect to mass, distance and time.

 

If we start at (CCC) the potential of the light speed wave phases, like energy, will increase as its two variable parameters decrease from the C reference. The easiest way to understand this is to look at energy. Energy travels at C, but its wavelength and frequency display reference output affects indicative of something traveling less than C. For example, if one looked at a spaceship traveling at C it would always look a certain way in our reference. But light is an anomoly, it can travel at C and look like gamma or radio waves, as though it was not fully connected to C or special relativity. Only one part is connected to C. Its other two parts, wavelength and frequency, exist as a wide range of references.

 

The weakest quanta of energy have the longest wavelength and longest frequency. While the strongest quanta of energy have the shortest wavelengths and shortest frequency, such as gamma rays. Something going at C should show one or the other but not both since one is not a C visual reference output predicted by special relativity.

 

If one was traveling at C, only infinite wavelength energy would be visable since infinite distance would contract to a point, making smaller wavelengths indistinquishable. To be able to see gamma rays, one would have to slow from C so the universe stretches out.

 

This increasing departure from C reference (in distance and time) adds potential to energy such that the smallest wavelengths have the most potential energy. The net result is that 3-parameter MDT matter and 2-parameter MDT light speed wave phases increase potential in opposite directions. The MDT cube accomodates this opposition with two 3-axis locators allowing one to define the simulataneous MDT potentials of matter and their related light speed wave phases.

 

The MDT model is very simple to derive but gets extremely complicated to explain. Using two absolute references at the same time makes my head spin even a year later. The model needs help brain storming its many subtle but complicated realtionships.

[HydrogenBond]

Why is "space potential" limited to c? Why is "mass potential" limited to c?,

 

What is plotted is velocity connected to mass, distance and time. So when I say distance potential or mass potential is limited to C, I mean V=C sets the limit. If you plug V=C into special relativity gamma, mass, for example, has an infinite mulitplier. The reason I plotted V was to place finite limites on the cube. If I plotted gamma, I would be get infinite axis that would not close. Doing the gamma in the head made the model much easier to work with.

 

Now, you make the claim that energy has no mass and (hence) travels at c. First, if relativity is the backbone of your model, you have to note that all energy carries mass. Next, this works for traveling electromagnetic energy but doesn't work for other forms of traveling energy. Sound waves for instance, do not travel at c.

 

Energy has no mass potential or it could not travel at C. What is has is distance and time potential that we measure as wavelength and frquency. This combo defines it energy potential. Energy has momentum but not mass. What the measured momentum does is add distance and time potential to an existing mass to give it momentum.

 

Sound waves are not traveling through vaccum but through atomic and molecular space. In this case, the signal is propagating using mass potential as well as distance and time potential. So it can't go at C.

 

Further, your heat face seems like it must overlap content with your energy face. Consider that blackbody radiation is simply traveling e/m energy, just like your "energy" face. Heat itself is just a measure of average energy.

 

Heat spectrum represents a light speed wave phase with variable mass and time potential. Heat came to mind to describe this. If one looked at a neutron clump it would still give off heat even though there is no charge, magnetism, etc. There may be a better term to describe the mass/time wave phase that the model suggests. I am open to suggestions.

 

Lastly, your "entropy" face seems to be connected with situations in which entropy isn't a very useful concept.

 

The term entropy spectrum was an artifact of early thinking. It shows variability in mass and distance potential. I originally was thinking in terms of disorder with respect to say a universal point mass, with this spectrum defining distance/mass departure. Entropy is understood a certain way and will cause confusion. More resently I began to describe this wave phase as perpetual motion, such as phenomena like electrons around atoms, subparticles moving within a proton, or planets around a sun, etc. Again this M and D wave phase is suggested by the model but I am open to a better term to describe it.

 

If one looks at an electron moving about a proton, one often thinks in terms of charges interacting and balancing keeping the system in a steady state. But this can't be the whole story. If one places the positive charge on a positron, one will not get perpetual motion. What has changed is the mass of the system and not the charge. This is not a possible quanta of the M and D spectrum. Alternately, if one took charge away from mass and brought a negative and positive charge together there would also be no perpetual motion. Somehow the mass is what helps maintain the perpetual motion, i.e, mass and distance potential. This is also true of planets, etc.. Perpetual motion may be taking it too far but the term is being used to describe a unique range of phenomena that range from tiny to extremely large but are all due to the affect of mass and distance causing a type of (semi) perpetual state.

[HydrogenBond]

Before completing the cube with the forces of nature I would like to backtrack to my original line of thinking that led to the MDT cube. Normally when we think of special relativity, using examples, like a train or rocketship moving at relativistic velocity, the mass, distance and time always use the same velocity and the same special relativity gamma.

 

When I was contemplating the equations of special relativity, I noticed that Einstein wrote them as three separate equations instead of one, which should have been appropriate to the way special relativity is presented in academic examples. The exsitance of three instead of one equation led to the theory, maybe the special realtivity gammas don't always have to change together. Maybe the special relativity gamma for mass, distance and time can be different in some cases. To prove this theory I racked my brain to see if I could find an example of this within common observation.

 

The observation that came to me was energy. If one applied special realtivity to energy, it should always look the same in our reference. But it doesn't; sometimes it is x-rays and sometimes it is radio waves. This would be like a special relativity rocket, traveling near C looking 100ft long sometimes and 1 ft other times in our reference. This does not happen with matter, but something analogous to this variable output reference affect was happening with energy.

 

One way to explain this was that energy existed in more than one reference at the same time, with part of it always at C (massless aspect), while the distance and time reference output aspects (wavelength and frequency) were able to exist in a range of other references.

 

Although nobody could accept this line of thinking, I decided to work under the assumption that relativistic mass, distance contraction and time dilation can work as independant variables; and see what happens. My first MDT model was for common matter, i.e, proton, neutron and electron. Using different proportions of mass, distance and time potential, I could correlate any state of common matter from nuclear to chemical. The result was the MDT circle for common matter. This model predicted some very interesting states of common matter that have never been investigated. For example, a very intersting state is where the distance potential of electrons becomes converted to mass potential to create fat electrons that go much slower due to higher mass. The model indicated these to be a precursor to fusion that keeps things in tigher quarters.

 

I attempted to present my MDT circle for common matter to the physics community but got bogged down in subparticle discussions. To satisfy that requirement I had to invent the MDT cube.

[cwes99_03]

Unsubscribing. This post should be moved to strange claims.

[HydrogenBond]

Unsubscribing. This post should be moved to strange claims.

 

I understand the reaction, since this plotting anomaly is new. It says volumes about how things are connected in very condensed way.

 

I am going to add the last six edges in the diagram below. Iwill explain these in the next post.

 

[InfiniteNow]

Why reinvent the wheel using a rhomboid?

 

 

http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~mermin/homepage/publ.pdf

 

http://www.aip.de/~lie

 

http://www.aip.de/%7Elie/Vorlesung/Vorlesung.RuG.html

[Turtle]

Why reinvent the wheel using a rhomboid?

Especially when the wheel is better reinvented by the Tetrahedron :phones: :

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s01/p0000.html

[HydrogenBond]

Why reinvent the wheel using a rhomboid?

I saw the need to reinvent the wheel because the current wheel is not yet fully assembled. They have the rim, hub and spokes but some assembly is still required. The current assemble schema is not limited to one consensus approach. There are at least three accepted work in progress methods and several other reasonable alternatives. What this means to me is that although only one, at best, should reflect reality (mutually exclusive theories) three are hailed as valid science and several are seeking that status. Does anyone see the practical problem with so many mutual exclusive theories all claiming they are the one? Physics appears to be egressing back to philosophy pretending to be called science. My approach was based on the wisdom that simplicity is usually closer to the truth. Complexity allows too much room for fudge factors.

 

Although I invented the MDT cube, I am by no means an expert in this analysis. The model needs to to bounced around by others and compared to what they understand. I recognize that much of existing understanding does not just pop out of the model. It tends to deal with the basics. But on the other hand, all the basics are fully integrated. The cube is a wheel that is ready to roll.

[HydrogenBond]

I am going to summarize the MDT cube with one final diagram.