OceanBreeze Posted January 25, 2019 Report Share Posted January 25, 2019 Is anyone else sane going to comment on these theories, I find them very interesting.and they have improved since the first post. What do you mean by "anyone else"? exchemist and hazelm 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted January 25, 2019 Report Share Posted January 25, 2019 What do you mean by "anyone else"?Arf arf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted January 25, 2019 Report Share Posted January 25, 2019 Is anyone else sane going to comment on these theories, I find them very interesting.and they have improved since the first post. ...tell you what, though..... I had a quick look at the Unruh Efect, by which the vacuum fluctuations are theoretically supposed to lead to an accelerated object experiencing black body radiation. There is defined something called an Unruh Temperature, arising from this effect. But the numbers are awful. To experience black body radiation equivalent to a temperature of 1K, the object needs to experience an acceleration of 2.47 x 10²¹ m/sec². Thus suggesting that for macroscopic objects it will remain of theoretical interest only. I must admit I have not tried to work out what the centripetal acceleration is for an electron in a Bohr classical orbit in the hydrogen atom, to see how it compares with this. Might be worth doing, just to see if the Unruh effect is of the right magnitude to have any effect at the quantum scale. If I get bored enough I might have a go...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted January 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2019 Is anyone else sane going to comment on these theories, I find them very interesting.and they have improved since the first post. Thanks, I just added a fix to the theory in the second file on the original post. I'm a little unsure about the proton, but it vaguely fits the energies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted January 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2019 I suppose I am in no position to comment on whether or not I am regarded as sane :) , but I've taken a quick look at the first 2 pages and am forced to the conclusion that the author does not understand a number of concepts in physical science, such as energy, mass and electric charge. So I do not propose to get bogged down in further analysis of this, unless you have found something of particular interest in it that you would like to discuss.. It would be easier to understand the theory if you took a look at Hawking radiation. Hawking based his radiation off of gravitational Unruh acceleration of the black hole mixed with Stefan-Boltzman mechanics. I have done similarly in my theory to relate particles to the Vacuum energy and CMB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted January 26, 2019 Report Share Posted January 26, 2019 It would be easier to understand the theory if you took a look at Hawking radiation. Hawking based his radiation off of gravitational Unruh acceleration of the black hole mixed with Stefan-Boltzman mechanics. I have done similarly in my theory to relate particles to the Vacuum energy and CMB....except that there is no such thing as Stefan-Boltzmann mechanics. You see? Every time you say something, you add to the evidence that you do not know enough physics to be attempting this sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted January 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2019 Is anyone else sane going to comment on these theories, I find them very interesting.and they have improved since the first post. Thank You. I'm very unsure about applying an electric energy to the photon gas. But the electron does calculate and follows known physics created by others. I just applied their math and ideas for the electron. I think at minimum the theory may predict the electron energy and it's charge. And it does it from measured values, which is a difficult undertaking, perhaps more than just chance that it calculates with proper units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted January 27, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2019 (edited) I am guessing you mean the stefan boltzman law re black body https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law Yes I tried to assess, using something like the stefan boltzmann law (the photon gas) the electric energy of photons if all photons had a positive and negative elementary charge like we find when splitting photons and finding the electron and positron pair. But I feel any of those calculations are invalid in my theory. I wanted to connect the Vacuum energy of the cosmological constant or dark energy to the CMB, but failed. I guess I just don't see how there could be dark energy. I mean what is the source? It can't be created by simply a vacuum as vacuums are without energy by nature. So then the Planck collaboration measured this dark energy and the CMB (if I understand that correctly). But there is no theory that I am aware of on how the dark energy came to be, or is there? https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/de_whatmight.htm I guess I just feel like somehow it must be connected to the CMB. But I'm starting to doubt that feeling and maybe that's a good thing? LOL Edited January 27, 2019 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted January 27, 2019 Report Share Posted January 27, 2019 Yes I tried to assess, using something like the stefan boltzmann law (the photon gas) the electric energy of photons if all photons had a positive and negative elementary charge like we find when splitting photons and finding the electron and positron pair. But I feel any of those calculations are invalid in my theory. I wanted to connect the Vacuum energy of the cosmological constant or dark energy to the CMB, but failed. I guess I just don't see how there could be dark energy. I mean what is the source? It can't be created by simply a vacuum as vacuums are without energy by nature. So then the Planck collaboration measured this dark energy and the CMB (if I understand that correctly). But there is no theory that I am aware of on how the dark energy came to be, or is there? https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/de_whatmight.htm I guess I just feel like somehow it must be connected to the CMB. But I'm starting to doubt that feeling and maybe that's a good thing? LOLOne detail: can you explain what relevance the Shockley Diode equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley_diode_equationhas to your ideas about cosmology? On the face of it it is a little hard to see what the current in a diode has to do with cosmology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted January 27, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2019 One detail: can you explain what relevance the Shockley Diode equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley_diode_equationhas to your ideas about cosmology? On the face of it it is a little hard to see what the current in a diode has to do with cosmology. I removed that section in the second pdf. Sorry for the confusion. The second PDF is the current theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted January 27, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2019 (edited) I modified the CMB to Dark Energy calculation. It uses a photon gas quantity and a Poynting vector at the peak wavelength to suggest that the Dark Energy might be coming from the peak wavelength of the CMB. Not totally sure if it's correct, but it calculates to the same value and the units are good. I'm sure the validity of using a Poynting vector quantification though to represent an energy per meter cubed. Again it's in the second pdf file in the OP. Edited January 27, 2019 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 Are you guys completely clueless as to who this poster is? Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted January 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) I removed the duplicate theory from the first post to avoid any further confusion. The theory is finished now. I put the finished theory as the only pdf on the first post. Edited January 28, 2019 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 Ok, but only a clue, he is a regular troller on threads here. Spams it to the Hilton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted January 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 Go on give us a clue, where did you meet him, what crime has he committed? :) A quick google flashes up devin553344 on a number of forums. Your theory is getting shorter, at each post, you will only have a title if you carry on like this. What happened on the other forums ? Sorry, it is finished now. I had to remove sections that I felt weren't in-line with the general idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted January 29, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) OK, I added the section back into the theory about charge quantization using charge with something like the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Which explains that the charge of the photon may add up to a greater energy than the Planck energy. The reason I did that is that it explains the nucleon mass and the charge of the electron. It uses mechanical advantage principles to explain the differences in energies of charge and mass. I also indicated that we might not be dealing with Unruh temperature comparisons as much as a black hole entropy defined by Stephen Hawking. I didn't remove anything, I just added some supplemental equations. Some things I need to work out in the theory is how the Unruh temperature relates to black hole entropy instead. Also I need to work out the mechanical advantage concepts and derive both. So please be advised it is a little unfinished. Edited January 29, 2019 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted January 29, 2019 Report Share Posted January 29, 2019 Great then let's try to keep the trolling to a minimum shall we, we're discussion a theory, not politics.It's not a theory, just word salad, and nobody is discussing it, as word salad is impossible to discuss. devin553344 1 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.