Nested Centers of Force Theory

[Clay Gillespie]

This is not a discussion, your attacking me.

[Mordred]

No all I am asking is that you provide clarification of your theory so I can help you properly model it.

Let's start with a central potential force ie a centre of mass such as a planet.

[math]f=\frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}[/math]

How would you employ this under your theory ?

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, Clay Gillespie said:

It means a lot to be a doctor and what your doing is insultive.

 

14 minutes ago, Clay Gillespie said:

Your not a good man.

 

7 minutes ago, Clay Gillespie said:

This is not a discussion, your attacking me.

You’re

[uncool]

1 hour ago, Clay Gillespie said:

It admits itself to easy investigation. This is what we already know, these are more like tenets.

So is your "theory" a new theory which disagrees with current physics, or is it an explanation of some outcome of current physics?

[Clay Gillespie]

This is a bully culture.

It’s basic Physics pretender.

For someone in this forum up on Physics, it’s just another take on enfolded / Unfolded. But may prove a useful tool.

[Mordred]

Sigh this is pointless. 

Here this may give you some idea of what I find interesting. Feel free to study it

Anyways I am going to work on the Yukawa sector of that thread. 

 

[Clay Gillespie]

Watch out tho, the Dungeons and Dragons people might come.

Ya, use your level five spell on them.

[Mordred]

Already here I have played DnD for over 30 years but that has nothing to do with science

[Clay Gillespie]

Not your friend, leave please. Your disgusting.

I’ve reported that your pretending to be a doctor. Please leave

Are you gay, I’m not interested, please leave my post.

[Mordred]

Thread reported to moderator staff. 

[Clay Gillespie]

Yes it was.

This is My tread. 

[Mordred]

Yes it is but all threads on this site are open for discussion by all members. You agreed to this when you joined this forum. It's in the rules and regulations.

By the way you can report me all you like. I do have my degrees regardless of what you believe.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Mordred

[Clay Gillespie]

Your not here to talk Physics, you barely know basics, your here for me write intelligently and you heckle. Until mommy takes your Dungeons and Dragons board away.

This guy is heckling me, squatting on my post, claiming to be a P.H.D, Help (Reported)

Your here unwanted citing rules, please leave, not your friend.

[Mordred]

[latex]\textbf {What is mass?}[/latex]

Mass is defined as "resistance to inertia."

There is several categories of mass so we will detail each individually.

Rest mass or invariant mass (invariant means essentially, same for all observer's). Rest mass is oft defined as the mass of a particle or body at rest. The commonly known formula relates the energy/mass relation.

[latex]e=m_0c[/latex] where [latex]m_0[/latex] is the rest mass.

However the above formula is incomplete as it does not include momentum. P (note the symbol P can also mean pressure). As a particle gains momentum or changes in frequency there is a change in mass called inertial mass.

Inertial mass is essentially The total energy of a particle including its potential and kinetic energy.

It's formula is the energy-momentum relation.

[latex]e^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2[/latex]

Further detail can be found here.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

4) is the Higgs field responsible for all mass?

No, the Higgs field only influences a few particles, Quarks, leptons, W,Z bosons,neutrinos. Which is roughly 1% of the mass at best of the universe.

Lets step into this in greater detail for this we will use the rest mass of the proton.

A proton is made up of two up and one down quark. One might think that the mass of the proton is the sum of its constituents. So lets add it up shall we?

Up quark mass= 2.3 MeV/c^2

down quark mass= 4.8 MeV/c^2

 

Quarks gain there mass via the Higgs field.

 

2.3+2.3+4.8=9.4 MeV/c^2

 

Wait the mass of the proton is 938.272 MeV/c^2

that's roughly 1% the mass of the proton. Indeed 99% of the mass of the proton is due to the binding energy of the strong force, which binds the quarks together via a gluon particle field.

 

Well we've seen the strong force and the Higgs field contributions to mass. One might wonder if there is an electromagnet contribution as well?

 

Indeed there is. As this is of significant historical significance in how the Lorentz transformations developed I will refer you to the wiki page on electromagnetic mass.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

A good coverage on its history can also be found in this pdf.

 

http://en.fphysics.com/d/281711/d/historyem1+sayt+debby.pdf

 

5) what is the perspective of a photon?

This question is meaningless. For several reasons. One the photon is not an observer, it has no perspective. (Detail the math probs and resultant infinities)

 

[latex]\textbf{Equivalence principle.}[/latex] The principle of equivalence essentially states that an accelerated system is completely physically equivalent to a system inside a gravitational field. In more exact terms it means the equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses.

 

Newtons Inertial mass [latex]m_i=\frac{f}{a}[/latex]

 

Newtons gravitational mass [latex]m_g=\frac{r^2f}{GM}[/latex]

[latex]m_I=m_g[/latex]

[latex]\textbf{Energy mass equivalence}[/latex]

In General Relativity the metric is seemingly complex. One must understand that GR is a coordinate system. When one describes bodies in motion such as planets and stars the metric of a sphere is useful. However at some point one must use an arbitrary coordinate metric. Recalling that GR has the time component as a coordinate as well. Coordinates in GR take the form (ct,x,y,z) this leads to a 4x4 matrix. For the moment we are ignoring everything but the exact specific real numbers the components of the metric take at a single point. Lets define a point as [latex]x^\alpha[/latex] and our new coordinate as [latex]y^{\mu}[/latex]

these simple coordinates leads to

[latex]g_{\mu\nu}=g_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{dx^{\alpha}}{dy^{\mu}}\frac{dx^{\beta}}{dy^{\nu}}[/latex]

What exactly is a matrix. The wiki definition is useful.

"In mathematics, a matrix (plural matrices) is a rectangular array of numbers, symbols, or expressions, arranged in rows and columns that is treated in certain prescribed ways. The individual items in a matrix are called its elements or entries. "

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(mathematics)

One example is below. Which is a 4*4 matrix Note the numeric organization.

[latex] A_{m,n} =\begin{pmatrix}a_{1,1} & a_{1,2} & \cdots & a_{1,n} \\a_{2,1} & a_{2,2} & \cdots & a_{2,n} \\\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\a_{m,1} & a_{m,2} & \cdots a_{m,n}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

In GR it is common to replace m and n with [latex]\mu[/latex] and [latex]\nu[/latex] respectively. As one can see [latex]\mu[/latex] denotes the row and [latex]\nu[/latex] denotes the column. Both [latex]\mu[/latex] and [latex]\nu[/latex] are vectors. Matrix transformation examples can be found here

http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/projects/mepres/alevel/fpure_ch9.pdf

A more detailed 63 page article on matrix mathematics can be studied in this pdf.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mheducation.ca%2Fcollege%2Folcsupport%2Fnicholson4%2Fnicholson4_sample_chap2.pdf&rct=j&q=matrix%20mathematics%20pdf&ei=WaBmVbjaCrDfsASK4YGwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFLoGWucTsDoKqVhBhrLWIaPeIHbw&sig2=P6W5USwrpu7eDNGAbRf4SQ.

In general relativity, the metric tensor below may loosely be thought of as a generalization of the gravitational potential familiar from Newtonian gravitation. The metric captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as distance, volume, curvature, angle, future and past.

[latex]dx^2=(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx^3)^2[/latex]

[latex]G_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}g_{0,0}&g_{0,1}&g_{0,2}&g_{0,3}\\g_{1,0}&g_{1,1}&g_{1,2}&g_{1,3}\\g_{2,0}&g_{2,1}&g_{2,2}&g_{2,3}\\g_{3,0}&g_{3,1}&g_{3,2}&g_{3,3}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

Which corresponds to

[latex]\frac{dx^\alpha}{dy^{\mu}}=\frac{dx^\beta}{dy^{\nu}}=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{dx^0}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^0}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^1}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^2}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^3}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

The simplest transform is the Minkowskii metric, Euclidean space or flat space. This is denoted by [latex]\eta[[/latex]

Flat space [latex]\mathbb{R}^4 [/latex] with Coordinates (t,x,y,z) or alternatively (ct,x,y,z) flat space is done in Cartesian coordinates.

In this metric space time is defined as

[latex] ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}[/latex]

[latex]\eta=\begin{pmatrix}-c^2&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

 

A free textbook (open source) can be found here

http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/

Dust solution no force acting upon particle

[latex] T^{\mu\nu}=\rho_0\mu^\mu\nu^\mu[/latex]

[latex]T^{\mu\nu}x=\rho_0(x)\mu^\mu(x)\mu^\nu(x)[/latex]

Rho is proper matter density

Four velocity 

[latex]\mu^\mu=\frac{1}{c}\frac{dx^\mu}{d\tau}[/latex]

Leads to

[latex]ds^2=-c^2d\tau^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=-c^2dt^2(1-\frac{v^2}{c^2})^\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{\gamma}[/latex]

[latex]T^{00}=\rho_0(\frac{dt}{d\tau})^2=\gamma^2\rho_0=\rho[/latex] [latex]\rho[/latex] is mass density in moving frame.

[latex]T^{0i}=\rho_0\mu^o\mu^i=\rho^o\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{dx^o}{d\tau}\frac{dx^2}{d\tau}=\gamma^2\rho_0\frac{\nu^i}{c}=\rho\frac{\nu^i}{c}[/latex]

[latex]\nu^i=\frac{dx^i}{dt}[/latex]

[latex]T^{ik}=\rho_0\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{dx^i}{d\tau}\frac{dx^k}{d\tau}=\gamma^2\rho\frac{\nu^i\nu^k}{c^2}=\rho\frac{\nu^i\nu^k}{c^2}[/latex]

Thus

[latex]T^{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}1 & \frac{\nu_x}{c}&\frac{\nu_y}{c} &\frac{\nu_z}{c} \\\frac{\nu_x}{c}& \frac{\nu_x^2}{c} & \frac{\nu_x\nu_y}{c^2}& \frac{\nu_x\nu_z}{c^2}\\ \frac{\nu_y}{c}& \frac{\nu_y\nu_z}{c^2} & \frac{\nu_y^2}{c^2}& \frac{\nu_y\nu_z}{c^2}\\ \frac{\nu_z}{c} &\frac{\nu_z\nu_x}{c^2}&\frac{\nu_z\nu_y}{c^2}&\frac{\nu_z}{c^2}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

Let me know when you have some physics to discuss

The above is a starter for the Einstein field equations. Physics requires mathematics

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Mordred

[MigL]

So, who's taking bets ?
I'll put $20 on Clay being gone within 10 posts or less.
( mind you that's 20 Canadian, so only about $15 US )

[Clay Gillespie]

Your a good man, I love Physics, God knows Physics, Amen, I’ll take 10, you gotta hold me down, then we break, Amen.

You an enfolded / Unfolded guy, tough guy like you, I’m betting yes.

What you think of the intro, not bad, wouldn’t you say, so you on board, a Nested Centers of Force guy.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Clay Gillespie
Clairification

[Mordred]

What is a nested center of force?

You do need to describe this mathematically physics does require math.

I gave you one basic equation to start with

[math]F=\frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}[/math] 

In the above I provided some relevent details for the Einstein field equations. 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Mordred

[Clay Gillespie]

Don’t be a dork, get a clue, nobody likes you, that doesn’t do shit, now go away.

[Mordred]

Can't answer that question can you ?

It's your theory so why do you refuse to provide any requested details ?

!

Moderator Note

Please review the following if you wish to continue participating in this forum these are the rules for the Speculation forum

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Mordred

[Clay Gillespie]

It’s Goddam simple, you dumb shit, right there at the beginning. No Durake equations or conductive wrap analysis on the slip stream manifold needed. Dumb shit, go away. 

[Mordred]

Rules 1 and 2

1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.
2. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.

[Clay Gillespie]

Your nuts, the field metal and you will never be in the same room.

[pzkpfw]

2 minutes ago, Clay Gillespie said:

Your nuts, the field metal and you will never be in the same room.

*you're

*medal

Edited October 6, 2019 by pzkpfw

[Clay Gillespie]

Ms. Molecules. I’m the good guy. He’s a liar.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Clay Gillespie
Clairification

[pzkpfw]

5 minutes ago, Clay Gillespie said:

someone got some proving to do. 

He didn’t really when a metal, Ms. Molecules. I’m the good guy. He’s a liar.

You started the thread, it's up to you to provide something of substance to back up your claim of a "theory".

Instead you've spent most of your time complaining about another poster. Let it go. Try "doing science".