# mantraphilter

Senior Members

47

• Rank
Quark

## Profile Information

• Gender
Not Telling
• Location
Michigan
• Interests
audio recording technology,
• College Major/Degree
none
• Favorite Area of Science
Theoretical Physics
• Biography
contractor, remodel houses
• Occupation
contractor

## Recent Profile Visitors

1463 profile views

1. ## Hijack from "unsure about the wave function" [LOCKED]

I've been thinking about the wave function and how it occurs. An electron orbiting a proton has to escape the gravity field of the proton. once it does, it is converted into a wave. But, what causes the gravity field of the proton to collapse? When you focus a magnifying glass under the sun, heat is created on whatever surface you focus it on. Enough heat and it catches on fire. I think the positive charge from the magnification of sunlight fills the space around a positively charged proton and causes the space around the proton to become equal to the space that is around it. The wall of space differential collapses releasing the electron as a wave. I do not think that the positively charged proton particle is converted to energy. But somehow the positive charge is released leaving an uncharged particle. Their has to be some sort of chain reaction going on to keep the fire burning. I think the collapse of the gravity field around the positive proton causes the proton to loose its charge, that proton is no longer a positively charged particle and is now able to accept a charge. Being able to accept a charge it is absorbed by the gravity field of a positively charged particle / atom and causes the gravity field around the atom to become unstable collapsing the wall of space differential and creating a chain reaction, and so the fire burns. The same process has to be going on in a star. As positive charged particles loose there charge and are absorbed by other atoms the chain reaction continues. I think this is what creates various elements within the star. My problem is, that If my hypothesis is correct, the particles in atoms are not being converted to energy, they are only being absorbed by other atoms creating new elements within the star, which means mass is not being converted to energy and, Einstiens E=MC2 is wrong. So I guess I'll be labeled as a crackpot. You wouldn't want to have a theory that is a contradiction to the "Great Einstien E=MC2" theory. Einstein is wrong.
2. ## language barriers

I think I see the problem, Everyone is so impressed with Einstein and his E=MC2 theory that they believe math is the answer to explain the universe. So everyone studies math and comes up with these crazy formulas because they want to be Einstein. If you can,t support a theory with math, its not a theory, show the math formula. You are all a bunch of Einstein wannabees - sheep. Displaced space explains how gravity works at the quantum level and unites all the forces, like it or not. It predicts magnetic fields around black holes. It explains how four neutrons could be held in a nucleus. It explains why light does not escape a black hole. It explains why energy is quantized. It explains the confusion of an electron as a wave or a particle. It explains why gravity at the planetary level appears so much weaker than the strong nuclear force. and it does not violate any of your precious mathematical formulas. So you can either jump on board to a greater understanding, or continue to hide behind your PHD's, doctorate degrees, and mathematical formulas in ignorance. Your choice. If you want to see the completed theory - find it yourself.
3. ## language barriers

If displaced space theory is correct it means all the measurements of distance as starlight moves through space are WRONG. Displaced space theory means as starlight travels through various gravitational fields it gets compressed and reamplified due to various fields of displaced space it has to travel through to reach your eye or whatever telascope you are looking at it with. Even a measurement is relative to the space you took the measurement in. So when anyone claims mathematical equasions can describe the universe we live in, they might as well be running around with there thumb stuck up there ass and drooling. this is the link to the, I hope completed theory, <link deleted by mod>
4. ## oppression

you must be getting a fat government paycheck.
5. ## language barriers

I was having problems figuring out the right language to describe the details of my theory that unites all the forces, and needed to know acceptable language to describe my theory. I did this by posting the rough draft here, and learning language through the comments. The theory doesn't need mathematical equasions to prove it. IT'S A THEORY. My theory predicts magnetic feilds around black holes, and why energy is quantized. I am not interested in condemnation of the theory by egotistical college educated people who are blinded by their own education while waving their degrees, or do I have the patience for them. I have posted a finished version for anyone who is interested on a Wix website. It is called "mantraphilter" four forces united. If this post is considered spam I guess I'll get kicked off and deleted. Oh well!
6. ## oppression

People who draw salaries in local state and federal government have their own economy. Their wages are increased as inflation goes up. Their salaries are adjusted to the so called taxes that are drawn out of their paycheck. They live comfortable lives and can afford summer cottages and education for their children. Nepotism increases the gap between their society and the rest of the citizens. This is all done under the guise of government laws. Anyone who disagrees is drawing a government salary.
7. ## oppression

I was on a job site the other day and met the home owner. He told me he was a magistrate. The only think I could think was, so- for a career path you chose oppression.

9. ## Interested in comments on a paper

you are correct, but then everybody seems to think I am a crackpot. we'll see who laughs last. The reason I started this thread was because I needed help understanding the language used in describing phenomena in physics in order to wright something coherent that could be understood by the amateur physics community. My first attempt was very confusing even to me after reading it again, the concept didn't quite show through the language. A few patient people, who replied to the thread, hopefully, helped me to overcome this barrier, so I tried to rewrite the paper to be more easily understood.

11. ## A logical approach to gravity at the quantum level

The starlight wave as it enters the "photographic negative effect" of the suns "displaced stacked space" would decompress relative to the space it is traveling through, then as the wave collapses around the sun, (like the ocean wave around the buoy) and moves away from the sun, it would then compress again due to the "photographic negative effect" that the suns "displaced stacked space" is creating.(it is entering less space).
12. ## A logical approach to gravity at the quantum level

Think of a buoy floating in the ocean, the wave approaches the buoy, the buoy does not stop the wave. the wave only slightly peaks at the point where it contacts the buoy and then sort of collapses around the buoy to reconnect on the other side of the buoy, continuing on its way. Depending on the angle the wave approaches the buoy, more or less water will move around either side of the buoy as the wave collapses around it, and reconnects on the other side. The same thing is happening as the starlight (A three dimensional wave) approaches the sun. (the buoy). My picture is only a two dimensional attempt to describe this. The wave of light could move to either side of the buoy, and maybe travel both sides, as a wave does but, you have to think of this in three dimensions. " both sides"? that's two dimensional language. The starlight wave could be surrounding the three dimensional sun as it passes it, and depending on its angle of approach, well, you get the idea! So. I have a very small ruler, and I am standing on the surface of the planet. I measure the distance the electron is from the proton of an atom. Then, I pack up the atom and the ruler, hop aboard a rocket and blast myself into space. Then, I perform the same measurement with the same atom and the same tiny ruler. Of course it will measure the same, the tiny ruler is made of atoms also, Duh! Its electrons will also be the same distance from its protons. Relativity.
13. ## A logical approach to gravity at the quantum level

couldn't sleep, I just realized by reading your post again that my language is improper, area refers to a two dimensional space, I should be using the word volume, as it applies to three dimensions.
14. ## A logical approach to gravity at the quantum level

Does light not travel in a wave? I've always thought it does. Is the wave length the same in the starlight as the sun light? or is the wave length relative to the space it is traveling through. Would the waves cancel each other out? If light does not travel in a wave and is only a photon or (boson?), your point might be valid. OK, so density would also have to be a variable in the equation. If we could find the "imaginary" point at the center of the mass of the planet, and compare that to the distances where we took the measurements of our, proton area, and farthest possible electron orbit, at both surface and vacuum point. would that not somehow include the density factor? So, all the information that would have to be included in the equation would be as follows. The "weight of the planet", the "area of the planet" the "middle planetary area point distance to the surface location point" at which we calculate the "area of the proton", and the "farthest possible orbit area of said proton". Then "middle planetary area point distance to the vacuum point" at which we calculate the "proton area", and the "farthest possible orbit area of said proton", and also, the "distance between the surface point and the vacuum point" If we used all of these pieces of information in our formula, what order would the calculations have to be made?, and, wouldn't that give us a number value of gravity for said planet? Or would this be futile because gravity changes with mass. As soon as a meteor comes down you would have to recalculate the whole thing. What good would knowing a number value for gravity do anyway, it does not change the world we live in.
15. ## A logical approach to gravity at the quantum level

This answer does explain how the light from the star could travel and bend around the gravitational warping of the sun. you just cant accept it because it means you have to adjust your already complete, without a doubt, understanding, of how gravity works. We do not need to count every atom or figure the density, only take one atom, place the atom at the planets surface, calculate the area of the possible orbit from its proton, then calculate the area that the proton occupies, and subtract the proton area from the possible orbit area, then calculate the same thing for the atom at the point where space becomes a vacuum, then compare these figures to the distance between the two points where you took both measurements, would this give a formula for gravity? Somehow I think that the area that the planet occupies would have to play a role in the formula, if it's going to tell us anything. So the information we need is, proton area, possible orbit area, taken at surface location, and vacuum location, the distance between the two points where the measurements were taken, and the area that the planet occupies. how to arrange them in a formula? I'm still thinking about that.