mantraphilter

Senior Members
  • Content count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-15 Bad

About mantraphilter

  • 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. 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.
  8. All four forces of physics united

    All Four Forces of Physics United The effects of gravity are not well understood at the large scale. Mass distorts the space around itself. Distorted space causes other mass to move into this distorted space, but why? I believe that the effect of matter in space is of displacement. That is, that there is space through- out the area that the matter is occupying but, because the matter occupies this space, space in effect, gets stacked up around the matter. The closer to a mass that other masses become, the more they attract each other due to the space that is displaced and stacked around each body of matter. Therefore, more space is found around the surface of a planet than at a farther distance away from it. I believe that light is effected as it travels past a large mass. I suggest that this is the reason. When a mass becomes locked in orbit around another mass why are they not falling into each other? Because, each mass has its own space stacked around it, having more space stacked closer to its mass, it doesn’t move into less space, but is still effected by the distortion created by the other mass that it orbits. I believe further, that the “displaced space” around a mass is not necessarily symmetrical, although it can be. At the quantum level, a particle also has its own very tiny mass. But, the effect is still the same. The very tiny bit of space that a particle displaces, gets stacked around itself. A particles density does not vary throughout its mass. The space being displaced by a particle begins abruptly at the particles surface and ends abruptly at a distance from its surface, creating a wall of space differential. When two particles are near each other, they do not attract each other. Each particle is not going to move into the regular space that is between them and their own “displaced space”, The displaced space is like a photographic negative image of the shape of the particle displacing it. As two particles are forced together, the “displaced space” around them begins to overlap. Once the overlapped space becomes greater than the original displaced space, the particles move into the now greater overlapped space. This now combines the two particles into one nucleus, and the displaced space around the two particles into one “displaced space” around a “two particle nucleus”. Again, the “displaced space” around these two particles is like a photographic negative image of the shape of the two particles side by side in the center. I believe this is describing the strong nuclear force. As another particle is added into the “displaced space” there now exists a three-particle nucleus, but the wall of space differential does not end as abruptly due to the density of the particles in the nucleus, and any space that is between the particles. The particles are not yet charged and would be defined as neutrons. So how does the uncharged neutron get charged. Photons of light traveling through space as a wave, enter the “displaced space” of a particle. The photon wave decompresses relative to the displaced space. The wave cannot compress fast enough to exit into the regular space. The uncharged particle now becomes charged, creating a proton. Once all of the particles are charged in the nucleus, any further photon light waves that pass through the “displaced space” decompress and do not enter the normal space outside of the “displaced space” and instead, stack up against the wall of space differential creating an electron. For each particle added to a nucleus, the “displaced space” has to distort and overlap to represent the shape of the nucleus and the wall of space differential becomes weaker due to the density of the nucleus and any space that is not used up by the stacking of spheres. As the nucleus gets larger and a proton gets buried in between other protons, this is what creates the shelves of electron orbits around the nucleus, and is why we see different orbital shapes around the nucleus. As for the neutron being necessary as a buffer between positively charged particles (in order to hold them together), we don’t need this anymore, or any other glue, (gluons, up quarks, down quarks) to hold the nucleus together. I believe the language of physics is wrong when it describes the electron as a negatively charged particle. All particles are either charged, or not charged, and an electron is a charge free of any particle. If any particle deserves the negative designation. It should be the neutron, as it can accept a charge. As you add particles to the nucleus, the overlapped space grows, the particles get charged and the displaced space becomes full of electrons but, the wall of space differential becomes a more gradual transition which allows electrons to escape the displaced space. I think this might be describing the weak nuclear force. Unless the atom is buried in a mass that adds pressure, the atom can no longer hold itself together. Once an electron leaves the “displaced space”, the wall of space differential adjusts to the loss, and the remaining electrons are again held by the wall of space differential. So, how do covalent bonds hold atoms together? As an electron is shared by the two atoms it bonds the atoms together. I do not define the electron as a negatively charged particle. This is misleading, and leads to the belief that there are two different types of charges, and there are not. Only charged particles (protons and electrons) and not charged particles which will accept a charge, (neutrons). The belief that there is an opposite negative charge that a particle could be, is a misconception, and is likely what has led to all the theories about anti matter and dark energy. As atoms become larger and collapse, they give their particles to other atoms and or develop covalent bonds until it grows into a larger mass. As more matter collects, different densities are created and pressure from outside forces effect it until a mass is created with a large enough “displaced space” That the pressure from the regular space farther out, compresses the mass into a sphere, a planet. So why is gravity so much weaker than the strong nuclear force. A planet has more density as you come closer to its core. As matter accumulates, the “displaced stacked space” along with the atoms are being put under pressure by its mass. Different elements are created depending on the amount of pressure and density. As density increases, more space is being displaced around the total mass. At the surface of our planet, it appears weaker because, the “displaced stacked space” is being occupied by less concentrated matter at its surface. Again, the “displaced stacked space” existing around the planet is like a photographic negative of itself. The closer you are to the center of the planet, the denser the matter becomes and so more of the displaced space is filled. Likewise, the closer to the surface (but within the matter) the less dense the matter becomes, and so less of the displaced space is being filled. As you travel way from the surface of the planet (through the photographic negative effect) of the displaced space, the space gradually decreases until you hit the wall of space differential and enter the vacuum of space. All of the planets have their own displaced space around them, only it is being filled by the density of the various atmospheres of the planets. This is what creates gravity. As newton dropped his apple, it fell down towards the surface, and into the more space created by the photographic negative effect of the “displaced space”. In the case of our sun, the matter is so densely packed that any electrons close to the core are being smashed. As the “displace stacked space” collapses and energy radiates out as a wave of photons into the displaced space around the sun. The wave moves away from our sun and gets compressed as it moves into the less space farther from the displaced space of the sun, (Remember the displaced stacked space is like a photographic negative of its mass). The wave then renters the “displaced stacked space of a planet and is reamplified as it moves through the “photographic negative effect” of the “displaced space” until the wave collides around the mass, (like ocean waves around a buoy), Some of the wave now stacks up against the mass and creates electrons which are then absorbed by the mass and its atoms. The surface of the mass then becomes charged with electrons, while the opposite side of the mass is not charged, and so the mass rotates as the +charged side moves away from the +charge of the sun, and the uncharged side of the mass is attracted by the +charge of the sun. The planet is now caught in the “photographic negative effect “of the “displaced stacked space” of the sun. The planet does not move away into the less space that is farther from the sun and behind the planet, and the +charged surface of the planet is pushing against the +charge of the sun, like a giant solar sail. Now, Imagine a black hole. The “displaced space” around it must be great. The common belief is that light cannot escape a black hole. The mass of a black hole does confine its atoms into a smaller and smaller space but, the dense matter is not what attracts more mass. In the case of the black hole the matter has become so dense, the atoms do not have any room to move. In a sense, they are fused together. All of the “displaced space” has been smashed out of its atoms, and the nuclear reaction has stopped. No photons can penetrate the atoms, and the black hole is like one giant particle, that light cannot penetrate. The displaced space would have an abrupt beginning right at the surface of the black hole’s matter, and an abrupt ending farther away, like a particle. This abrupt ending is popularly known as the “Event horizon”. The spiral arms you see extending away from the black hole are not being spun out. The space that is being displaced by the black holes’ mass is where the spiral arms are moving into. Again, the “displaced space” is the photographic negative of the mass inside the black hole, (whatever shape the black hole is). I believe this is why the star fields appear to get wider as they get closer to the black hole. If this definition is right, a black hole is not really a hole at all, it’s more of a giant particle.
  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.
  10. A logical approach to gravity at the quantum level

    All Four Forces of Physics United The effects of gravity are not well understood at the large scale. Mass distorts the space around itself. Distorted space causes other mass to move into this distorted space, but why? I believe that the effect of matter in space is of displacement. That is, that there is space through- out the area that the matter is occupying but, because the matter occupies this space, space in effect, gets stacked up around the matter. The closer to a mass that other masses become, the more they attract each other due to the space that is displaced and stacked around each body of matter. Therefore, more space is found around the surface of a planet than at a farther distance away from it. I believe that light is effected as it travels past a large mass. I suggest that this is the reason. When a mass becomes locked in orbit around another mass why are they not falling into each other? Because, each mass has its own space stacked around it, having more space stacked closer to its mass, it doesn’t move into less space, but is still effected by the distortion created by the other mass that it orbits. I believe further, that the “displaced space” around a mass is not necessarily symmetrical, although it can be. At the quantum level, a particle also has its own very tiny mass. But, the effect is still the same. The very tiny bit of space that a particle displaces, gets stacked around itself. A particles density does not vary throughout its mass. The space being displaced by a particle begins abruptly at the particles surface and ends abruptly at a distance from its surface, creating a wall of space differential. When two particles are near each other, they do not attract each other. Each particle is not going to move into the regular space that is between them and their own “displaced space”, The displaced space is like a photographic negative image of the shape of the particle displacing it. As two particles are forced together, the “displaced space” around them begins to overlap. Once the overlapped space becomes greater than the original displaced space, the particles move into the now greater overlapped space. This now combines the two particles into one nucleus, and the displaced space around the two particles into one “displaced space” around a “two particle nucleus”. Again, the “displaced space” around these two particles is like a photographic negative image of the shape of the two particles side by side in the center. I believe this is describing the strong nuclear force. As another particle is added into the “displaced space” there now exists a three-particle nucleus, but the wall of space differential does not end as abruptly due to the density of the particles in the nucleus, and any space that is between the particles. The particles are not yet charged and would be defined as neutrons. So how does the uncharged neutron get charged. Photons of light traveling through space as a wave, enter the “displaced space” of a particle. The photon wave decompresses relative to the displaced space. The wave cannot compress fast enough to exit into the regular space. The uncharged particle now becomes charged, creating a proton. Once all of the particles are charged in the nucleus, any further photon light waves that pass through the “displaced space” decompress and do not enter the normal space outside of the “displaced space” and instead, stack up against the wall of space differential creating an electron. For each particle added to a nucleus, the “displaced space” has to distort and overlap to represent the shape of the nucleus and the wall of space differential becomes weaker due to the density of the nucleus and any space that is not used up by the stacking of spheres. As the nucleus gets larger and a proton gets buried in between other protons, this is what creates the shelves of electron orbits around the nucleus, and is why we see different orbital shapes around the nucleus. As for the neutron being necessary as a buffer between positively charged particles (in order to hold them together), we don’t need this anymore, or any other glue, (gluons, up quarks, down quarks) to hold the nucleus together. I believe the language of physics is wrong when it describes the electron as a negatively charged particle. All particles are either charged, or not charged, and an electron is a charge free of any particle. If any particle deserves the negative designation. It should be the neutron, as it can accept a charge. As you add particles to the nucleus, the overlapped space grows, the particles get charged and the displaced space becomes full of electrons but, the wall of space differential becomes a more gradual transition which allows electrons to escape the displaced space. I think this might be describing the weak nuclear force. Unless the atom is buried in a mass that adds pressure, the atom can no longer hold itself together. Once an electron leaves the “displaced space”, the wall of space differential adjusts to the loss, and the remaining electrons are again held by the wall of space differential. So, how do covalent bonds hold atoms together? As an electron is shared by the two atoms it bonds the atoms together. I do not define the electron as a negatively charged particle. This is misleading, and leads to the belief that there are two different types of charges, and there are not. Only charged particles (protons and electrons) and not charged particles which will accept a charge, (neutrons). The belief that there is an opposite negative charge that a particle could be, is a misconception, and is likely what has led to all the theories about anti matter and dark energy. As atoms become larger and collapse, they give their particles to other atoms and or develop covalent bonds until it grows into a larger mass. As more matter collects, different densities are created and pressure from outside forces effect it until a mass is created with a large enough “displaced space” That the pressure from the regular space farther out, compresses the mass into a sphere, a planet. So why is gravity so much weaker than the strong nuclear force. A planet has more density as you come closer to its core. As matter accumulates, the “displaced stacked space” along with the atoms are being put under pressure by its mass. Different elements are created depending on the amount of pressure and density. As density increases, more space is being displaced around the total mass. At the surface of our planet, it appears weaker because, the “displaced stacked space” is being occupied by less concentrated matter at its surface. Again, the “displaced stacked space” existing around the planet is like a photographic negative of itself. The closer you are to the center of the planet, the denser the matter becomes and so more of the displaced space is filled. Likewise, the closer to the surface (but within the matter) the less dense the matter becomes, and so less of the displaced space is being filled. As you travel way from the surface of the planet (through the photographic negative effect) of the displaced space, the space gradually decreases until you hit the wall of space differential and enter the vacuum of space. All of the planets have their own displaced space around them, only it is being filled by the density of the various atmospheres of the planets. This is what creates gravity. As newton dropped his apple, it fell down towards the surface, and into the more space created by the photographic negative effect of the “displaced space”. In the case of our sun, the matter is so densely packed that any electrons close to the core are being smashed. As the “displace stacked space” collapses and energy radiates out as a wave of photons into the displaced space around the sun. The wave moves away from our sun and gets compressed as it moves into the less space farther from the displaced space of the sun, (Remember the displaced stacked space is like a photographic negative of its mass). The wave then renters the “displaced stacked space of a planet and is reamplified as it moves through the “photographic negative effect” of the “displaced space” until the wave collides around the mass, (like ocean waves around a buoy), Some of the wave now stacks up against the mass and creates electrons which are then absorbed by the mass and its atoms. The surface of the mass then becomes charged with electrons, while the opposite side of the mass is not charged, and so the mass rotates as the +charged side moves away from the +charge of the sun, and the uncharged side of the mass is attracted by the +charge of the sun. The planet is now caught in the “photographic negative effect “of the “displaced stacked space” of the sun. The planet does not move away into the less space that is farther from the sun and behind the planet, and the +charged surface of the planet is pushing against the +charge of the sun, like a giant solar sail. Now, Imagine a black hole. The “displaced space” around it must be great. The common belief is that light cannot escape a black hole. The mass of a black hole does confine its atoms into a smaller and smaller space but, the dense matter is not what attracts more mass. In the case of the black hole the matter has become so dense, the atoms do not have any room to move. In a sense, they are fused together. All of the “displaced space” has been smashed out of its atoms, and the nuclear reaction has stopped. No photons can penetrate the atoms, and the black hole is like one giant particle, that light cannot penetrate. The displaced space would have an abrupt beginning right at the surface of the black hole’s matter, and an abrupt ending farther away, like a particle. This abrupt ending is popularly known as the “Event horizon”. The spiral arms you see extending away from the black hole are not being spun out. The space that is being displaced by the black holes’ mass is where the spiral arms are moving into. Again, the “displaced space” is the photographic negative of the mass inside the black hole, (whatever shape the black hole is). I believe this is why the star fields appear to get wider as they get closer to the black hole. If this definition is right, a black hole is not really a hole at all, it’s more of a giant particle.
  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.