Science Forums

# Gravitational Curvatures Might Be A Vapor Of Liquid Space

## Recommended Posts

Hey guys I found some new equations for gravitation and one electric which describes a boiling point equation for space that allows curvatures to form thru state change. Based off the curvature idea from Albert Einstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations. In other words when space boils it turns into a gas and then creates a curvature of space (as an analogy):

The boiling point equation has credit to: The Clausius–Clapeyron relation, named after Rudolf Clausius and
Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron, is a way of characterizing a discontinuous phase transition between two phases
of matter of a single constituent.

The n-sphere or hypersphere credit goes to Duncan Sommerville for his 1914 discussion of models for non-Euclidean geometry.

The boiling point equation fits into the form:

P/P0 = exp(Hvap/RTB - Hvap/RT0)

See the wikipedia article here for a full explanation of the boiling point equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point

The electron should be the smallest heat of vaporization therefore it will be used as the reference temperature and pressure:

g = 1 + 3/5 Ke^2/hc

dE = hc/Ke^2 - 5/6 hc/Ke^2

The electron's curvature and heat of vaporization

Gme^2/re^4 = 8/3 Ke^2/rep^4 * tan(45d) * sin(45d) * exp(-dE * sin(45d) * g)

The proton's curvature and heat of vaporization

Gmp^2/rp^4 = 8/3 Ke^2/rep^4 * tan(22.5d) * sin(22.5d) * exp(-dE * sin(22.5d) * g)

And if gravity is a valley in space-time then charge might be a hill (such that like charges repell each other). The protons charge curvature then might also relate to the reference pressure of the electron-positron pair electric pressure:

g = 1 - 3/5 Ke^2/hc

2/9 Ke^2/rp^4 = Ke^2/rep^4 * sin(22.5d) * exp(dE * sin(22.5d) * g)

Where g is the 5 dimensional correction factor, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, de is the boiling point temperature differential, G is the gravitational constant, me is the electron mass, re is the electron wavelength, rep is the electron-positron wavelength (1/2 the electron's), d stands for degrees, mp is the proton mass, rp is the proton wavelength.

This portion of my theory is an attempt to unify the forces. Please let me know if I have any typo's.

And recalling from my theory that the electromagnetic strong force at the wavelength is 5 dimensional charge:

3/5 Ke^2/hc = 1/(8/3 π^2 exp(2))

I've used references to the 5 dimensional strong force of matter.

The 3 dimensional strong force is:

E = mpc^2/(4 π r^2/rp^2 exp(2r/rp))

Where E is the nucleon binding energy, r is the distance between nucleons.

Credit for n-spheres or hypersheres goes to Duncan Sommerville for his 1914 discussion of models for non-Euclidean geometry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersphere

20200228WaveCurvatures.pdf

Edited by devin553344
• Replies 53
• Created

#### Popular Days

And even if the math was right, which I won't be checking in any immediate hurry, when will you start giving credit to the people who invented these theories? You certainly did not...

I used a wikipedia link, they have the references for the boiling point equation. The rest are my original ideas. And the application of the boiling point to space curvatures is my original idea.

P.S. the math is correct. So long as I don't have typos. I checked it and didn't see any. But the equations match to 4 digits of accuracy.

Edited by devin553344
##### Share on other sites

Yes but you are not giving me credit, until you do that I will read and check the physics

Credit for what?

Edited by devin553344
##### Share on other sites

I found a better solution that agrees with my strong force ideas. It uses an electron-positron system as an index for the pressure and temperature reference. First I must calculate the temperature of the electromagnetic self energy of half a photon of electron-positron energy:

2/3 * (Ke^2)/(rep/4) = 16/3 * Ke^2/re

Where K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, rep is the wavelength of the electron-positron pair, re is the electron wavelength.

Now I will calculate some 4 dimensional adjustment factors which apply to the wavelength:

gA = 1 - 1/(2π^2exp(3))

gV = 1 - 1/(1/2 * π^2exp(4))

Where gA is the n-sphere surface area form, gV is the volumetric form.

Now I will calculate the proton gravitational curvature from the Boiling Point equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point):

Gmp^2/rp^4 = hc/rep^4 * exp( gA * 2π^2exp(3)/4 - hc/(16/3 * Ke^2))

Where G is the gravitational constant, mp is the mass of the proton, rp is the wavelength of the proton, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light.

You should note that I left out mc^2 from the exponential content for simplicity. I will share the reduced equations but not put them into proper form as that is in the pdf. But you could see that these equations calculate accurately.

Next I will calculate the electron's gravitational curvature from the same electron-positron reference pressure and temperature:

Gme^2/re^4 = hc/rep^4 * exp( gV/gA * -1/2 * π^2exp(4) - -hc/(16/3 * Ke^2))

Where me is the mass of the electron.

You can see that I used a proper lowest temperature and pressure for the boiling point equation index. Both equations are based off of my 4 dimensional strong force temperature. I left out the proper temperature form and reduced the equations for simplicity.

Note: The proton equation is accurate to about 6 digits of accuracy to the pressure, which is more accurate to the mass of the proton itself. The electron is accurate to about 4 digits of accuracy to the pressure.

For n-spheres I should probably reference the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere If you scroll down on the n-sphere page they spell out the form for different sphere dimensions.

I added the PDF to the OP.

Edited by devin553344
##### Share on other sites

You can judge your own work all you want, just don't expect other people to jump to help you if you cannot reference the ideas properly. Scientists hate this.

I consider scientists as intelligent. I wouldn't think they would hide new ideas over some principle that I referenced using wikipedia anyways. But wikipedia is where I learned the ideas. And looking at the references they provide yields resources that I don't have access to. So in an honest attempt to give credit where credit is due, I will reference the wikipedia pages where I learned the ideas.

Edited by devin553344
##### Share on other sites

Wrong, intelligence also requires some manners and giving credit where it could be due. This is why whenever I have spoke about pre big bang models, I have always cited the people who I built my own ideas on. We live on the shoulders of giants but not irresponsibly.

##### Share on other sites

Wrong, intelligence also requires some manners and giving credit where it could be due. This is why whenever I have spoke about pre big bang models, I have always cited the people who I built my own ideas on. We live on the shoulders of giants but not irresponsibly.

To be honest, you come across like a troller.

##### Share on other sites

Aye so have many said.

And I did provide references. But we're here to talk about the theory.

##### Share on other sites

No, you link to my work first, since I was the one who repopularised the idea. If you don't, then you haven't referenced properly, you are just taking an idea because now it seems appealing to you.

What idea are you talking about?

##### Share on other sites

Don't act silly you know fine well I extended Motz and Krafts first working model on radiation vapor from a liquid phase. If you are going to be disingenuous, I will terminate the conversation.

You sound somewhat paranoid, stating you know what I know. "Liquid Phase" of what? Do you have any proof of this claim? Because you haven't answered my questions until just that bit.

PS remember were talking about gravitational curvatures not radiation vapor. And although I said liquid space, I'm actually not sure what phase. And demanding that someone reference an idea that might somehow be similar is a bit pushy if you ask me.

But honestly, if they find your radiation vapor idea correct then I fully support you getting credit for that! Cheers.

Edited by devin553344

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.