models of physics

[nbj622]

Hi, I've created a set of models that illustrate physics concepts such as spin, relativistic fields, dimensionless constants, quark models, and many others. Its a system for visualizing the standard model. I was hoping for some feedback. I would post them here, however there are so many images, i don't think it would work. Check it out. Thanks a lot.

[John Cuthber]

I don't think the number of images is the problem here. On the bright side, at least you posted it in speculations.

[michel123456]

Hi, I've created a set of models that illustrate physics concepts such as spin, relativistic fields, dimensionless constants, quark models, and many others. Its a system for visualizing the standard model. I was hoping for some feedback. I would post them here, however there are so many images, i don't think it would work. Check it out. Thanks a lot.

 

The dark side is that you begin with:

Models by Jay Shaw

Text from Wikipedia

Though I have no doubt Jay Shaw is the author of the graphics, I have a serious doubt about the "Text from Wikipedia" part.

For example I found no "Folds in multispace" article in wikipedia. Instead I found some article about the Citroen Berlingo multispace.

You are presenting your own "theory" as it was part of the standard model. It is misinformation and it is very annoying.

I wonder how legal it is.

Beware someone will sue you.

[nbj622]

The whole page is just temporary. Some of the starting text is not from wikipedia. however, if you read, you will quickly see that the majority of the text is all wikipedia, safe a few sentences here and there. Im more interested in what you think of the models (the images). Did you see the one on spin? On the relativistic fields?etc..

 

The dark side is that you begin with:

 

Though I have no doubt Jay Shaw is the author of the graphics, I have a serious doubt about the "Text from Wikipedia" part.

For example I found no "Folds in multispace" article in wikipedia. Instead I found some article about the Citroen Berlingo multispace.

You are presenting your own "theory" as it was part of the standard model. It is misinformation and it is very annoying.

I wonder how legal it is.

Beware someone will sue you.

Edited December 18, 2011 by nbj622

[michel123456]

The whole page is just temporary.

You better change it.

 

Some of the starting text is not from wikipedia. however, if you read, you will quickly see that the majority of the text is all wikipedia,(...)

Put in italics the text from Wikipedia and it will become cleaner.

safe a few sentences here and there.

Are you french speaking?

Im more interested in what you think of the models (the images). Did you see the one on spin? On the relativistic fields?etc..

No. I saw nothing. I found the presentation too irritating.

[nbj622]

Yes, im french speaking. Is that a problem? Do you enjoy attacking people on the forum michael?

 

What exactly is irratating about the presentation? The mixture of simplicity and physics? Please be specific otherwise don't even respond. Try being a gentleman, because I believe I have been.

 

I will add the italicized text on my sentences, there are about 5 sentences not counting the text at the bottom of the images- thats my text as well. Its easy to distinguish between the two - the sentences with links are from wikipedia. That should be easy to understand for a smart guy like you.

 

You better change it.

 

 

Put in italics the text from Wikipedia and it will become cleaner.

 

Are you french speaking?

 

No. I saw nothing. I found the presentation too irritating.

[michel123456]

I am french speaking too.

 

Yes I was attacking.

Your blog is misleading. If you want to present your ideas, do it, but not under the cover of mainstream physics. Not any serious guy will have a look at your presentation. A quick glance and out. I saw the title, the 2 small sentences we discussed before, and scrolled through the drawings. I bet most members stopped at the title.

If you want to get comments you first have to redo it in a more honest and clear way.

 

Or you can begin a conversation here by presenting your ideas. You may collect some answer.

Edited December 19, 2011 by michel123456

[nbj622]

Thanks for being clear. You may be right, the title is heavy. In physics there are very few illustrations - and if there are, one illustration does not link to another. I'm trying to create one set of illustrations for a small boatload of topics in physics. I believe I have narrowed the topics to a fundamental set that can be linked together. Of course, its not everything, but I believe its the most important. Maybe you can take a little bit longer look, and go past the first few sentences. I would really appreciate the feedback. Just give me something a little deeper than the overall presentation is 'dishonest'. The topics are all standard model, I don't think its far left field (forget the multispace, the clouds, or 12-D stuff - i will remove it - its all part of an even bigger theory anyways). The graphics are trying to sort out physics in a more logical manner. Give it one good look, and I'll definetely listen to your criticism - maybe you'll have some constructive pointers too

 

I would start the topic here, but im not sure how. Maybe you can explain to me how I should do that.

 

thanks again

 

 

I am french speaking too.

 

Yes I was attacking.

Your blog is misleading. If you want to present your ideas, do it, but not under the cover of mainstream physics. Not any serious guy will have a look at your presentation. A quick glance and out. I saw the title, the 2 small sentences we discussed before, and scrolled through the drawings. I bet most members stopped at the title.

If you want to get comments you first have to redo it with in a more honest and clear way.

 

Or you can begin a conversation here by presenting your ideas. You may collect some answer.

[michel123456]

O.K. lets have a look.

your first graph is the following:

 

 

on the left: PRE- BIG BANG, what is this? IIRC standard cosmology don't say a word about "pre big bang". How did you come to the representation of this epoch (if existed at all) as a circle?

 

in the middle: "separation of Time and Depth" what is this? "separation of Pos. and Neg. clouds" what is this? Why do you represent it as 2 circles?

 

on the right: POST BIG-BANG (supposedly the time we are living now?) "Rotation of Time and Depth" what is this? why 2 circles? why tangent?

 

Generally, there is no continuation between the text from wiki and the graphs. The one does not support the other. Inside the graph, the same situation occurs.

 

If one looks at the circles only, you seem to argue that space & time separate after the BB. As much as I know, spacetime is considered by physicists as a single entity throughout the existence of the universe until today.

 

IOW I follow nothing, problems are everywhere.

Edited December 19, 2011 by michel123456

[imatfaal]

 

IOW I follow nothing, problems are everywhere.

 

Out of context that could be seen as a very nihilistic philosophy

[nbj622]

I simplified the model. I'll better explain the three parts. The text below, with links, is from wikipedia:

 

 

 

 

1) After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles... I use a circle because that's basically the definition of a SINGULARITY. (single - one entity - a point). C'mon use some imagination.

2) The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10⁻³⁶ seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10⁻³³ and 10⁻³² seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand... I don't know the exact time frames that my inflation model references, but I hypothesize that its describing the 'webbing' of time and space that evolved during one or a few of these initial epochs. Many of my physics models are describing the 'webbing' or the organization bridging space and time.

3) The third model is describing the quantization of time, as sub-atomic particles, during the expansion epoch. Einstein's famous equation of light energy is E = h x f. Within it, planck's constant represents a quanta. ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant. The reduced planck constant is a radius, therefore h is a circumference. The circumference of a space. My model describes space releasing circular quanta across time. In my expansion model Time is also circular because this model illustrates time 'cyclicality' / 'periodicity'. The linear model below fails to illustrate the universal cycles of time.

 

Time and Space are separate, hence the term 'Space''Time'. However, the theory of SpaceTime treats two separate entities as one, and I agree with you - however my model supports that, because space and time are touching - if the two circles were not touching my model of SpaceTime would be grossly innacurate as you attempted to point out. Furthermore, since time and space are intrinsincly joined, what provides a space, also provides a time (joules seconds).

 

Here is a slightly different expansion model with a more recognizable linear timeline: in my models, time is any single measurement unit described in terms of energy of space (h).

The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics. The Planck constant has dimensions of physical action (Joules seconds - Electron Volts seconds).

 

 

Is that better michel?

 

 

Imafatas, go troll elsewhere, you freethinker.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2011 by nbj622

[michel123456]

I simplified the model. (...)Is that better michel?

 

Sure it's better. I waited a while to see if someone got interested reacting with your post, but it failed.

 

It means it needs further improvement.

 

1. Imatfaal is a respected member, I don't remember him trolling. He took some time reading this thread and you rejected him. That's too bad, you lost a client.

 

2. you recognise that the title is heavy. The main problem is that you invite members to look at "a set of models that illustrate physics concepts" and opening your link, bam, "THE THEORY OF THOUGHT" in bold red. It is undermining your efforts.

 

3. It is a good idea to begin with wikipedia text, it creates a solid ground although wiki can be criticized. At least you are not beginning from nowhere, so I think it's a good thing. It creates a gap with the other hundreds of craps someone can find over the Web. But it is ruined with your title, see point 2 above.

 

4. Your work is indeed about "a set of models that illustrate physics concepts" . That is food for thought. I disagree on almost everything but it's fantastic! It is not word salad, it is "diagram salad" (please don't feel insulted ), your invention, and it's eatable.

 

5. To the point: you are right about the reduced Planck constant, it's a radius. But a radius with unities (the same unities with the full Planck constant). So it is a radius that is not a distance, but represents something else. IOW your diagram is only the projection of a cylinder. That is tasty food for thought.

 

6. I agree with

Furthermore, since time and space are intrinsincly joined, what provides a space, also provides a time

 

7. I sincerely hope someone else comes here, I don't consider myself reliable, you need more than 1 advice since you seem flexible and listening to comments, which is a wonderful behaviour.

Edited December 21, 2011 by michel123456

[nbj622]

Hey thanks alot for actually taking a good look! I know its a little out there, but its a piece of a larger theory (on thought).

 

Yeah perhaps i was a little harsh on amatfaal - im just looking for constructive criticism, not a gauntlet of criticism. i hope my customer returns

 

I will remove the title asap.

 

As for your cylinder comment - its just a circle, because all of my models are 100% 2-dimensional. I believe the way to use them is by layering them across depth (3rd dim.). Models over models. They connect points of depth thru 2-D symmetry, i suppose. They describe a slightly different environment than the standard SpaceTime, but within its scope.

 

If you see any other particular issues - maybe something is too complex / wordy / fuzzy. I also think the theory is edible, and there's more to come, those are only a fraction of the models! lol

 

thanks again

Edited December 21, 2011 by nbj622

[nbj622]

Hey Michel, I greatly improved my entire presentation; and I added an Audio introduction to the entire topic. Can you have a listen? And maybe check out the other pages on my site? It should be really fascinating! Start at www.theory-of-thought.com.

 

amatfaal - if you have it in you, give it a look too! (i finally figured out that you were talking about michel's statement, not my 'nihilistic' theory)

 

and anybody else for that matter.

 

thanks

[michel123456]

So you came here, you listened, changed your blog, and came back for improvements? You are one in a million! Good for you.

 

Your blog is almost mysticism.

I disagree completely (did i said that before?)

But I can discuss on things I disagree with. I'll try at least.

Audio:

_I found the audio too long. It's also a bit heavy to download. It goes well at the beginning, then it goes awfull, then it goes better when you talk about Plato, then it ends and I still have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you did the mistake I do constantly, that is to put my conclusion first and the explanation after. Also I have the impression you want to explain everything, life, comportments, thoughts, physics, that's too much to me.

_all the rest

this picture for example

Phi is not half Pi, as suggested on the picture (Phi is represented as the radius of the circle, and Pi as the diameter)

It is wrong.

[nbj622]

I'm adding video to the audio I'll send you a link to my YouTube, it's not perfect yet, but would help some people like yourself understand.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md8VPiUWkA8

 

And the diagram ain't wrong, no idea what your thinking, but do the math. Truncated constants , and measure the angles. Almost perfect connection to the 30-60-90 triangle

 

Did u go thru both new pages? In order?

 

Ya i do know what I'd thinking, it's off by .03 , it's reflected in the final angles, not a perfect connection but damn fckn close

 

Real Scientists shouldn't diss other bodies of work, including mysticism btw

Edited January 10, 2012 by nbj622

[michel123456]

Did u go thru both new pages? In order?

Not yet, but I'll do that.

 

Ya i do know what I'd thinking, it's off by .03 , it's reflected in the final angles, not a perfect connection but damn fckn close

 

Close is not enough. You need perfection.

[nbj622]

I agree, there's a reason for the slight imperfection. I don't have the exact answer yet, but I believe it has something to do with scaling. The same triangle in half scale bridges pi\4 and sqrt(phi)= .785 and the error grows from there. You'll see the diagram on pg2.. . it's an error from truncating.

 

If you give it a good read, you should see that the theory is real tight, and I ain't messing around like the other 999,999 people

 

Thanks btw

 

i added the link to the right youtube video

 

here it is again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md8VPiUWkA8

 

im going to make some adjustments, no worries, but you should get the gist of it, i think.