Equation, is this correct and if it is could u help me out??

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Ethernos 1997, Nov 29, 2019.

  1. Ethernos 1997 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    153
    • Please do not post pseudoscience to the Science subforums.
    Density proportional to curve in space time.
    I.e. D=k x l
    Mass/volume = l x K
    Energy/volumex c^2= l x k
    E= V x c^2 x l x k...... Eq1
    Gravity proportional to curve in space time
    I.e. G=p x l
    l=G/p...eq2
    From eq1 n eq2 we get,
    E=(G/p)x k x V x c^2
    From what we can see here if the energy were to be quantized we can also quantize gravity. Hence quantum gravity.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,410
    Not much meaning unless you tell us what the variables are.

    Energy does come in quantized form: photons.
    Gravity is not "proportional" to space time; gravity is the physical manifestation of curved space time.
     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,049
    Why do you think density is proportional to curved space time?
     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ethernos 1997 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    153
     
  8. Ethernos 1997 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    153
    MASS PROPORTIONAL TO BEND IN SPACE TIME.
    THEN
    E= K x L x C^2
    L = curve in spacetime
    K= proportionality constant between mass and spacetime curve
    K x L= mass
    L= E / K x C^2..eq1
    Nw quantizing eq1 will give curve in space by a photon, i guess.
     
  9. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,049
    So does this mean you don't think that density is proportional to curved space time anymore?
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,410
    So, here on Earth I mass 84kg. If I were to take a spaceship out to where space time is much flatter than here, I would mass less? Could I find a place where I have a mass of zero? Cuz that would be cool, since I would immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

    Ethernos, please stop. This is complete nonsense, and not what this forum is for. If you have free thoughts about stuff, please post it in the Free Thoughts forum.
     
  11. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,656
    No. Here on Earth you weigh 84kg (fatty!). Weight depends on the gravitational field, mass is a scalar invariant.
    Yes, you would weigh less, your mass would remain the same
    Yes, sufficiently far from a gravitational source your weight approaches zero, your mass remains the same.
    Ever hear of astronaut's weight-less space-walks?
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,397
    I think that is Dave's point - about the absurdity of what Ethernos is saying.
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,410
    No. On Earth, I mass 84kg - like I mass 84kg everywhere else.

    Ethernos seems to think that mass - not weight - is affected by spacetime curvature. As if, once out in flat space, I would mass nothing.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,419
    The opening post and everything else in this thread from Ethernos is cranky, and looks a lot like trolling. But just in case it isn't...

    Ethernos:

    Please explain how you are defining "spacetime" and "spacetime curve" mathematically in your analysis, and what the value of "L" represents and how, specifically, you calculate that from a particular configuration of spacetime.

    Please provide at least one example of such a calculation of L from a spacetime of your choice. Do not use words like "I guess" or describe how you might do it. I just want to be able to follow the precise definitions you are using. Also, is this your own work, or are you drawing on other sources that you can refer me to?

    What are the dimensions/units of "K"? And why is "spacetime curve" proportional to mass?

    Please explain. You may link to relevant references if necessary, but probably a brief explanation will do.

    Just a hint: if you're using "x" to indicate multiplication it is unnecessary and potentially confusing. It is probably better to leave it out. Also, your equation is ambiguous, because there's no simple way to tell whether you mean $L = E/ (Kc^2)$ or $L=(E/K)c^2$.

    What is "E", by the way? Is it energy? What kind of energy? Energy of what?

    You guess?

    I thought you already had a working definition of "spacetime curve".

    Can you give me any example of how you quantise an equation such as the one you have posted? It doesn't have to be this specific one. I just want to see that you understand how things are quantised.

    Also, previously you talked just about "mass", but all of a sudden you got more specific and started talking about photons. How did you go from the general to the specific?
     

Share This Page