Science Forums

# devin553344

Members

537

1

## Reputation Activity

1. devin553344 reacted to GAHD in What Is A Battery?
I like this. Someone at MIT apparently had very similar thoughts. I'm still waiting on cheap betavoltaics though.
2. devin553344 got a reaction from polywannacracker2 in Unification Of The Forces, A New Aproach
Particles and waves are part of the wave-particle duality, all electrons and protons and all mass, even planets have a DeBroglie wavelength (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#de_Broglie_hypothesis) (That DeBroglie wavelength has been proven even with Alpha particles in particle accelerators) and particles have an annihilation Compton wavelength (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality) So they're considered to be particles and waves.

Annihilation of an electron and positron can be considered the same as binding energy, where the crest and valley flatten space somewhat to the new energy level, and out comes a crest and valley wave since energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Did you study particle physics and what they found in particle accelerator experiments using electrons, protons and alpha particles, all were shown to have a wavelength equal to r=h/p?
3.
Point particle

A point particle (ideal particle[1] or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension; being dimensionless, it does not take up space.[2] A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whenever its size, shape, and structure are irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, any finite-size object will look and behave as a point-like object. A point particle can also be referred in the case of a moving body in terms of physics.

Why is an electron considered a point-particle?

The electron is an elementary particle, and thus a quantum mechancial entity, of the standard model of particle physics.
It is the way the mathematics of the standard model works out. The particles in the table are entered as point particles in the lagrangian, the mathematics is cranked, and predictions for the behavior of the electrons are made. These predictions work to a great accuracy, as demonstrated by the four LEP experiments.
That is the why, because the predictions of having the electron a point particle fit the data.

You could have easily searched these results yourself, no?
4.
e^2/r is the energy for instance but you have one numerator of strain weighted by a factor of the squared strain, meaning that the dimensions cannot be justified.
5. devin553344 reacted to AnssiH in Mechanism For Inertia/mass

Right now I feel like any calculations within the classical limit are futile, because you can only approximate the effect on macroscopic objects, and everything is circularly defined. You could still use F = ma, but the meaning of "m" changes into "apparent inertial effect", and at the end of the day F is measured via m and m is measured via F.

Mathematical analysis in the framework of the Standard Model could be interesting, but it goes a bit beyond my abilities. There are multiple types of interactions with different strength characteristics, plus the wave characteristics of the associated elements to be taken into account (not to mention it's a complex many-body analysis), and all observation methods are suspect to the properties of the model we use to understand those observations. At the end of the day the different characteristics in any model are circularly defined of course - the real question is self-consistency and simplicity of the model.

I'm pretty sure it would be possible to apply this principle in the framework of Standard Model, but I don't know if that would just serve to obfuscate the model or not.

Another pertinent question is, is it possible to generate a simpler model than Standard model, if you apply the information delay principle from the very beginning. Also not sure where to even begin there...

So I think a first step for me is to try to understand what has motivated everyone to ignore the information delay entirely in this context. Surely everyone should expect it must play a role in some way at least.
6.
Glad the misunderstanding is cleared up Andrew.  I will try to keep the trolls out by removing the off topic posts as well as my replies to them. My replies just make the problem worse.

Well, OK, back to the topic.

From the first paper you cited:

“This result is in accord with predictions of the wave mechanics for a spherically symmetrical atom and incidentally therefore constitutes additional evidence that molecules do not play an appreciable part in the observed photo-ionization of potassium vapor”

Whoa! This is photo-ionization in a gas! Nothing to do with the photoelectric effect with metals. This is exactly why I stressed, in my earlier post, that your claim is “if you shine a horizontally polarized laser onto a metal, then no electrons will come out”. Now you are citing a paper on the photo-ionization of a gas to support that claim? That doesn’t work for me.

The second paper:

“Quantum Efficiency (QE) measurements of single photon photoemission from a Cu(111) single crystal and a Cu polycrystal photocathodes, irradiated by 150 fs-6.28 eV laser pulses, are reported over a broad range of incidence angle, both in s and p polarizations. The maximum QE (approx. = 4x10-4) for polycrystalline Cu is obtained in p polarization at an angle of incidence theta = 65 deg. We observe a QE enhancement in p polarization which can not be explained in terms of optical absorption, a phenomenon known as vectorial photoelectric effect”

Whoops, this is about photon photoemission from a crystal. In my post I already addressed this  quote: “the result is also is statistical and can depend on whether or not the electrons in the target material are moving randomly in all directions or they have a bias, as in a crystal structure, but you specified a metal”

It seems that neither of the papers support your claim that “if you shine a horizontally polarized laser onto a metal, then no electrons will come out”

I hope you can find some better sources than these to make your case.
7.
Devin, for sure.   With 30,000 eV electrons there are going to be ionizations!  These "bumped off' electrons will radiate also.  And the electrons replacing these "bumped off" electrons will radiate while they are "dropping" into their vacated "electron holes".  I think we can agree on that.  What we do not agree on is that this will  be a "one-shot" process.  None of these "bumped off" electrons or "electrons falling back into holes" will posses the entire KE of the 30,000 eVolt electrons.  So again, the "one-shot" process seems unlikely to me.  We may have to just agree to disagree here.

And it is no coincidence that the lattice spacing of the Tungsten is "just so" to have the "pass-by-each-atom-frequency" emitted in the x-ray spectrum, so that the 30,000 eV electrons can radiate at the max frequency (by being "bumped" by the electric fields of the charges in the tungsten atoms one after another).  This seem like the likeliest way that the max-frequencied X-ray waves are generated in an X-ray tube, and not by a "one-shot-put-all-the-electron-energy-into-one-xray-particle" theory.

And did you really stop and think about just saying "x-ray particle"?  Really?  You are using theory from over 100 years ago. Einstein could not have possibly thought of intermittent electrons having a Nyquist Frequency Limit without being familiar with digital audio like I am!  Not possible. No way.  I hate to say it, but hand cranked  "gramophones" were in use when Einstein introduced "light particles".  As a matter of fact, that is how I discovered the Nyquist Frequency Limit in the first place... by leaving physics for a while and studying digital audio engineering and electrical engineering!  If I hadn't done that,  I too would still be stuck on "x-ray particles!" (oh my goodness).  Most physicists do not even have a clue what a Nyquist Frequency Limit is!  So the physics community should really learn here from Episode 1 about Nyquist Limits and  jump on board this X-ray Nyquist Frequency Limit (and quickly so we can make some real  progress while I am still alive to guide you!)

8.
Thanks, I'll work on that in future.
9.
Just a sad and lonely person who should be treated for paranoid schitzophrenia, who keeps coming back despite 20+ account bans for repeated rule violations.

Wiped clean again.
10.
"GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes."
https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

Time experiments, happening every second of every day, and in use by your cellphone to help you navigate with google maps trip planner.
11.

Sometime, it is really hard to shake somebody's faith (in God or Albert Einstein). I won't waste his time, or mine.
12.
You did good work.
13.
The Internet is like 90% porn just look at the internet, we don't need girls. That being said are you saying that you know how to make a girl summoning device?
14. devin553344 got a reaction from OverUnityDeviceUAP in Explaining The Electromagnetic Fields Of The Earth
And if the logarithm of 4 pi relates to spheroid particles then it should relate to Planck's constant. I will use the Plane of charge solution with logarithms only. 6 pi relates the total solid angle for electromagnetic of 4pi plus 2 pi:

(e * ln(4π+2π))^2/(2εc) * ln(4π) * a = h/(2π)

Where e is the elementary charge, ε is the permittivity of free space, c is the speed of light, h is Planck's constant, a is the QED.

In order for this to be correct, QED must be incorporated. Otherwise it's a close approximation.

The QED apparently relates to a 5 dimensional strong force:

a = 1 - 1/(8/3 * π^2 * exp(4))

I use 1.0 for the radius/radius which indicates it's happening at the wavelength.
15.
How intriguing. I had no idea he thought that.

Thanks.
16. devin553344 got a reaction from exchemist in Explaining The Electromagnetic Fields Of The Earth
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory

"Einstein believed that there might be an asymmetry between the charges of the electron and proton so that the Earth's magnetic field would be produced by the entire Earth."
17.
particularly it might contain some relevant contexts but I do not think that we thought the same.

I recommend that you consider some external contexts too.

the thing  that would cause absence is , to think in only classic manner / aproach.

tips

consider please,where could we see the option which provides us independent area from t-time parameter?

collaborational support might be required for this work.
18. devin553344 got a reaction from Kardashev6 in Simple Theory
The gravitational portion of the theory must be re-written to have a magnitude from a baseline value:

a = 4πGh/c^2

4πGVe/c^2 = a * 8/15 * π^2 * exp(5*6π)

4πG2me = a * 8/15 * π^2 * exp(5*3π)

4πG2mp = 6 * a * 8/15 * π^2 *π^5 *exp(5*3π)

Where a is the baseline acceleration field, G is the gravitational constant, h is the reduced Planck constant, e is the elementary charge, c is the speed of light, V is the voltage of space-time as I've previously described, me is the mass of the electron and mp is the mass of the proton.

The exponents here are similar to a hyperbolic cosine and represent ratios.
19. devin553344 reacted to LorrettaOShea in ∞ = Mc3 (New Ideas).
Thank you.
20. devin553344 reacted to FreelanceScientists in Simple Theory
Your theories are good. It's just that they are wrong, but for the same reason Einstein's were wrong. Your math and stuff is good. It's just that mass was left really undefined. And light never moves. It dissipates along the quantum connections or something. Even when you do your math real good as it looks like you have done, it will still come out wrong because some of the unit specifications are wrong. You could start all over again working up from the very basic foundations of physics and it might come out right.
21. devin553344 got a reaction from petrushkagoogol in Assisted Learning And It's Effectiveness
I quit smoking for 10 years by switching to light cigarettes and then ultra lights. So I would say yes they can work.
22. devin553344 reacted to Dubbelosix in Simple Theory
After having a conversation with the moderation team, I have decided from now to simply ignore these posts, consider this as my post to apologize for the wrong messages being given out.
23.
You don't have to do that you can model all you want, it's just currently wrong, it took me 4 years to get a right equation for Quantum Gravity as waves you are tackling a hard subject even then it took like 3 months to fully explain it and model it with 4 remarkable physicists help. I tell you now it took Dubbel just as long to get his solutions correct. All I can say is keep trying if you want to do it privately that is fine.
24.
No, this is a SO(12) that explains all the forces of nature in a artistic geometric shape with all the combinations of Charge,SNF,WNF, and Gravity along with the geometries of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It is like the Standard Model for Beyond Standard Model interactions. All are Included in this simple model there is Math that goes with it though.

That is the entire universe as a single equation in a Qauternion Geometry with those points in that other picture being the solutions to the forces for all possible outcomes of the force, which are stated at the bottom in a graphing equation stemming form the original equation which is exactly accurate with the current state of the universe back until the Big Bang.

Here is the solution to General Relativity Including Quantum Mechanics for the Big Equation a Gravito-electromagnetism verison made by taking the solutions of Quantum Mechanics versus the Solutions of General Relativity's Tuv Tensor, which should equal zero or have a change associated with them in space coordinates to determine how time-space reacts to matter and energy.

You may have to enlarge the images.
25.
Yeah, he doesn't exactly "explain" anything, eh?  There are many different theories which dispense with dark energy.  For example, here's an excerpt from a paper authored by 5-6 physicists, which appears to be well researched.

.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2943.pdf

The general idea is that the expansion is merely apparent, not real. If that's the case, that's one less reason to question and try to modify GR, I guess.

Another (of many) theories I've seen claims that the appearance of expansion is caused by difficulties created by SR,  with its postulation of relative simultaneity, and could be eliminated by adopting a preferred frame theory of relative motion.  I've long been highly critical of SR, and it wouldn't surprise if this is at least part of the explanation.
×