Science Forums

# Unification Of The Forces 2.0

## Recommended Posts

A rule of thumb you do not define two quantities with the same symbol that only defines confusion and the lack of clarity will always be refuted, regardless. You cannot have the dimensions given are still wrong, I showed how the rest energy is related to the rest charge as simply given. Using apples with oranges under the same guise is a massive mistake when bringing understanding to an audience let alone making anything clear for your own.

Edited by Dubbelosix
• Replies 44
• Created

#### Popular Posts

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.

A rule of thumb you do not define two quantities with the same symbol that only defines confusion and the lack of clarity will always be refuted, regardless. You cannot have the dimensions given are s

me and dubbel agree you are a crackpot, read thisÂ http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36852-crackpottery-and-dunning-kruger-effect/

A rule of thumb you do not define two quantities with the same symbol that only defines confusion and the lack of clarity will always be refuted, regardless. You cannot have the dimensions given are still wrong, u showed how the rest energy us related to the rest energy as simply given. Using apples with oranges under the same guise is a massive mistake when bringing understanding to an audience let alone making anything clear for your own.

You lost me there, how are the dimensions wrong? What specific example? Because I just showed they were correct.

Â

BTW I had used different symbols for the permittivity of free space and strain, but then VictorMedvil complained in the other theory so I switched them back to the symbols used on wikipedia. But if you properly read the theory you would have figured out the symbols on your own, since I listed them below the equations.

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

I am not here to teach you should teach yourself. Its not a free ride all the time.

##### Share on other sites

I am not here to teach you should teach yourself. Its not a free ride all the time.

Yes, you say something is wrong with my units but can't prove it, then exactly why are you here?

##### Share on other sites

Of course I proved it, its because you are not capable of following the argument against.

##### Share on other sites

Of course I proved it, its because you are not capable of following the argument against.

The strain is derived from the square root of the fine structure which is dimensionless:

Â

Ďµ = (hc/(ÎµK^2e^2))^1/2

Â

The strain energy uses electric energy as Young's modulus strained up to matter rest energy, where are my units wrong?

Â

mc^2 = ÎµK^2e^2/r * Ďµ^2

Â

You do see different symbols for strain and the permittivity of free space don't you? My computer shows different symbols.

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

Strain has dimensions of pressure... So no. It cannot be derived from the fine structure as you would like to illustrate from your presentation.

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

In fact, pressure strain and density all have the same dimensions but are articulated from the stess energy. At least learn dimensional analysis before you begin to theorize.

##### Share on other sites

Strain has dimensions of pressure... So no. It cannot be derived from the fine structure as you would like to illustrate from your presentation.

Strain is dimensionless, allow me to give you a class in strain, true strain is defined as:

Â

ln(r1/r2)

Â

Where ln is the natural logarithm, r1 is a compressed radius, and r2 is the original radius.

Â

Stress has dimensions of pressure, which is energy per meter cubed. Perhaps you are confusing strain and stress.

Â

And also stress is sometimes used in strain energy equations I have not used that version of the equation here. Please see: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_energy) & (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(physics)) & (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_(mechanics)).

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

Anything can be dimensionless, the entropy can be dimensionless. But it can also have dimensions of the Boltzmann constant. The way you have written your equations are not a clear case of dimensionless units. Indeed, strain does take in the dimensions of pressure from the stress energy. But for a dimensionless case, you have argued it as clear as mud. I traced your units and it doesn't make sense to me.

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

I already read the wiki articles, stress involves strain. But they're different. And you're wrong, the dimensions are specific and not muddy. Which is why I always use SI units.

Â

By the way that's an article on stress not strain specifically. And looking at the equation for strain energy, how is it you think strain could have dimensions?

Â

U = 1/2 * V * E * Ďµ^2

Â

Where U is the energy, V is the volume, E is Young's ModulusÂ  (pressure), Ďµ is the strain. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_energy

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

Your link is quite clear, two ratio of stress with tension encodes the young modulus which has dimensions of ML^(-1)t^(-2) which does not generally mean that the quantities are not dimensionless... Even if you argued a dimensionless case, your units still appear wrong to me.

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

Your link is quite clear, two ratio of sstress with tension encodes the young modulus which has dimensions of ML^(-1)t^(-2) which does not generally mean that the quantities are not dimensionless... Even if you argued a dimensionless case,your units still appear wrong to me.

Oops I used E for energy, should have been U, I fixed it in the post previous to yours, sorry for the confusion.

Â

Anyways, Young's modulus and stress have the same units of energy per meter cubed. Multiply by volume and you have energy which is mc^2 or 1/2*mv^2.

Â

Once again, I think you're confusing stress with strain, have a look at strain here and scroll down to "true strain" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(physics)), it is dimensionless and defined as ln(l/L) or look at engineering strain, which is (l-L)/L. It's always length divided by length in the definition because its deformation of a surface or volume.

Â

Anyway you look at the different types of strain, they are all dimensionless.

Â

Anyways, this comes back to Hooke's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law) and spring energy, which energy is defined as 1/2 * K * x^2, where K is energy per meter squared, and x is length. Although Hooke's law is different, it is similar, but instead of distance or x, we have distance divided by distance squared, and instead of K and it's energy per meter squared we have Energy per meter cubed times by volume.

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

Oops I used E for energy, should have been U, I fixed it in the post previous to yours, sorry for the confusion.

Â

Anyways, Young's modulus and stress have the same units of energy per meter cubed. Multiply by volume and you have energy which is mc^2 or 1/2*mv^2.

Â

Once again, I think you're confusing stress with strain, have a look at strain here and scroll down to "true strain" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(physics)), it is dimensionless and defined as ln(l/L) or look at engineering strain, which is (l-L)/L. It's always length divided by length in the definition because its deformation of a surface or volume.

Â

Anyway you look at the different types of strain, they are all dimensionless.

Â

Anyways, this comes back to Hooke's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law) and spring energy, which energy is defined as 1/2 * K * x^2, where K is energy per meter squared, and x is length. Although Hooke's law is different, it is similar, but instead of distance or x, we have distance divided by distance squared, and instead of K and it's energy per meter squared we have Energy per meter cubed times by volume.

me and dubbel agree you are a crackpot, read thisÂ http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36852-crackpottery-and-dunning-kruger-effect/

Edited by VictorMedvil
##### Share on other sites

Crank and crackpot are both incorrect terms.

Â

Neither you nor dubbel have successful read my equations, and the dimensions are correct, so crackpot is recursive when you state it like that.

Â

The theory is inline with Einsteins work on space-time curvatures, which pushes it out of the area of crank.

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

I've had enough for this: wont speak for anyone else.

## 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.