Dubbelosix Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 Paranoid lol.. You have loads of accounts here and you go around pretending to be other people and you call me paranoid lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted February 18, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) Paranoid lol.. You have loads of accounts here and you go around pretending to be other people and you call me paranoid lolParanoia aside... you didn't answer my question. "Liquid" of what? OK I was able to find your other thread based on the phrase you earlier supplied in this thread and our ideas are vastly different. I'm not sure why you think I should reference your work. Edited February 18, 2020 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 See, you read my work and claim to have read others without even understanding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted February 18, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) See, you read my work and claim to have read others without even understanding it. You state that space is a vapor phase that we all live in and that is the big bang. You didn't use a boiling point equation at all. My idea states that the localized energy of a particle changes the state of space and thererby bends it. In my idea there is no gas and therefore no radiation. Yes we both state that space has states to it? I'm not sure as mine does not form a gas from a liquid. It simple gets less dense. Sorry for the title confusion. That maybe why you're so concerned. But you really should take a look at the theory. Then you would see how different our theories are. Edited February 18, 2020 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 Wrong, go back to the work and learn what the Helmholtz thermodynamic phase equation is. Better yet, go find Motz and Krafts papers that describe it. I rewrote the equations in terms of irreversible dynamics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted February 18, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) How is referencing someones incorrect work going to improve my theory? Because my theory disproves yours. That and I didn't use your idea as a basis for mine, period. I do have to give Einstein credit. Although I'm not sure how to do that other than stating that energy bends space which is Einsteins idea. OK so I updated the OP to give credit to Albert Einstein for curvatures of space-time, and Rudolf Clausius and Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron for the Boiling Point equation and Duncan Sommerville for n-spheres or hyperspheres. That gives proper credit for the ideas of energy curvatures of space-time and using a boiling point idea and the use of n-sphere or hypersphere. Edited February 18, 2020 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted February 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) Wrong, go back to the work and learn what the Helmholtz thermodynamic phase equation is. Better yet, go find Motz and Krafts papers that describe it. I rewrote the equations in terms of irreversible dynamics. OK I read the responsible referencing guidelines and I can include a reference to your work if I am to disprove it. So I will reference it. https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006036 I have updated the PDF file in the OP. Near the end I put a reference to your work site. I don't know your name though as I didn't see it listed. I'm assuming you're referring to this work: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71111.0 Edited February 19, 2020 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted February 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2020 I made a correction to post #7 which states the curvatures of the electron and proton. The electron was supposed to have negative exponential components instead of positive, which is unlike the proton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted February 19, 2020 Report Share Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) How is referencing someones incorrect work going to improve my theory? Because my theory disproves yours. That and I didn't use your idea as a basis for mine, period. I do have to give Einstein credit. Although I'm not sure how to do that other than stating that energy bends space which is Einsteins idea. OK so I updated the OP to give credit to Albert Einstein for curvatures of space-time, and Rudolf Clausius and Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron for the Boiling Point equation and Duncan Sommerville for n-spheres or hyperspheres. That gives proper credit for the ideas of energy curvatures of space-time and using a boiling point idea and the use of n-sphere or hypersphere.It would help if you could demonstrate first what is incorrect about the model, forget the math for now, just explain to me what makes you think it is wrong. Edited February 19, 2020 by Dubbelosix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted February 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) It would help if you could demonstrate first what is incorrect about the model, forget the math for now, just explain to me what makes you think it is wrong.If I read your theory right, you attempted to demonstrate that space had phases to it, liquid and gas and perhaps solid. Then in the big bang everything went gas, also you say that space is matter. And that we live in a gas phase. I read the math a little, and it would take me some time to understand it. And I'm more interested in the implications of my theory rather than yours. I however state that space is not matter but instead something that bends with pressure and temperature. Matter and energy exist in space-time but are not space-time. My idea expands on Einsteins theory somewhat rather than states of space-time. Ya know: energy bends space-time. If you could please explain how your theory is like mine, other than space-time has states to it. Edited February 19, 2020 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted February 19, 2020 Report Share Posted February 19, 2020 The phases go like this, from an all matter condensed degenerate state, releasing radiation vapor. During the radiation phase, upon cooling down coupled with electro weak symmetry breaking, matter started to condense again. Given enough time all there will be is radiation again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted February 19, 2020 Report Share Posted February 19, 2020 You keep adding things to things I have said which I simply will not entertain, space may not be matter per se, but it is not nothing either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted February 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) The phases go like this, from an all matter condensed degenerate state, releasing radiation vapor. During the radiation phase, upon cooling down coupled with electro weak symmetry breaking, matter started to condense again. Given enough time all there will be is radiation again. Yes that is somewhat what I got from reading your page. In my theory space-time cannot be matter, it would destroy my theory and disprove it I think. And vice-versa. In my theory space-time has phases to it, but space-time is basically just distance and time and nothing more. I like the idea that space-time originate from the particle itself and therefore creates relativity and each particle is a frame of reference. My theory someone disproves any idea that mass is curvatures of space-time and rather my theory states that gravitation is curvatures and that matter energy is something else and probably originates from Planck's constant. And electromagnetic are 5 dimensional forms of Planck energy. Thus my 5 dimensional strong force. In my theory a 4 dimensional strong force is responsible for generating the curvatures of gravitation. I index the electron-positron as the reference temperature and pressure as the lowest boiling point and pressure. In other words, no particle is lighter in gravitation. Therefore it denies that neutrinos have gravitational curvatures. But they may have matter energy. Also I don't believe in a electroweak. I proved that the weak force simply does not exist. Edited February 19, 2020 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted February 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) You keep adding things to things I have said which I simply will not entertain, space may not be matter per se, but it is not nothing either.From your statement: "The phases go like this, from an all matter condensed degenerate state, releasing radiation vapor" you implied that space-time is matter did you not? And that radiation is released. Something that does not exist for my theory. Edited February 19, 2020 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted February 19, 2020 Report Share Posted February 19, 2020 Then you don't seem to realize why these phase changes are required... Again, read thermodynamic phases from liquid to vapor please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted February 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2020 Then you don't seem to realize why these phase changes are required... Again, read thermodynamic phases from liquid to vapor please. Then that is where we differ also. Mine is a lose analogy, and not literal to matter. In matter we have phase changes due to electromagnetic forces in the molecules. My idea was more that space has forces that hold it together and when you introduce enough energy it expands like a phase change, but there is only one change. Which is from non-bent to bent and vice verse, two phase-like conditions. I used the simple analogy of liquid to gas for the title of my thread, but my idea is somewhat different than a simple analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted February 19, 2020 Report Share Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) There is no loss of energy from the universe unless you are trying to peddle there is an outside to the universe, in which case, this is not a new idea, just not a very well accepted one. Edited February 19, 2020 by Dubbelosix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.