I don't remember seeing special relativity in QED. At best it is merely compensated for. The theory does not have at its heart an explanation of what exactly is the cause of relativity phenomena. All field theories that have a most elemental constituent that moves at the inveriant speed of light provide an explanation for just exactly what is the cause of the phenomena of relativity. Starman's theory may be flawed in too many places to show in one post, but it does provide a basis for the cause of relativity phenomena. That's something that QM, QED, the Theory of Relativity, General Relativity, Superstrings, and all other theories endorsed by the mainstream today, all fail to do. It seems to me a shame.
They both can be true, its just that they're incompatibile with each other (thus rendering them as incomplete theories). For example, using relativity to predict the behavior of atoms and electrons yields impossible answers, and the same is true for quantum mechanics applied to large masses (such as planets). At least thats my understanding of it.
James R. your criticisms well disserved my friend. You are a man of grater education than myself. I do lack a fundamental understanding of physics, of witch you posses. I lack the language of Math, I am able to communicate in English. From what I understand about the origins of Relativity it originated by thought experiments of Albert Einstein. These experiments dealt mostly with observation. From that point on it was the details of equations and refinement. I have never stated this to be theory in any of my hypothesis. I am here for help from people like yourself and I do appreciate all your time and effort. I do apologize for any mistakes I have made. I do understand that at present there is still a missing link between GR and QM. James R. you claim what is not, yet you know not a proven UT. Unless there is a UT that I am unaware, that has been proven, please by all means inform me of this. James R. "without any" this would be the quantum equivalent of 0. If any one of my statements were true, this would be < 0 would it not? "and this is NOT a virtue, in case you're wondering" I agree, I do apologize and mean no offence. I only ask for help in understanding my hypothesis. James R. I did not use the term "Spacetime" for I do not believe they are the same thing. I use the logic that space may effect time however time has no effect on 3D space. If your question is in regards to 3D space I will give you a quantum amount. Thanks to the support from Vern, here is a scientist who thinks similar as I do with no math or quantitative predictions from 1909. 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. Here I am referring to energy in its Geometric form that allows for the expanse of space and the laws of GR. The line is not compressed, it merely illustrates the path of compression of 3D Space vacuum as observed by the trajectories of the charged particles in the image I provided. Then I ask, why can you not have one without the other? Well I used my imagination. So you could say I imagined it. And my I quote Albert Einstein. I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. James R. If you want me to go away, I will for this is your forum. I never meant to pick holes, I only mean to find answers. JQ
Very good point, until you take into account what EMF consists of. This would then be the results of compressed 3D space vacuum into positive charge and negative charged the EMF, thus creating a distortion of the 3D space in the area and thus effecting the trajectory of the charged particles intentional or not.
Err don't quite follow that. It reads like you're making out that something is compressing space and that that compression gives the same results as the charge that is deliberatley induced to deflect the particles... So what's compressing space and why introduce the compression when the charge accounts for the deflections?
Possumking, this is what started me on my quest. Electron yields and their relation to 3D space and mass.
Vern Look at the formula from "KickAssClown" at the botom of this page. http://forums.hypography.com/strange-claims-forum/7342-g-m-c2-e-sv-3.html#post117661 BTW here I go by the name "Abstruce".
Oli Everything has cause and effect, when you introduce charge you are using that what is the makeup of all matter, energy. I have asked many physists and electrical engineers one very fundamental question. How are electrons generated? They always refer to the mechanical processes of power generation. This dose not explain where the electrons come from. The truth of the matter is they do not know. A vortex of Spatial Vacuum with a rotation at the invariant speed of light. Because they are one and the same.
Starman; good to see your interest perked; now you can dig deeper into the relm of physics. Since your theory relies upon the Lorentz Transformations for its prediction of relativity phenomena, a deep understanding of those is a good place to start. You have predicted time dialation because time is measured by the vibration of certain very consistent atoms. These vibrations must have a longer period because the physical part of them must move through a greater distance to complete a vibration cycle when the atom is moving. Thus the vibrations are slowed by movement, and you have time dialation, just as your theory predicts. You have predicted length contraction with movement because objects are made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which have electrons that exist in moving patterns around a nucleus. Since the most elemental vortex components move at invariant speed, this pattern must flatten in the direction of movement so that the individual components of it don't get left behind. All in agreement with Lorentz's work. Amazing !!
Starman; I'm not trying to lead you anywhere; I'm just pointing out obvious positive things you should realize about your theory. I'll leave the negative stuff for others to point out. You should know, for example that your theory predicts ALL relativity phenomena, not just the two I recounted above. You should know that your theory predicts classic space-time. Relativity phenomena caused by invariant speed of vortex components can't work in relative space-time. The basic difference between your relativity predictions and those of the theory of relativity is that the Theory of Relativity attributes the observed phenomena to variances in space and time. Your theory attributes the observed phenomena to variances in clocks and matter while space and time remain constant. I've studied many fundamental field theories of matter. James Clerk Maxwell's was the first. His theory also predicted relativity phenomena; he must not have realized it though; he never mentioned it.
Vern If this is a new discovery, should I not try to refine it and get it published? I am reading about Covariance and contravariance with out the math skills I need. I feel a little like a paraplegic in a marathon. I am learning as fast as I can, I have a passion for physics and have a dream of one day making a contribution that is worthy of those in the science. You seem to understand me where others do not. I know my hypothesis is problematical yet I know it can be refined to communicate it workings as true and correct. John Quest
It's the same for me an mathematics. A famous problem but not very practical, I hope to solve the Collatz conjecture. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture) That and I have been been trying to find patterns in prime numbers. I discovered the prime spiral on my own. I was so excited I wanted to let people know, but before I did I found out someone discovered it in the 1960s or so. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is never too late to learn. Some of my children were in their forties before they attained their doctorate.
*ahem* Your theory predicts nothing, because it has only one non-sensical equation which is not even dimensionally correct. The rest of your "theory" is a bunch of prose, which cannot produce any meaningful quantitative predictions. Vern is an idiot who also doesn't know anything about physics, which is why he's applauding you. If you really think contributing to mankind's physical knowledge is as easy as stringing together some symbols and making up some wacky-sounding crap about vortices, you're sadly mistaken. Any attempt to "publish" this tripe will only result in your being laughed at. Have ever read a single physics textbook or journal article? Do you have any idea how professional physicists do their work, or publish their results? You, Starman, are sadly too ignorant to recognize your own ignorance. Go find a library, and try to resist delusions of grandeur until you've at least accomplished a freshman-level understanding of basic physics. - Warren
Hey, I've seen this one. It was introduced to me as the Syracuse conjecture though. Apparently it's a $1 million problem nowadays. I spent a few hours playing around with it several months ago, but didn't get anywhere. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Maybe I'll have another go sometime...
I've managed to put the whole problem into one big equation... but it doesn't take me anywhere. I suppose I could prove the conjecture is true if I can prove that for any give "x," there are positive integers that satisfies the equation. Mostly I try to work on the problem in reverse.. that is, given you start with an 2<sup>x</sup>, you can produce all the odd numbers. Just consider the odds.. because for any even number, dividing by 2 "enough times" will yield an odd number. Edit: I suspect this problem has a deep connection with the distibution of the prime numbers.
