[Proton Head]

All right, I'm formulating a new idea.

See page 2, starting from post 3.

[Sayonara³]

Proton Head said:

It bothers me that E=mc^2. Why does the internal energy of a particle depend on the speed of light

This rings a faint bell - I don't think it does depend on it as such.

I'm sure someone explained why in another thread somewhere.

[Ophiolite]

So how are you defining an information layer?

[Proton Head]

The exact definition of these "layers" (laeyr is just nomenclature) is unknown.
All that can be said at this point is that they are the very building blocks of the Universe.

They carry a fixed quantity of Energy and move at the speed of light. When 2 layers moving in opposite directions collide, both change the direction of their movement to exactly opposite.

[Proton Head]

It's hard to think about this, since according to this theory, there's no mass nor time.
Since everything moves at speed c, all events happen simultaneously. The concept of time cannot be applied on 1 layer. Only on a collection of layers with different ratios.

[Proton Head]

It even explains Forces

According to these very simple rules, 2 particles with mass should start to "build up" at the center, which is exactly what is observed by experiment, what we call gravity.

I'm sure if you'd account for 2 and 3 dimensional cases where these "layers", objects or whatever you call them could move in all given directions, you could explain Electric Force as well.

Since depending on how the "layers" moved relative to each other they would start to move closer together or wander away from each other ("electric force" between nonidentical and identical "charges").

All "forces" arise from the simple fact that there are different move balances of "layers".

You musn't discriminate between matter, it's all composed of the same.

[Proton Head]

Now that I think about it, this theory is consistent with the field theory.

According to this theory an object with mass for example should send out "gravity" field moving at speed of light, since the outermost layers constantly escape out (at the speed of light with which everything moves).


Fisrst I was wondering how would this apply to waves, but then I realized it's very applicaple. If colliding layers change their direction, then how could waves pass through each other.

But then I realized it's just a simple matter. Waves don't actually pass through each other. They turn directions just as any layers, but it's not noticed since the effect is almost the same.


Two similar interfering waves seem to cancel each other out, but instead they don't, it's just that they form a particle at the exact interference site, but it's too small to be noticed.

Diffraction and Reflection can also be explained through this, though they require a 2 or 3-dimensional analysis.

[Proton Head]

So doesn't anyone have any ideas?

Doesn't it at least raise thought in you, how far you can go on explaining with such simple presumptions?

If you mathematize this, it predicts a lot of physical laws, which we now explain through more complex terms.

[ecoli]

Einstein's E=mc^2 equation shows that mass and energy are not mutually exclusive. Mass can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into mass. Mass is merely concentrated energy.

[swansont]

Quote

So doesn't anyone have any ideas?

Doesn't it at least raise thought in you, how far you can go on explaining with such simple presumptions?

If you mathematize this, it predicts a lot of physical laws, which we now explain through more complex terms.

Feel free to "mathematize" away, and see how simple it is.

[Proton Head]

ecoli said:

Einstein's E=mc^2 equation shows that mass and energy are not mutually exclusive. Mass can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into mass. Mass is merely concentrated energy.

Yeah exactly my point!
That is exactly what this theory predicts. Once a particle loses mass it loses at least one elementary unit, which takes away internal energy worth it's kinetic energy 1/2*m'c^2 (m' is the apparent mass of 1 elementary particle).

All you can say is that mass is only conserved energy, but then please define what you mean by "mass is only concentrated energy".

I gave you an explanation why mass is concentrated energy. It's because the building blocks of mass have the ability to do work as its building blocks are elementary particles moving at speed c.

swansont said:

Feel free to "mathematize" away, and see how simple it is.

No offence but is this all anyone can do? Take a hostile attitude?
I didn't tell you to form an exact quantitative theory.

All I asked was for you to think about this qualitatively. If you do, you will realize that it explains a whole lot of physical phenomena, and you can in some cases deduce that if it would be mathematized it would give similar laws as we know now.

Doesn't it raise thought in you?
That so many things can be explained only through the fact that there is only one kind of matter. One kind of "particle". One speed. One time. One interaction ("particles colliding" from different directions turn their direction of movement both).

Don't you ever wonder, why we need so much basic quantities? Don't you ever wonder what's the difference of particles and waves? Don't you ever wonder why we need constants? Don't you ever wonder why we have to discriminate between matter?


Let's look at some things you can predict directly, with no effort of thought put in it:


Matter has wave like charasteristics and waves have particle like charasteristics, because they are both formed of the same elementary units.
In matter the separation between these elementary units is just smaller, and they are travelling form 2 different directions.


Nothing travels faster than speed of light, since everything travels at speed of light.
The theory of relativity is needed because we humans don't view reality (the elementary units) but instead imaginary aggregates formed by them.


For the same reason you can't travel faster than the speed of light you cannot reach absolute zero, because you cannot halt the elementary units - they always move at spped of light. So a particle is always going to have a certain quantity of kinetic energy (temperature).


Momentum is conserved since the number of elementary units is the same at all times and so is their "mass" and speed (which is the speed of light).


Particles hold internal energy E=mc^2, because the elementary units which they are composed of hold kinetic energy (the exact same amount predicted by E=mc^2).


Light bends in gravity because waves and particles are the same. The light also gets interactred upon.


Matter constantly radiates, because the outermost elementary units are constantly escaping out.


Black holes exist because as the elementary units moving at different directions overlap they are immobilized. However even the Black Holes slowly decompose because even in their case the very outermost layer is constantly escaping out.


All the forces are the result of a single phenomenon (the Grand Unified Theory), because all the forces arise simply from different kind of motion of the elementary units in space.


The "fields" of the forces travel at speed of light and the forces themselves are mediated by particles (photons, gravitons etc.), because the fields are the elementary units escaping from the particles.


If you think things through you see that in some cases, depending on the orientation of the elementary units, the interacting particles should turn into one way information (EM waves). This would explain antimatter.


If you don't agree please post why you don't agree and how you think things are.
Thanks.


PS.

Let's look at Newton's Laws:

Newton's Law 1 is valid because unless particle is interacted upon it's velocity doesn't change.

Newton's Law 3 is valid because when 2 particles interact their outermost units collide (this caused them to change directions), so the units bounce back to both particles which causes and equal force on both interacting particles.


If you want to try out "simple" mathematization try out Newton's Law 2:


Newton only said that there's mass and acceleration and forces, but he didn't explain them.

Suppose here is our particle:

n >>>><<<< n Here comes the interacting particle. s >>>>><<<<<<< s+2

It's velocity would change when you added more units on one side. The more mass it had the less its velocity should change (the amount of velocity change is n+1/n, which approaches zero when n (~mass) approaches infinity).

So the particle's speed change is the amount of units brought to one side (btw this is the reason a particle's mass increases when its speed increases), and its acceleration is the change of speed per unit time. In other words its acceleration is the frequency at which units are brought to it.

Our example situation would end up like this:

n >>>><<<<<< n+2 ...... s >>>>><<<<< s+2

If you continue to formulate this you should arrive at ~ Newton's law 2.

The force a particle causes is c/wavelenght (=f) * t proportionalized to the mass of the particle which gets interacted on.



One thought experiment you could do was to think about what would happen when 2 particles where separated by a distance.

Due to the escaping of their outer layers they would start moving towards the center (if we exclude the fact that since this is a isolated system the other outer layer would escape out).

[Proton Head]

Yet another thing came to my mind.

Doesn't the theory of relativity state that the particle's lenght should decrease in the direction of movement as its speed approaches the speed of light.

Well yeah that's obvious isn't it.

Since a particle is something formed of units moving in opposite directions. You can increase its speed by reducing the number of units on one side. But that makes its lenght decrease.

Relativity states that at the speed of light the lenght of the particle should be zero.

That's true because reaching speed of light means that you have completely removed the units from one side, but that would make the particle no longer aparticle, but instead a wave, so it's lenght would drop to zero.

[Proton Head]

Hmmm time dilation keeps bothering me.
A moving clock "runs slower" than a clock at rest.

I can only think of it this way:

Since everything real moves at speed of light, there is no time and clocks don't run.
However once you view imaginary particles which have speeds differing from speed of light, you have to form a concept of time - the difference in change of objects.
When moving at speed of light, the flow of time is zero. So clocks are running really slow, infact not at all. Once you decrease the speed (view imaginary objects) the flow of time becomes more and more evident. That is as the difference in change of objects becomes clearer and faster, clocks start running faster and faster, until at rest a maximum value for the flow of time has been reached and the clock is running the fastest it can.


And that's that. Nothing really out of the ordinary there. Most people philosophising about relativity just don't think the meaning of time.
Time can only be measured once there's a difference in speed (difference in the change of objects) so it's an imaginary concept. If all events were simultaneous noone could measure time.

The more I think of relativity the more it's starting to feel like a hoax.

[swansont]

Quote

No offence but is this all anyone can do? Take a hostile attitude?
I didn't tell you to form an exact quantitative theory.

Hostile? I encouraged you to flesh it out. Cynical? Yes. Hostile? No.


But, so much for

Quote

As I said before any comments are welcome.

Quote

All I asked was for you to think about this qualitatively. If you do, you will realize that it explains a whole lot of physical phenomena, and you can in some cases deduce that if it would be mathematized it would give similar laws as we know now.

Current theories explain the phenomena. You've got to predict phenomena. You posted this in the physics section, not the pseudoscience section. You have to do things quantitatively.

Quote

Doesn't it raise thought in you?
That so many things can be explained only through the fact that there is only one kind of matter. One kind of "particle". One speed. One time. One interaction ("particles colliding" from different directions turn their direction of movement both).

No, it doesn't. "I don't get physics so it must be wrong and I've got a better way" explanations are a dime-a-dozen and invariably wrong.

I think what you'll find, if you ever tried to develop an actual theory, is that you don't really predict all that much - there would be lots of things you don't explain.

[timo]

Quote

[In response to Swansont:]
No offence but is this all anyone can do? Take a hostile attitude?

I wouldn´t interpret his statement as a hostile attitude. Being told "write down your ideas as formulas" is the standard answer you´ll get from any physicist when you present weird (new) ideas to him. I´ve been told that very often. Sometimes I indeed took the time to try to write it down (even made a seminary talk about one of those ideas). In the end I allways recognized why my idea was bad or useless at least by doing so. But it´s a great exercise doing so as you sometimes get some in-depth insight into current theories that others who simply accept it might miss.

Quote

I didn't tell you to form an exact quantitative theory.

All I asked was for you to think about this qualitatively. If you do, you will realize that it explains a whole lot of physical phenomena, and you can in some cases deduce that if it would be mathematized it would give similar laws as we know now.

Well, that´s one problem I (and probably some others) have with those "my theory on XYZ" threads:
They sound as if the person thinks he´s doing physics. Physics, however, is the attempt to quantitatively explain and predict the outcome of past and future experiments/events. The key-word there is "quantitatively". Non-quantitative theories are Philosophy at best (though, I´m not sure if philosophers might feel offended by this statement).
There are much easier theories that explain everything qualitatively and probably give similar results as current physical laws if mathematized, for example those:
- Everything happens as it does.
- Everything happens according to god´s will.

I didn´t bother reading through all of your posts intensively. But from the few things I read, your misconceptions on physics and your statement "the more I think of relativity the more it´s starting tp feel like a hoax", I´d like to give you this advice:
Learn some more physics. Keep your theory in mind while doing so and enhance/change it whenever you encounter something that doesn´t fit in so far (honestly: Physical formulas are not simply off someone´s head. They are tested and valid at least as an approximation or within a certain range). You might in fact encounter things similar to what you allready think like "everything moves at the speed of light".
Ask for help in this forum if you have questions :confused:. Post here if you think you found a better way of quantitatively explaining things :cool:. Don´t expect me to discuss qualitative theories with you as I doubt you can beat mine above in terms of simplicity and correctness :D .

[Ophiolite]

And Proton Head, when I asked you to define an information layer, you responded with a "Well, the idea is still pretty qualitative", or words to that effect, and followed with what, to me, in the absence of any definitions of terms, was verbose gobbledy gook.
I think the message from the few posters who have taken the time to read your thoughts is "think more, be more specific".
I hope you wont view these above remarks as hostile. They are not so intended.

[Proton Head]

Oh dear, oh dear...

Just as I feared, it seems you didn't give a single thought to it (and that's what I meant with the word hostile). You just gave it a glance and were like "what is this cr*p!?"

Eveyone has the right to write whatever they want, but I kindly ask anyone who gives comments to at least read through with thought what I've wrote.



To answer your comments on the qualitative vs. quantitative are you trying to tell me that if I say something like:

"Gases expand when temperature raises",

philosophy because I gave a qualitative statement?

Maybe it's just me but I regard that as a perfectly good physical statement.
Afterwards I can dress it in mathematical form and say V = k*T, which would be a quantitative approach.

What I've been doing here now is making similar (qualitative) statements as in the above example.


I just have to add that do you think Newton's 1st law is philosophy due to the fact that it is stated in qualitative form, hmm?


To the question of the "information layers" (which really have nothing to do with layers), all I can say is that they are the very building blocks of the Universe, which carry a set of energy and travel at the speed of light.


And to you Atheist, I regard any physical theory that doesn't give an asnwer of Why (such as the theory of relativity) an ill theory.
I'm tired of Einsteinism and the fact that virtually all current physicist put aside the fact that they have no idea why relativity is needed with the lame statement: "The Physical world differs from the world experienced by humans."

[Proton Head]

swansont said:

Current theories explain the phenomena. You've got to predict phenomena. You posted this in the physics section, not the pseudoscience section. You have to do things quantitatively.

Ahem...what have I been talking about here?
Current theories DO NOT explain physical phenomena due to the high degree of discrimination.
I have yet to see any theory (though I'm not at all familiar with string theories), which would explain why things happen the way they happen, without the use of a large number of basic quantities (as mass, temperature, speed, time and electric charge), and which would be consistent with itself over a large field.

swansont said:

No, it doesn't. "I don't get physics so it must be wrong and I've got a better way" explanations are a dime-a-dozen and invariably wrong.

Then I feel sorry for you, but obviously we have different views.
I wouldn't say though that "I don't get physics". I'm afraid it is you who has gone astray by blocking your mind.

Quote

There are much easier theories that explain everything qualitatively and probably give similar results as current physical laws if mathematized, for example those:
- Everything happens as it does.
- Everything happens according to god´s will.

I actually thought your thread was worthwile, but these lines show that you did not understand a thing what I was saying.



I'll quit arguing about this off thread conversation (hopefully) here, but it has become apparent to me, that sadly it seems you did not even want to think about what was written here.
And its sad when people don't think.

[Proton Head]

Oh and to the: "You can't draw physics out of your head", that was exactly what I was not doing.

What I was doing was observing current, valid, experimentally measured physical laws and trying to give them an explanation which would require the use of less basic quantities.


I am anxiously waiting for better views on time dilation, Lorenz contraction and mass-energy equivalence that I've given (if you bother to read them).

Perhaps if you gave me your own (hopefully better) views on the subject, my false thoughts would hopefully be corrected.

[Ophiolite]

Proton Head,
since you have seen fit to talk down to each of the posters to your thread allow me the pleasure of talking down to you.
I have taken some considerable time to read and re-read and think about your post. I have done this partly to pass the time and partly as an altruistic action to respond to your request for comments.
It is my impression that other posters, whose offerings you have dismissed, have also read your posts with reasonable care and attention.
You may not wish to hear it, but the problem here is not our attempt to understand what you are saying, but your singular inability to communicate your thoughts in a coherent fashion. It is largely academic if this is because they are ill formed, qualitative, wrong, or simply badly expressed, the problem lies at your end.
Again, I make the point, that at your invitation we have devoted time to studying your comments and posting replies. I would have thought that merited more than superficial courtesy on your part. I can uderstand your frustration at being unable to convey what you feel to be these useful ideas, but that does not excuse bad manners.
You may wish to comfort yourself with the thought that we are simply too dumb or uneducated to understand what you are saying. The facts would contradict you, however.
I would welcome the opportunity of studying your ideas further when they are expressed more cogently. Until then I prefer you not talk down to me. (e.g. Oh dear, oh dear)