# A Crackpot Physics

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Adirian, Sep 23, 2019.

1. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,421

It looks like you're blogging here rather than having a discussion.

Lorentz contraction is the apparent shortening of moving objects. How could that cause motion?

Maybe you're not saying that Lorentz contraction causes motion at all, but rather you're saying that motion is caused by changing spacetime curvature, or something like that. The problem with that view is that objects appear to move along in flat spacetimes just fine.

There's no evidence that atoms are black holes, as far as I am aware.

Show me your math.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,421
That's not an equation, let alone a field equation.

What is si(x)? I'm unfamiliar with the notation you're using.

Also, when you're doing maths, why do you need to rely on beliefs? Have you proven the equivalence you assert? If not, why do you believe it?

The equation for what? You've lost me.

Show me the maths that displays this resemblance you mention.

What distance are you talking about? The distance of what? The distance between what and what else?

What's an "l"? What does a distance greater than 10^6l mean?

Extend what field? A gravity field of some kind? Show me the maths of your field and the Kaluza-Klein extension of it.

What's a Kuiper Cliff?

You haven't posted a single equation yet, as far as I can tell. What equation are you talking about?

Show me the maths that you used to derive this curvature? What is x?

What does "self-reinforcing" mean?

Show me your integration. I don't understand what you're integrating, or why.

Do you mean something like:

$d_{n+1}=d_n+\int^{d_n}_1 \sin x~dx$ ?

What are these "adjusted distances" you're talking about? And what is $d_0$ or $d_1$?

You know, all of this is pointless unless you explain to your readers what you're actually talking about. The purpose of writing is to communicate something.

Cancel out of what? I can't even tell what you're trying to calculate here. Maybe try explaining what you're talking about.

Last edited: Nov 21, 2019

to hide all adverts.
5. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,421
10^6 what? Metres? Furlongs? Light years? Smoots?

I don't understand what you mean when you talk about the period of the nuclear force. What does that mean?

Please express this in metres. You appear to be saying that your theory predicts that objects smaller than a certain size can't exist. What size, in units that are actually meaningful?

Metres now? Okay.

So your claim is that gravity doesn't work if things are closer together than 1000 kilometres? Is that correct?

But there are objects in the Kuiper belt that are observed to be orbiting the Sun, for instance.

Repulsive gravity? What evidence supports this idea?

Which 10^17 or 10^18? What are you talking about?

Show me your derivation of the galactic rotation curve, using your theory. I want to see the maths.

So far, we have only your assertions, backup up by some rambling text and not much else, as far as I can tell.

An inflection point in what? Show me the graph.

In what units? Metres? Nuclear forces operate on much smaller scales than that.

Show me the maths.

Is all of this just your fevered imaginings, or have you done at least some concrete work? Do you have anything solid you can show me in terms of mathematics or the beginnings of an actual physical theory?

That looks contradictory to me. Explain how it is possible.

Show me the maths.

This hypothesis is disconfirmed by actual observations.

to hide all adverts.
7. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,421
I'm going to stop and wait to see if anything concrete is posted. Most of this looks like a waste of time to me - empty speculation mixed with pseudoscientific ramblings.

8. ### AdirianRegistered Member

Messages:
46
For Lorentz Contraction, I am suggesting that motion is a curvature in space-time. Assuming gravity is Lorentz-Contracted, this doesn't actually change anything as far as moving mass goes. (Gets a little weird with things without mass, though.)

As for the rest, well, the math hasn't actually worked so far. I'm still fiddling with that, trying to get a working mathematical model which is consistent with observations, but I've switched to studying tensors, because the coordinate transformations have gotten too complicated for the mathematics I am familiar with.

The short version for now is "I suspect the unified field theory will have a shape similar to sin(ln(x))/x". Si(x) was the sine integral; setting that aside as I can't solve the recursive function I got it out of anyways. X is distance.

I can force sin(ln(x))/x to match gravity with the right constants, but I can't get it to match the other forces using raw distance; the instantaneous frequency is far too low for the constants necessary such that there is both gravity on Earth's surface and also the Kuiper Belt doesn't fly off into the cosmos.

There may be a solution, in that these forces are changing distances, so using raw distances may be entirely wrong. But the coordinate transformations required there, I think, may require tensors.

So no, no equation. I could provide one of the equations that definitely isn't correct but I don't think that helps anything. If I find one that does work I will post it, though.

9. ### AdirianRegistered Member

Messages:
46
For more specific responses:

The fractal is implicit in sin(ln(x))/x. Well, technically it isn't a fractal, but as a force it gives rise to fractal behavior, in that it is scale-relative; for any given stable configuration within it, there are an infinite number of configurations that are identical except for scale/size.

For hydrogen, I'd need to be at home on my laptop, but it is a fairly simple equation, just plugging the variables into the Schwarzschild metric equation and solving. (Divide the force by the metric in the equation; this is valid because there is an additional unit in the denominator, and because the metric is valid with respect to both distance and time). I get .22m, which is the radius to the peak force, giving us a .44m diameter to the peak. The other ~2m is some guesswork about the total magnitude of the rest of the potential based on integrating similar equations.

For finite age and infinite history, this is based on the fractal-like nature of the equation; as you get closer to the big bang, you are dealing with smaller and smaller configurations, with shorter and shorter distances, and shorter and shorter time intervals for given behavior. A configuration that is 10^32 smaller will evolve 10^32 faster, owing to the speed of light. Thus the closer you get to the origin, the more tightly packed events get. Finite age, infinite history, interpreting history to mean causal chain.

As for repulsive gravity, I think this is what the cosmological constant is. This might imply that blue-shifted galaxies aren't actually moving away from us; I am uncertain if we have sufficient resolution to determine whether this is the case.

As for all my exponents without units, there is a reason for these; these represent the frequency relative to the current distance. Sin(ln(x))/x has a property that the frequency is relative to distance. So a frequency of 10^6 means that the frequency is 10^6 times the distance under consideration. This particular property is determined by the coefficient of ln(x); unit conversions have to be a coefficient of x itself.

10. ### AdirianRegistered Member

Messages:
46
Rereading, period, not frequency.

I'll try to reconstruct an equation that shows that sin(ln(x))/x can produce results similar to gravity later, I just don't find this that interesting; you can look at the graph and see it has a curve that looks like 1/x^2 in places. It is only interesting if I can get it to both do this, and line up with at least the nuclear force and something approximating a cosmological constant at intergalactic distances.

11. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,421
You're the one who has been going on about it. If it's not interesting, why did you bring it up?

What? You're judging the similarity by looking at a graph - by eye?

Do you think this is how physics is done: guess a mathematical function, try graphing it and squint a bit until you think it looks like what you want it to look like?

In my previous posts to you, I asked you several times to show me your maths. That is, I want to see the derivation of that sin(ln(x))/x function from whatever physical postulates you're putting forward.

Can you show me anything like that, or am I to take it that none of your maths has "worked so far", as you say?

What are the postulates of the model of gravity that you are putting forward?
And how do you derive a numerical model of gravity from those postulates?

12. ### AdirianRegistered Member

Messages:
46
Sin(ln(x))/x arises from the side of a triangle formed from a logarithmic spiral.

The logarithmic spiral arises from my best guess at what a negative closed dimension would look like (where a negative linear dimension corresponding to X might be -1/X, with infinity at the origin; my best guess at a translation of this for a closed dimension is that the distance between equivalent points is either complex or infinite; I lean toward a logarithmic spiral as a candidate spiral because of the relationship between complex numbers and Euler's number). The x and y axes are complex dimensions.

The negative closed dimension arises from a consideration of what happens to distance as a singularity forms.

Since x and y are complex dimensions, and arc length corresponds to the original distance, sin(ln(arclength))/arclength would correspond to one of two complex components of distance. This in turn would mean this corresponds to part of curvature. The other complex component, cos(ln(arclength))/arclength, might also be part of curvature; it doesn't really affect the characteristic behavior I care about.

(Strictly speaking I can arrive at a similar-ish equation using a hyberbolic spiral, but it only "works" for arclengths less than 1. This might be valid if we multiply distance by infinity, but that isn't mathematically useful.)

13. ### AdirianRegistered Member

Messages:
46
And my basic assumptions are that space-time is conserved, all forces are geometric (they are all curvature), and that there is nothing special about the scale we happen to exist at. This implies, I think, an infinite alternating series of attractive and repulsive forces/fields. Cosmological constant, gravity, what we call electricity (this description may work if protons are matter and electrons are antimatter), then both phases of the nuclear force.

This approach is merely the latest in my attempts to find a formalization for these assumptions.

14. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,421
I don't want you to tell me; that's just more of the same kind of thing you've been posting for this entire thread.

I want you to show me the steps in your derivation. If you have a relevant document somewhere online, you can link me to it, if that's easier.

I want to see your mathematical reasoning, not hear about your speculations about what might or might not "work" to get some result you think should apply.

15. ### AdirianRegistered Member

Messages:
46
The steps in the mathematical reasoning are full of guesses.

My research on the question of what a negative closed dimension should be came up with nothing. Right now, for this approach, that is pretty much the most important step, and all I have is a "Uh, maybe a logarithmic spiral?". I expect one of the parameters of the spiral should fall out of actually deriving it, and it is the most important parameter to determining the viability of the approach, the coefficient of ln(x). I'm still considering ways I might derive the correct formulation of a negative closed dimension, I've tried seven or eight approaches without luck so far.

If I had all the steps, I'd be writing a paper presenting the theory of everything, not posting to Pseudoscience. (Well, maybe just a unified field theory. A theory of everything would require incorporating uncertainty in a substantive way, which would be the next step.)

16. ### AdirianRegistered Member

Messages:
46
For a previous approach, I had the following recursive function:
dP = dM + integral[1,x](sin(dP)/dP + f(dP))

Where dP is proper distance, dM is Minkowski distance, and f(dP) is an unknown function, possibly just 0, corresponding to the elasticity of space-time.

It was an attempt to formalize the idea of "Force as a sine wave curvature which is self-interfering", but I couldn't simplify the recursion into anything useful. (Also the dM term was causing significant issues.). I think it converges on the same solution as my current approach, but I found the approach... intractable.

This approach seems slightly more tractable, but I have no idea how to actually bridge some of the gaps.

Like, intuitively, if a negative linear dimension has infinity at the origin, such that the distance to any other point is infinity (negative infinity for positive points, I think), what does that mean for a closed dimension, without an origin, and where the distance between two points is an infinite set? Adding the same kind of curvature that 1/x exhibits implies a spiral of some kind, except that it has to be a complex spiral, because we aren't adding an additional real dimension. So logarithmic spirals seem like a natural choice, given the relationship between e and complex numbers.

But that's all intuition and guesswork. I have no idea how to actually get there.

17. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,421
This is really cranky.

Adirian: I think you're wasting your time, deluding yourself that you're doing physics. Surely you have better things to do than this.

I'm out of this thread.

18. ### AdirianRegistered Member

Messages:
46
I'm really not sure how the crankiness could be more explicitly stated up front. What exactly is anyone expecting to find here?

As for whether I am wasting my time, that assumes that I don't get more out of this than I'd get over the next best option.