G=m C2/(e.sv)?

[Abstruce]

They only travel in a vortex because they make them travel in a vortex: they use magnetic fields to track particles. Without the magnetic fields, they'd travel in straight lines.

-Will

 

Yes Will, this is correct.

 

What makes up magnetic fields?

 

Energy makes up the magnetic fields so energy must exist as a vortex as is evident by the magnetic fields.

 

JQ

[Erasmus00]

Energy makes up the magnetic fields so energy must exist as a vortex as is evident by the magnetic fields.

 

Its a very long leap from "constant magnetic fields make particles travel in spirals" to "energy must exist as a vortex." Especially because the way you are using energy seems to be vague and unspecified.

-Will

[Abstruce]

Its a very long leap from "constant magnetic fields make particles travel in spirals" to "energy must exist as a vortex." Especially because the way you are using energy seems to be vague and unspecified.

-Will

 

Is it really such a leap?

 

It may be a quantum leap.

 

If we place a magnet near metal shavings do we not observe a circular pattern of attraction?

 

In string theory do we not have a theory that connects the Strong force with the Weak Force (Electro Magnetic Force)?

 

According to Relativity do we not connect mass with the distortion of 3D space?

 

3D space is compressed (distorted) into the vortex this creates a negative and Positive pressure or EM charge. 3D spatial Volume Vacuum is energy in its sub atomic state.

 

I do not believe this is such a leap. All evidence points in this direction, only I believe it is so obvious, it is overlooked.

 

Could it be that many scientist are looking for a more complicated answer to a simple structure such is that of energy?

[Tim_Lou]

G, what is G? the gravity constant G?

what do you mean by "gravity"? the gravitional field? if so, what is the direction of the field?

what is the physical significance of G? how can it be measured to varify your equation? what is the definition of G besides [math]G=\frac{mc^2}{e.sv}[/math]?

 

you said vortex but how would you define vortex? what is the mathematical description of it? what does it mean to be a vortex?

 

your statements seem very vague and they lack any physical and mathematical support. Everything seems to be rhetoric talks. you need proofs to what seems to be "obvious". otherwise, I can just say "this is obviously wrong".

 

if you are incooperating relativity and/or string theory, then incooperate the mathematics. words prove little in physics, show us some mathematical derivations of things.

 

"3D space is compressed into the vortex" where does this idea come from? what "vortex" are you talking about? mathematically? "negative and positive pressure" what do you mean by postive and negative, mathematically? "3D spatial volume vaccum is energy" how come? where is it derived?

 

i might seem critical but there needs to be solid justifications of things you said.

[arkain101]

Please fill me in and correct me if I am wrong,

 

From what I understand stars burn on the process of nuclear fussion.

 

Once fussion process's reside a fissionable reaction is possible where the star can super nova.

 

Not too sure on this one.

 

I am just checking part of what have said here that has not been touched on.

[IDMclean]

[math]G = \frac{\epsilon\mu/\epsilon_0\mu_0}{n\epsilon_0\mu_0/\epsilon_0\mu_0 \cdot sV}[/math]

 

Interesting equation.

[math]G_0 = \frac{1}{1 \cdot sV}[/math]

 

Right?

[math]s= x + y + z - t[/math]

[math]V = x*y*z[/math]

 

Right?

 

So:

[math]G_0 = \frac{1}{1 \cdot(x + y + z - t)(x*y*z}[/math]

[math]G_0 = \frac{1}{1 \cdot(1 + y + z - (1+y+z)}(1*y*z)[/math]

if y =1, and z=1.

[math]G_0 = 1[/math]

[Jay-qu]

I dont think fission reaction occurs in a star at all, in a supernova fissionable componants can be created.. dont think this is for this thread though.

[Abstruce]

G, what is G? the gravity constant G?

what do you mean by "gravity"? the gravitional field? if so, what is the direction of the field?.

 

The Gravitational pressure is a negative pressure created at the level of the atom, a result of the space distortion this accounts for the uniform attraction of all matter in relation to its mass.

 

Gravity waves are so hard to detect because it is the distortion of the vacuum. Even though we have positive pressure (created by the matter that makes up our atmosphere) in our atmosphere at the quantum level everything is in a vacuum.

 

The structure of 3D space is in its lowest state, when not effected by matter or influenced by an outside force, it contains a specific amount of vacuum. Vacuum is the force that has been overlooked. So if we take the amount of vacuum within in a area of 3D space say one cubic cm and we measure it this will be our quantum of what is called 0 point energy only it is not 0 it will have a negative number in accordance with the vacuum of lets say -0.1kg

 

Ok now anything that contains a high pressure and low pressure in opposite directions will create a vortex until it equalizes and as long as there is no resistance. In the quantum world there is no resistance to motion unless there is a collision or some other outside force interaction.

 

Now the most important part is what happens when this vacuum starts to spin into the vortex? Well as with any vortex in our atmosphere it creates a uniform amount of positive and negative pressure of a free vortex.

 

you said vortex but how would you define vortex? what is the mathematical description of it? what does it mean to be a vortex?.

 

Mathematically, it is defined as,

 

The tangential velocity v varies inversely as the distance r from the centre of rotation, so the angular momentum, rv, is constant; the vorticity is zero everywhere (except for a singularity at the centre-line) and the circulation about a contour containing r=0 has the same value everywhere. The free surface (if present) dips sharply (as r − 2 ) as the centre line is approached.

 

The tangential velocity is given by:

 

V0=T/^r

where Γ is the circulation and r is the radial distance from the center of the vortex.

 

In the hydrodynamic interpretation of the behavior of electromagnetic fields, the acceleration of electric fluid in a particular direction creates a positive vortex of magnetic fluid. This in turn creates around itself a corresponding negative vortex of electric fluid.

 

what is the physical significance of G? how can it be measured to varify your equation? what is the definition of G besides [math]G=\frac{mc^2}{e.sv}[/math]? .

 

Now it should be evident how to conduct an experiment. Take the amount of vacuum in a given area of 3D space measure it in negative pressure, take the positive charge or pressure of an element nuclei and you will have the amount of 3D space compressed into the area of the mass of the Nucleus by way of vortex motion. When you have your answer you can factor the distortion of the surrounding 3D space and thus you have your formula for Gravity.

 

your statements seem very vague and they lack any physical and mathematical support. Everything seems to be rhetoric talks. you need proofs to what seems to be "obvious". otherwise, I can just say "this is obviously wrong"..

 

Yes Tim, I realize my hypothesis needs some equations to explain the details. However if it did not make sense, I do not believe you would take the time to respond to this new way of looking at unification. Sometimes one can know so much that one has been taught, one can no longer see the obvious.

 

if you are incorporating relativity and/or string theory, then incooperate the mathematics. words prove little in physics, show us some mathematical derivations of things..

 

Ok, I will work on that.

 

"3D space is compressed into the vortex" where does this idea come from? what "vortex" are you talking about? mathematically? "negative and positive pressure" what do you mean by postive and negative, mathematically? "3D spatial volume vacuum is energy" how come? where is it derived?.

 

In the quantum world pressure and electric charge are the same thing. They are forces that act in a uniform manor of force. Everything is one thing in different states. That one thing is the energy that is created by the vacuum.

 

I might seem critical but there needs to be solid justifications of things you said.

 

I think it is great that you are critical. I need help with my hypothesis of the mathematical equations. Maybe you could put together some equation that may work to support this idea and see if it works. Any help you can give is greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks JQ

[Abstruce]

Please fill me in and correct me if I am wrong,

 

From what I understand stars burn on the process of nuclear fussion.

 

Once fussion process's reside a fissionable reaction is possible where the star can super nova.

 

Not too sure on this one.

 

I am just checking part of what have said here that has not been touched on.

 

It sounds logical, yet it could be a further Fusion reaction under implosion.

[Abstruce]

[math]G = \frac{\epsilon\mu/\epsilon_0\mu_0}{n\epsilon_0\mu_0/\epsilon_0\mu_0 \cdot sV}[/math]

 

Interesting equation.

[math]G_0 = \frac{1}{1 \cdot sV}[/math]

 

Right?

[math]s= x + y + z - t[/math]

[math]V = x*y*z[/math]

 

Right?

 

So:

[math]G_0 = \frac{1}{1 \cdot(x + y + z - t)(x*y*z}[/math]

[math]G_0 = \frac{1}{1 \cdot(1 + y + z - (1+y+z)}(1*y*z)[/math]

if y =1, and z=1.

[math]G_0 = 1[/math]

 

KAC

 

You said it looks interesting.

 

Do you think this hypothsis could work?

[IDMclean]

That's not a hypothesis, that is a derividation for two photonic bodies. Given the formulae which you gave.

 

That is to say that the ground state of "negative pressure" on vacuum.

 

I was thinking about this today, and I thought of some refinements.

 

[math]E_0 = \frac{\epsilon_0\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

[math]E = \frac{\epsilon\mu}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

[math]G_{i/j} = \fra{E_i}{E_jsV}[/math]

For two masses it can be expressed as:

[math]G_{i/j} = \fra{\epsilon_i\mu_i}{\epsilon_j\mu_j sV}[/math]

 

 

Where the Spacial-Temporal dimensions of the two (or more) bodies of energy are shared (I think, something looks odd about the equation). If I am not missing anything this gives relative attraction ?ratio?.

[Abstruce]

That's not a hypothesis, that is a derividation for two photonic bodies. Given the formulae which you gave.

 

That is to say that the ground state of "negative pressure" on vacuum.

 

I was thinking about this today, and I thought of some refinements.

 

[math]E_0 = \frac{\epsilon_0\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

[math]E = \frac{\epsilon\mu}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

[math]G_{i/j} = \fra{E_i}{E_jsV}[/math]

For two masses it can be expressed as:

[math]G_{i/j} = \fra{\epsilon_i\mu_i}{\epsilon_j\mu_j sV}[/math]

 

 

Where the Spacial-Temporal dimensions of the two (or more) bodies of energy are shared (I think, something looks odd about the equation). If I am not missing anything this gives relative attraction ?ratio?.

 

Yes this may be an understanding of what gravity is.

 

Gravity is the result of 3D space distortion of the SV. (spatial vacuum)

 

This should create an attraction to the compressed regions of SV.

 

This temporal region is the rotation of the vortex with motion at the invariant speed of light.

 

Could it be that there is a slight imbalance of negative pressure, positive pressure allowing the building blocks of photons and electrons?

[IDMclean]

Replace Photons and Electrons with Monopoles and you got my theorm.

 

I would like to note that this is a distortion between the difference of opposing bodies.What me may be looking at is the Gravitational Static Equalibrium.

[Abstruce]

Replace Photons and Electrons with Monopoles and you got my theorm.

 

I would like to note that this is a distortion between the difference of opposing bodies.What me may be looking at is the Gravitational Static Equalibrium.

 

This is very interesting. It was sent to me by my friend Vern.

 

 

"H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted."

 

http://www.photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein06.html#Ziegler