Second Constant?

[TJ McCaustland]

Could there be two different constants? Energial and Physical(E=mc²⁾? Well if there could be an energial constant it could look something like this: E^(NC)=V∞/0 (Infinity over zero to denote that neutrally charged energy's speed depends on the universe's expansion rate. Or does it?) Answer this question below.

Edited November 5, 2014 by TJ McCaustland

[elfmotat]

• There are lots of different constants: permittivity of free space, Planck's constant, the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the fine structure constant, etc. So it's not clear what you mean by "second constant."

Define "energial."

Define "physical."

Define E^(NC).

Define V.

∞/0 = undefined.

What does this have to do charge?

"Energy" does not have charge.

What does this have to do with expansion?

[Strange]

And energy does not have speed, either.

[elfmotat]

And energy does not have speed, either.

 

Damn. Missed one.

[TJ McCaustland]

OK I created this to account for the existence for non-matter non-antimatter neutral atoms and energies. The infinity over zero I know is undefined, but that is in the place of the rate in m/s of the expansion of the universe. And E^(NC)or M^(NC) are neutral representations.

[swansont]

OK I created this to account for the existence for non-matter non-antimatter neutral atoms and energies.

 

There are no atoms that are non-matter or non-antimatter. Energy is a property of things, not a material unto itself.

[elfmotat]

but that is in the place of the rate in m/s of the expansion of the universe.

 

How does that make it any less undefined?

 

And E^(NC)or M^(NC) are neutral representations.

 

Define "neutral representation."

Edited November 5, 2014 by elfmotat

[Strange]

E^(NC)=V∞/0

 

This prompts a couple of questions:

 

1. Do you actually think this makes sense?

2. Do you think Einstein came up with E=mc² by just writing a few symbols at random and then explaining what they meant? (For that is what you seem to have done).

 

And an observation: as ∞/0 is a dimensionless number (as well as being undefined) it is trivial to see that your equation cannot be correct. Energy has dimesnions ML²/T² while velocity is L/T. (This is also why there is a factor of c² in the "traditional", i.e. correct, equation. Funny how things work out when done properly.)

[andrewcellini]

would like some clarification on the introduction of this "energial constant" concept. as this has been asked and hasn't been answered, what is meant by "energial?"

[ACG52]

 

 

"energial?"

Just a meaningless term he made up.

[andrewcellini]

Just a meaningless term he made up.

i realize that, but i was kind of hoping for the op to respond to see if anything he is trying to introduce is intelligible besides the "math" above.

[TJ McCaustland]

This is one of my speculations to account for neutrinos, if there is already an account for them then disregard this as pseudoscience.

Well as for the "math" I was trying to account for my thought that particles without mass or energy (basically space "particles"), or extra-dimensional particles could possibly depend on the universe's rate of expansion as their defined limit of speed, but the problem with this is the cosmological principle. The universe being homogeneous and isotropic states that all matter will have set speed of C as the universe's creation was not an explosion, but rather rapid expansion. So all of this taken into account unless said matter has extremely special properties it will obey the C limit, as doing otherwise would disprove the cosmological principle, because with expansion instead of explosion that means that all matter with very, very FEW exceptions obeys the same laws, principles and so forth because of the equal distribution of matter in the universe.

would like some clarification on the introduction of this "energial constant" concept. as this has been asked and hasn't been answered, what is meant by "energial?"

Basically pertaining to energy.

Edited December 4, 2014 by TJ McCaustland

[Strange]

This is one of my speculations to account for neutrinos, if there is already an account for them then disregard this as pseudoscience.

 

The problem is not that it is pseudo-science (although it may be ) but that your "equation" was just a random collection of meaningless symbols.

 

Well as for the "math" I was trying to account for my thought that particles without mass or energy (basically space "particles"), or extra-dimensional particles could possibly depend on the universe's rate of expansion as their defined limit of speed

 

As far as I am aware, there is no reason to think there is any such connection.

[Ophiolite]

TJ, you clearly have an active imagination. Such an imagination could be of great value, certainly for enhancing your own knowledge and possibly beyond that. But an uncontrolled imagination, acting on supposition and not fact is counterproductive. I humbly suggest that speculation of the sort you are engaging in would be more appropriate once you have the equivalent, at least, of a bachelor's degree in physics. May I ask what is the current extent of your education in this regard?

 

elfmotat's excellent post highlights the weaknesses in your current approach. With the educational level I have suggested you would not have been guilty of these elementary mistakes. Instead you could have asked intelligent questions that would have furthered your own knowledge and that of a proportion of the casual readers of the thread. As it is I think calling it pseudoscience is being too kind.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

TJ, you should read our new Guidelines for Participating in Speculations Discussions

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

 

All of it applies, but in particular, there's item 5: You can't ignore criticism of your idea. There are a number of unanswered questions from your earlier posts. Diving in with even more speculation while those questions remain unanswered is not going to fly.