MolecularEnergy

So it is basic algebraic manipulation, it speaks of?

Sorry, i know not much more, i am affraid... i wish there was some texbook, that simply took me through it.

After many months of work I have written the Minkowski tensor in spherical basis representation, for my electron model fields. The radial electric field is as originally worked out in the Reissner-Nordstrom solution. Though I do not use them here, if I am correct the top row of the tensor reads: [math]0, -E_r, -rE_\theta, -rsin\theta E_{\phi } [/math]. Finally also I have the magnetic terms spawned by my assumption of current [math]A_\phi[/math]. Those conversant in tensor manipulation may have wondered why I struggled to transform the Cartesian form of the [math]F_{ab}[/math]. The reason is that there is much differential geometry to master when one starts with the vector potential. You have to go through the curl operation and also the machinery of spherical coordinates. The vector A by itself is a pseudotensor: there is a natural way to see it as contravariant but you cannot transform it by the necessary differential form to covariance. Importantly, when you take the curl you get a true tensor in the Minkowski form, and you get the correct representation in spheric coods. by following coordinate transform multiplication rules for each index. Thus I have constructed the stress-energy tensor for the RHS of the gravitation equations including the magnetic dipole self-field described in the model. I shall be examining the R-N solutions altered by these terms as I have already partly described for the electric components.

May i see this work...?

Electrons are certainly not black holes. Their Schwarzschild dimension is about E-57 meters. All their mass-energy would need to be localized on this scale. I am investigating their nature as singularity. When you solve the massive case, say for a rapidly spinning stellar mass, the angular momentum radius is less than the Scwarzschild dimension. If it could become comparable, the inner and outer singular surfaces merge and there is an opening outward. This implies, however, relativistic velocities of the mass. The investigation I am doing has parameters the other way around. I will offer my paper today or tomorrow.

 

Kerr electron: I have completed an analysis on the first level of GR applied to electrons as angular momentum (AM) sources. By this I mean a mapping of the transformed, axially symmetric coordinates often expressed, back to Cartesian "lab" external coordinates. For now I have covered the expression of null geodesics in the plane z=0 , both inside and outside of r=a. This will be available at the http below in my signature.

Electrons certainly could be... according to PhD Brian Greene.... Do you have some conclusive proof to put this guy in his place? There are problems, but there are equallly solutions that make electrons as black holes very suitable.

I am an aussie. Good to meet someone with this kind of humour.

Thank you, mooey, i am not right tonight. But, your help makes feel a bit better.

I thought the differential analysis of F=Ma had an inverse relationship, according to my math book...

Well, let's compair dicks then.

What is your deal, if you can speak to people in a respectable manner, the way you shun me for, then what is your problem with me...

... do you know that the autistic spectrum is a wide one, never mind how wide your attitude can be with me sometimes? I apologize from my heart, and you hate me for it. Am i not welcome here under these conditions? What conditions are you welcome here? Is it reserved for a certain spectrum...?

I know my problems, do you know yours?

You were not banned because you didn't communicate, you were banned because you were disrespectful.

 

Before you can be a scientist, you should be a decent human being. If you start bashing people for *reading your theory and criticizing it* then your science is utterly irrelevant, for the purpose of this forum.

 

Own up or shut up is true for both your science *and* your attitude.

 

It might sound harsh, but science is not about emotion, it's about facts. Cry or not, if your theories are bunk, they're bunk. And realising a theory you worked hard on for a while is bunk is not a very pleasant feeling, so I can understand your emotions. We're all human. But we can't promise you we won't criticize your claims again, so the only way we (mods and users) can try and make sure the experience in the forum is beneficial is to make sure the attitude in which our minipeer-review is handled.

 

Don't take things so personally. You're here to learn and/or to show us why your theory is better than other theories. Nothing in this should be taken so personally.

 

~moo

It's realy hard to explain sometimes. Only unless, i say, i have had the same responses in real life who don't know my condition, i cannotr reveal much more, than something else sounding almost pathetically-redundant, which reaper seems to want to adopt.

And that makes me want to step back. Some are quick to judge, and others don't want to judge at all, and yet stay within their own thoughts and boundaries.

I promise in the future, i will not flout what i have learned by ear, unless there is a paper that can scientfiically back it up.

I would like to thank someone here, who made me very emotional tonight. His name is phi for all... i thank you sir, for your support and general kindness.

The volume is constant. As in, non-relativistic...

Sorry, if this is very abstract. geometry, however, has very little to do with it...

I know, i see it now. I am sorry.

I cry, and i am not kidding. All my life, i have good friends round me, but my problems lead me to the same social constructs, or should i say, destruction?(s) i find myself in nearly every forum i end up in.

I cannot communicate in real life, and i find it hard here. I am yet crying again, i took a part away, and now i am back. Another place, called sciforums had a lot of time for me, and even certain members, but eventually, others took hold of me and maybe my disadvantages. but i sware, i will not let it happen again.

I will promise, in the future, i will either own up or shut up. I promise.

Let this perhaps, be a chance for me to be truthful about my problems in life. Ask anything, seriously; and, swansont, thank you, this makes me very emmotional.

Reaper, whatever... God bless the fact maybe one day you may have a child that has this specific autistic spectrum.

By the way, it's hard to tell me its not personal. That is one of my problems.

Welcome back gravityphoton/tsadi/'Tom'

 

I think this apology has taken alot of effort and I respect you for that. I will give you some tips which I do hope you'd take on board, because some of your posts I genuinely like. When someone asks for a citation it is not a personal thing, I normally do it when I'm genuinely interested about something and want to read more. When a citation fails to come along that's when suspicion arises. Also things you read in science magazines are often written by people who don't know what they're talking about, and present possibilities as actual facts this means that if you later state these in the same way as the journalist has done in a scientific setting (such as this) you're likely to be called on them.

 

A friend, who no longer posts here asked that I enquired as to your "clinical diagnosis" he asks academically I believe as he studies this kind of thing. But I understand entirely if you do not wish to tell us. -- seems you answered as I was writing this

I think i know who it is, and god bless them because they know what i have had to put up with, but no, i will not divulge it, but thank you anyway.

I am not here to cause arguements, but at best, sometimes, i cause it myself.

I know i do.... and this is why,

I suffer from a pragmetic disorder that is related to the autistic spectrum. Sometimes this leads me to take, which is rightfully causual to other peoples displeasure of my actions, where i fail to communicate on a level manner.

My name is Gareth-Lee Meredith, and i continue to study at a place called James Watt college. I am one of best, or at least, so i have been told, in my physics education, and all i wish is to be part of this community.

My disability sometimes can lead me into disarray, and i am left feeling sorry for myself, because i can act like a real ****. I apologize to all today, to the way i acted and the way i acted in the past.

I must admit, i have grown, (personally), strong attatchment to some people here, and others (because of my dissibility), i wish to know more about. I love science, but sometimes i do myself no favors. I do no one else favors either, when i have these silly fits, and i end up failing myself ontop of those who have real placements. I only want another chance, and that is all i ask, other than, my humblist apology, to those who stuck up for me, and those i let down, to those who wanted to help me, and i had my fits.

I am sorry to derail this place. I can see it is very respectable, and my conscience is playing on me now, and for very good reason.

I apologize, to all the moderators, and i apologize for any deception i may have caused, and that which i had. I beg you give me another chance, for i have not more to contribute, but maybe a little, for my own sanity, if you have the heart.

Again, if you don't, i will take the hint, i will bug off.

Sorry again, and i don't know how else to make it up, to you lot.

Gareth-Lee Meredith.

I am also sorry about my spelling. This comes part-and-parcel with my disibility, which is semantic pragmatic disorder.

Well, in 1919, Arthur Eddington took pictures of photon energy bedning round the star we call the sun. This bending was seen to be evidence, if not the proof of relativity that the curvature of spacetime was the effect of a distortion in spacetime itself, or the presence of matter, if you will.

He means this part:

[math]-k \frac{e^2}{r}[/math]

I think???

Good point(s).

It's hard though, to take stuff out of it, perhaps in the context that was meant?

Why... i thought the algebra i used was fine?

Obviously not though, if you are adament it is wrong.

I do believe, it said you can fill me up, (which shows some progression to being asbsolutely filled up).

(Hence again, full up, is not exactly being filled up).

An Ocean... but the ocean is never taken out...

I wouldn't say no to it....

Neither would I.

The mass, i do believe

Well, the electron has a negative force, whilst the proton will have a force normalized by a positive force, so the electron is said not to fall into the nucleus.

The minus sign derives from nromalizing the force between a proton and an electron

You can proove a negative very easily, by saying,

[math]x=zy^2[/math]

Add x to both sides;

[math]2x=zy^2+x[/math]

Divide by 2 on both sides

[math]x= \frac{1}{2} (zy^2+x)[/math]

Manipulating through algebra gives:

[math]\frac{1}{2} x-x= \frac{1}{2} (zy^2)[/math]

Solve the equation;

[math]\frac{1}{2} x= -\frac{1}{2} zy^2[/math]

Replace [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] x with [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] zy^2 then

[math]\frac{1}{2} x= -\frac{1}{2} x[/math]

Which is my own derivation.

If it is filled up, it is no longer a hole now, is it?

(Full up, that is, it no longer is a hole)

The full up part is a decoy, that makes you think someone is eating something.

I could also derive Bohr's energy equation for the orbiting of electrons around the nuclei of atoms, if you wish...?

Thanks, TDS (also, good seeing you).

 

What's the r in your equation? It looks like mass of the electron times velocity of the election times radius (?.. didn't think electrons had radius) equals plancks constant over two pi.

 

I just don't know enough about it to know how that equation applies to the question at hand.

i do believe, the equation is related to the radius of the energy equation i am willing to derive.

The same way you differentiate with respect to a specific variable, so you integrate with respect to a particular variable. Integrate with respect to what?

I really need to be shown. This is how i generally learn. But what if i show the differentiation of F=Ma, so you can see the operations i am using.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know how to differentiate F=Ma, so since integration is the inverse process to differentiation, how would one perform integration on the equation F=Ma?

Thanks in advance

Does no one know?