Science Forums

# Gravitational Curvatures Might Be A Vapor Of Liquid Space

## Recommended Posts

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.

Unless God created the universe. And put the energy in it.

• Replies 53
• Created

#### Popular Days

That is possible, but speaking of it like this is no longer within scientific falsifiability. I believe in the gnostic versions of god, and that God himself created and/or allowed evil. Even the Bible mentions this in Isaiah. If God is nature, then He was created with it, and from the darkness He separated himself, becoming the light.

##### Share on other sites

I found a different solution for the electron considering that the electron-positron have half the wavelength:

Gme^2/re^4 = hc/rep^4 * exp((2π^2exp(3))/(2/3*2π^2*1/8*exp(3/2)) - hc/(16/3 * Ke^2))

I'm not totally sure but I think this is required to solve the electron gravitation from the electron-positron pressure and temperature.

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

That is possible, but speaking of it like this is no longer within scientific falsifiability. I believe in the gnostic versions of god, and that God himself created and/or allowed evil. Even the Bible mentions this in Isaiah. If God is nature, then He was created with it, and from the darkness He separated himself, becoming the light.

I found another difference between our theories. In mine apparently, with an increase in pressure there is a decrease in temperature required to induce the "boiling point". Just the opposite to molecular boiling point concepts.

The pressure energy actually adds to the expansion process.

##### Share on other sites

Suddenly I realized that these equations do not create bends of space. As that equation was described by Einstein:

y = (1 - 2Gm/(rc^2))^1/2

I'm still working on the equations but more likely it is creating a gravitational pressure.

##### Share on other sites

In an attempt to make sense of the equations I realized that I was doing something wrong. I have now found a solution that I think might work.

The electron:

6/5*Gme^2/re^4 = 3/2*Ke^2/re^4 * exp(1/2*π^2exp(4)/(6/5) - hc/(8/3 * Ke^2))

The proton:

Gmp^2/rp^4 = 3/2*Ke^2/re^4 * exp(1/2*π^2exp(4) - hc/(8/3 * Ke^2))

Again the variables are the same as before. G is the gravitational constant, me is the mass of the electron, re is the wavelength of the electron, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, mp is the mass of the proton, rp is the wavelength of the proton.

And that provides the pressures for the gravitation of the electron and proton. Both are volumetric 4 dimensional. I used the 8/3 Ke^2/hc as the electron-positron self energy would exist in an electromagnetic wave.

I updated the PDF file in the OP.

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

That is possible, but speaking of it like this is no longer within scientific falsifiability. I believe in the gnostic versions of god, and that God himself created and/or allowed evil. Even the Bible mentions this in Isaiah. If God is nature, then He was created with it, and from the darkness He separated himself, becoming the light.

I'm not sure anymore that my theory disproves yours. They look like different applications of the boiling point idea perhaps.

##### Share on other sites

I'm not going to go through this until you become more aquainted with the philosophy of science, you cannot for instance, disprove a theory, unless what is being said is absolute rubbish. You can only add evidence to a theory to help solidify any meaning or extrapolate it to a statistical significance that the liklihood of it being right, over rules standard alternatives.

Edited by Dubbelosix
##### Share on other sites

I'm not going to go through this until you become more aquanted with the philosophy of science, you cannot for instance, disprove a theory, unless what is being said is absolute rubbish. You can only add evidence to a theory to help solidify any meaning or extrapolate it to a statistical significance that the liklihood of it being right, over rules standard alternatives.

Anything that is not absolutely true is rubbish to reality.

##### Share on other sites

Scientists do not work with absolutes, we can be reasonably certain, but there are no absolutes. Please learn the philosophy of science or your mind will be corrupted with what you think you have learned.

##### Share on other sites

Scientists do not work with absolutes, we can be reasonably certain, but there are no absolutes. Please learn the philosophy of science or your mind will be corrupted with what you think you have learned.

You appear to be coming at me with a lot of unfounded character assassinations. Assuming things about me that are not correct.

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

You appear to be coming at me with a lot of unfounded character assassinations. Assuming things about me that are not correct.

Hardly.

##### Share on other sites

Trust me, I don't need to to even talk to you, but if you waste my time by not studying certain things, then why should I put in large amounts of effort for you?

##### Share on other sites

Still kind of toying around with the idea of boiling points for particle pressures. I found something interesting that relates to my strong force. If I use the proton plus electron as the delta heat of vaporization and then the electron as the temperature it comes super close to the equation (6 digits of accuracy). But in order to be accurate you must adjust all energies of the proton and electron as:

Ep = mpc^2 * (1 + (Ke^2)/(hc))

Ee = mec^2 * (1 - (Ke^2)/(hc))

and then calculate the wavelengths from the energies...

(Ep/rp^3)/(Ee/re^3) = exp((Ep+Ee)/(2/3*Ee*(1-1/(4πexp(2)))) - (Ep+Ee)/(2/3*Ee))

Where Ep is the adjusted energy of the proton, Ee is the adjusted energy of the electron, mp is the mass of the proton, c is the speed of light, rp is the wavelength of the proton, me is the mass of the electron, re is the wavelength of the electron, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, h is the Planck constant.

This might demonstrate a boiling point idea better than my other ideas. For the heat of vaporization I have added the energies since one of the matter energies is negative.

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

Still kind of toying around with the idea of boiling points for particle pressures. I found something interesting that relates to my strong force. If I use the proton plus electron as the delta heat of vaporization and then the electron as the temperature it comes super close to the equation (6 digits of accuracy). But in order to be accurate you must adjust all energies of the proton and electron as:

Ep = mpc^2 * (1 + (Ke^2)/(hc))

Ee = mec^2 * (1 - (Ke^2)/(hc))

and then calculate the wavelengths from the energies...

(Ep/rp^3)/(Ee/re^3) = exp((Ep+Ee)/(2/3*Ee*(1-1/(4πexp(2)))) - (Ep+Ee)/(2/3*Ee))

Where Ep is the adjusted energy of the proton, Ee is the adjusted energy of the electron, mp is the mass of the proton, c is the speed of light, rp is the wavelength of the proton, me is the mass of the electron, re is the wavelength of the electron, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, h is the Planck constant.

This might demonstrate a boiling point idea better than my other ideas. For the heat of vaporization I have added the energies since one of the matter energies is negative.

nonsense equations and more nonsense text

##### Share on other sites

nonsense equations and more nonsense text

They're 8-9 digits accurate in the exponential section (which is about as accurate as the mass values of the proton and electron), and very well thought out.

So the real question I have is this: why do you say that?

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

They're 8-9 digits accurate in the exponential section (which is about as accurate as the mass values of the proton and electron), and very well thought out.

So the real question I have is this: why do you say that?

Because the equations are incorrect, I can tell by looking at them that it does not make the energy of a proton or electron which is 938 MeV or 0.511 MeV.

Edited by VictorMedvil

## 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.