A MAJOR Discovery

[New Science]

A MAJOR Discovery:

 

I was thinking about the Planck Constat as having a real physical substitution for the mathematical expression that appears to be the smallest unit of energy in the universe.

 

I FOUND IT.

 

Working on the principal of modifying the deBroglie’s wave formula and Einsteins M/E formula, I decided to use the following components where

h replaces E for the energy source, m sub e as representing matter and

Lambda (L photon) replacing 'c' for light as the smallest unit of energy or photon. Since the unknown here is the wavelehgth (photon), I worked the

formula to solve for L. m sub e=9.109-31=electron mass. So:

 

L = square root of h x m sub e or 6.626-34 x 9.109-31=SR(7.274^-4)=

2.697^-2 meters

 

Rearranging the formula for solving the Constant, we have h = m x lambda^2.

 

Thus L = the CMBR wave length of .02697 meters that = the temperature of 2.73K.

 

Weins formula reduces the temperature to a wavelength of 1 millimeter but at the low end of the radiations, it errs to lower values.

The Rayleigh formula is considered accurate for the low end of the radiation and reduces to 7 millimeters.

My value falls in between the two.

 

So my solution for the smallest source of energy in the universe is 2.697 millimeter photon representing the Planck value with a single physical photon source.

 

This value (2.73K) than represents the 'equalized' space temperature in accordance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynalics where heat redistributes itself to create one uniform themperature.

 

From this photon, we can deduce the frequency as c divided by the photon length and that equals 1.1^10 and the elapsed time as 8.99^-11 seconds.

 

This page did not reproduce as pasted, si I had to use the components the best I could.

 

New Science

Mike Cyrek

[D H]

A MAJOR Discovery

Not. I have two words for you: Dimensional Analysis.

L = square root of h x m sub e or 6.626-34 x 9.109-31=SR(7.274^-4)= 2.697^-2 meters

First, you obviously mean division here rather than multiplication because

 

[math]h\cdot m_e = 6.03593838\cdot10^{-64} \text{m}^2\,\text{kg}^2 / \text{s}[/math]

 

Dividing rather than multiplying,

 

[math]h/m_e = 7.274\cdot10^{-4} m^2 / s[/math]

 

This does not have units of length squared. It has units of length square per time. So while taking the square root yields [math]2.697\cdot10^{-2}[/math] numerically, the result has units of [math]\text{meters}/\sqrt{\text{seconds}}\ [/math]

 

Dimensional Analysis suggests something is awry here. WTF is a root second? (Rhetorical question; those of you who work with equipment error specs need not reply).

 

Bottom line: BZZT, wrong.

[Klaynos]

You can't just start replacing variable willy nilly without some physical basis...

 

Oh, and dimensional analysis RAWKS!

[iNow]

Oh no, you didn't join this forum too!

 

Beware unsubstantiated assertions and false premises... Also, an inability to properly express scientific notation.

[D H]

So, where is is he? I found one place, but everyone either nitpicked or congratulated him there. WTF? Klaynos refutation, "stop making up formulas without a basis" (post #3), and my refutation, "that's not a length (dimensional analysis)" (post #2) are both killers.

[iNow]

Look up "Mike C"

 

It's the more recent version of his username, to which he requests admins change it from (as it shows here) "new science" after membership grows tired of the consistent falsehoods, lack of response to criticism and questoins, and also complete lack of citation.

[doG]

So, where is is he?

 

There's a log floating here that hasn't been flushed yet. His supposed great discovery seems to be missing from the other science and physics forums I checked. I wonder why he didn't post a paper on it at http://arxiv.org/:D

[New Science]

Not. I have two words for you: Dimensional Analysis.

 

First, you obviously mean division here rather than multiplication because

 

[math]h\cdot m_e = 6.03593838\cdot10^{-64} \text{m}^2\,\text{kg}^2 / \text{s}[/math]

 

Dividing rather than multiplying,

 

[math]h/m_e = 7.274\cdot10^{-4} m^2 / s[/math]

 

This does not have units of length squared. It has units of length square per time. So while taking the square root yields [math]2.697\cdot10^{-2}[/math] numerically, the result has units of [math]\text{meters}/\sqrt{\text{seconds}}\ [/math]

 

Dimensional Analysis suggests something is awry here. WTF is a root second? (Rhetorical question; those of you who work with equipment error specs need not reply).

 

Bottom line: BZZT, wrong.

 

Yes, that should have been 'divide'.

There was another mistake I made about the placement of the decimal point

 

Thanks. Must be my old age.

 

New Science

[D H]

Even with division (and I granted that you meant division rather than multiplication), you do not have a length. The units are wrong. You have discovered a mere numerological coincidence.

 

You have not addressed Klaynos' concern either. You can't just throw physical constants together willy-nilly. In other words, even if your calculation did come up with a length, what rationale do you have for throwing these particular constants together? What physical cause relates them?

[CaptainPanic]

If the answer is not 42, I am not interested today.

[New Science]

Oh no, you didn't join this forum too!

 

Beware unsubstantiated assertions and false premises... Also, an inability to properly express scientific notation.

 

So, I am an amateur astronomer and cosmologist.

I may not have a college education because I do not want to be dumbed down to be a follower.

 

I believe in 'free speech' and see flaws in the current teachings of the establishment

 

I have studied the subjects mentioned above for 20+ years.

 

So I do not swallow the BBT and some other such teachings.

 

New Science

 

You can't just start replacing variable willy nilly without some physical basis...

 

Oh, and dimensional analysis RAWKS!

 

Did you read my reason for developing this formula?

 

deBroglie started the matter wave concept and also developed a formula for light.

 

Einsteins formula also uses matter in its M/E formula.

 

As A result, I thought their should be a physical source for the Planck Constant.

 

So I introduce the electron mass as a component in my formula.

Plancks Constant represents the smallest unit for energy

The photon represents a single wave unit with a frequency of 'one'.

Waves have a dimension. So photons do likewise.

Example: the red light wavelength is 6.56^-7 meters.

 

So I did not just dream this up out of thin air!

 

New Science

[D H]

One more time, [math]\sqrt{h/m_e}[/math] is not a length.

[iNow]

Waves have a dimension. So photons do likewise.

Example: the red light wavelength is 6.56^-7 meters.

Just a reminder, Mike... You forgot the rather important "x10" in your equation.

[Klaynos]

Restating your premises does not stop them being flawed and pretty meaningless... and how do you feel about D H's criticism?

[Klaynos]

So, I am an amateur astronomer and cosmologist.

I may not have a college education because I do not want to be dumbed down to be a follower.

 

I believe in 'free speech' and see flaws in the current teachings of the establishment

 

Free speech is not the freedom to have people publish what you want though... and posting is a form of getting SFN to publish for you.

 

Ah yes the evil establishment with their falsifiable theories and their evidence they're EVIL you know! EVIL!

[insane_alien]

I believe in 'free speech' and see flaws in the current teachings of the establishment

 

i am free to say that airplanes fly because of the colour of their cockpit furnishings and not the wings but if i try to implement this my 'plane' would not get off the ground.

 

being correct is not free, it has very severe limits imposed on it by reality.

[Phi for All]

So, I am an amateur astronomer and cosmologist.

I may not have a college education because I do not want to be dumbed down to be a follower.

 

I believe in 'free speech' and see flaws in the current teachings of the establishment

 

I have studied the subjects mentioned above for 20+ years.

 

So I do not swallow the BBT and some other such teachings.

You forgot to mention the persecution of Galileo. Please be comprehensive.

 

 

 

I need to move this to Speculations since it is not accepted science. We don't mind unsupported pet theories, but they can't stay in sub-fora where people who like theories that are testable and make predictions might accidentally have their shoes ruined.

[John Cuthber]

Well, it seems that "New Science's post did achieve something.

It inspired Phi for All to say "but they can't stay in sub-fora where people who like theories that are testable and make predictions might accidentally have their shoes ruined."

which is one of the best lines I have seen in a while.

 

Incidentally if someone claims "I have studied the subjects mentioned above for 20+ years." yet they haven't learned much, what does that say about them? Is it an appeal that we shouldn't be mean- he can't help being a "slow learner"?

[Edtharan]

Incidentally if someone claims "I have studied the subjects mentioned above for 20+ years." yet they haven't learned much, what does that say about them? Is it an appeal that we shouldn't be mean- he can't help being a "slow learner"?

It's the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. He is trying to set him/her self up as an authority by virtue of time spent, then using that "authority" claim that their argument is correct.

[New Science]

One more time, [math]\sqrt{h/m_e}[/math] is not a length.

 

When it represents a wovelength, it does.

 

NS

 

Just a reminder, Mike... You forgot the rather important "x10" in your equation.

 

That x10 can be misleading when using a calculator

I use the ^ arrow for the exp.

 

One million has six zeros. When you use x10 to indicate a million, it gove 7 zeros. 1 x10^6 = 1,000,0000

We think of million with 6 zerios and billion with 9 zeros.

 

NS

 

Free speech is not the freedom to have people publish what you want though... and posting is a form of getting SFN to publish for you.

 

Ah yes the evil establishment with their falsifiable theories and their evidence they're EVIL you know! EVIL!

 

I am just trying to spread the truth in science around so others may be aware of alternative views.

 

Arp's Anomalous Redshifts has been suppressed by the establishment in the USA.

Believe me, his theory is real. Of course I do not accept his idea of galaxies ejecting the Quasars.

 

NS

[insane_alien]

That x10 can be misleading when using a calculator

I use the ^ arrow for the exp.

 

One million has six zeros. When you use x10 to indicate a million, it gove 7 zeros. 1 x10^6 = 1,000,0000

We think of million with 6 zerios and billion with 9 zeros.

 

NS

 

use proper accepted notation. ^ means to the power of. 1x10^5 and 1^6 are not the same, the former is 100000 and the latter is 1.

 

When it represents a wovelength, it does.

 

the point is that it never does.

[D H]

One more time' date=' [math']\sqrt{h/m_e}[/math] is not a length.

When it represents a wovelength, it does.[/quote']the point is that it never does.

Exactly. The quantity [math]\sqrt{h/m_e}[/math] cannot represent a length any more than 10 kilograms can represent a length for the very simple reason that neither has units of length.

[Klaynos]

When it represents a wovelength, it does.

 

Then show how the dimentionality works, because D H showed that it did not. This is a standard simple test that all physicist do, and if it fails you then know that your formula is wrong.

 

That x10 can be misleading when using a calculator

I use the ^ arrow for the exp.

 

OK, but just so you know this will seem missleading as ^ normally means to the power of. And infact on alot of calculators there is a ^ symbol meaning that.

 

One million has six zeros. When you use x10 to indicate a million, it gove 7 zeros. 1 x10^6 = 1,000,0000

 

No, 1 x10^6 = 1,000,000

 

We think of million with 6 zerios and billion with 9 zeros.

 

Just words lets stick to numbers it's easier and there's less confusion... normally. As there is even a difference between a UK billion and a US billion.

 

I am just trying to spread the truth in science around so others may be aware of alternative views.

 

The truth of science is teh scientific method.

 

Arp's Anomalous Redshifts has been suppressed by the establishment in the USA.

 

Sure... Which establishment and why?

 

Believe me, his theory is real. Of course I do not accept his idea of galaxies ejecting the Quasars.

 

NS

 

I'm not familiar with this so can't comment.

Edited June 14, 2008 by Klaynos
slight error corrected.

[New Science]

A MAJOR Discovery:

 

I was thinking about the Planck Constat as having a real physical substitution for the mathematical expression that appears to be the smallest unit of energy in the universe.

 

I FOUND IT.

 

Working on the principal of modifying the deBroglie’s wave formula and Einsteins M/E formula, I decided to use the following components where

h replaces E for the energy source, m sub e as representing matter and

Lambda (L photon) replacing 'c' for light as the smallest unit of energy or photon. Since the unknown here is the wavelehgth (photon), I worked the

formula to solve for L. m sub e=9.109-31=electron mass. So:

 

L = square root of h x m sub e or 6.626-34 x 9.109-31=SR(7.274^-4)=

2.697^-2 meters

 

Rearranging the formula for solving the Constant, we have h = m x lambda^2.

 

Thus L = the CMBR wave length of .02697 meters that = the temperature of 2.73K.

 

Weins formula reduces the temperature to a wavelength of 1 millimeter but at the low end of the radiations, it errs to lower values.

The Rayleigh formula is considered accurate for the low end of the radiation and reduces to 7 millimeters.

My value falls in between the two.

 

So my solution for the smallest source of energy in the universe is 2.697 millimeter photon representing the Planck value with a single physical photon source.

 

This value (2.73K) than represents the 'equalized' space temperature in accordance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynalics where heat redistributes itself to create one uniform themperature.

 

From this photon, we can deduce the frequency as c divided by the photon length and that equals 1.1^10 and the elapsed time as 8.99^-11 seconds.

 

This page did not reproduce as pasted, si I had to use the components the best I could.

 

New Science

Mike Cyrek

 

The formulas below are corrected as follows:

 

Lambda sub photon = Square root of h / m sub e

 

h = m sub e x Lambda^2

 

m sub e = h / Lambda^2

 

Lambda = .02697 meters or 26.97 millimeters

 

Values below are for the CMBR temperature of 2.73K.

 

Weins value is determined to be about one millimeter.

 

Rayleighs value, I determined to be 73 millimeters in a modified revision of his formula. Frequency squared x T

 

Since photons have a frequency of ONE, I replaced the 1 with the wavelength of .02697 x 2.73 = .0736 or 73 millimneters

 

NS

[doG]

You left out the units again. Include the units and you should see your error...