Jump to content

Kurt Mueller

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Kurt Mueller

  • Rank
    Quark
  • Birthday 05/13/1984

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wisconsin, United States
  • College Major/Degree
    I have no pedigree.
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Biography
    Quality over quantity.
  • Occupation
    Transcriptionist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, it did all look lazy in retrospect. That's the cost of cobbling together some of my notes after weeks of hardly any sleep and throwing them up online randomly with a long rant attached. The focus was completely wrong. An obsession with coming up with a model that worked at every level and explained phenomena while not breaking down under (my own, ugh) scrutiny, and not with explaining things simply and in whole, while attempting to experimentally prove them step by step. Also, I was obsessed with credit for some reason, and now that seems ridiculous. What is an idea if not share
  2. Yes, I understand that. It's not just having a good idea, even if it's the thousandth idea that's come from who knows how many thousands of hours of putting the pieces together again and again until you find one that fits. I've got to demonstrate it. I'll try. Thank you.
  3. It's because when I learn a physical law I remember it forever, but I'll forget the word everyone else uses for it the next day. I think in 3d objects and complex emotions, not words. I realize now that's been my real problem, and it makes me look crazy, even if only I can see it for now. I'll try to explain myself better and try again. Feel free to mock me over it, I know I come off as arrogant in silly in equal measure. I take no offense.
  4. See, I'm still being stymied by make lack of common vernacular. Perhaps I'll just make a simple video that lays it out step by step so people can understand in the way I do. Thank you for your replies.
  5. Quantum entanglement would be one instantaneous force observed, the photon's speed of light another. Although, it's currently assumed that photons are always moving at the speed of light upon creation. What if these are connected and a clue to how matter basically operates? (Previous meandering post aside. If these ideas are out there, I may as well discuss them.)
  6. Welp, now I see why I didn't get replies. My language was all over the place looking back. I was focusing on the science and lost the forest through the trees. I even had 'electron' when I mean't 'photon' twice. I'd ask the mods to update the first post with this, so it can be understood. https://tinyurl.com/yyjavdfn Updated: All energy being directional in nature is confusing, as it was to me at first. This energy is referred to as directional energy for purposes of this paper. Base component of matter: Massless extra-dimensional directional energy with outward or inward
  7. Ah, and I'm seeing that I was switching between language in some places, like calling direction 'velocity' in Base Component property 3. Fixed in the original document. I suppose I could change all mentions of energy in relation to this base energy I've been trying to describe as 'directional energy' everywhere to improve readability.
  8. Exactly what I was explaining about the language. It unites so many different energies it's difficult to talk about. For now, just understand the energy as directional. Whenever I say 'momentum exchange' or something similar, it's just an exchange of a directional energy. Think of the base components as simple negative (that resolves its structure inward relative to interaction) and an positive (resolves its structure outward). Like a pizza pie being thrown in the air for positive, and the opposite reaction to the same spin from the negative.
  9. Ah, thank you. I misunderstood that. I've updated an above post with the text. You're right, of course. Updated in the above. (Welp time for work, I'll be back to answer questions later)
  10. Aren't the rules that as long as there's an abstract a larger file is okay? I've seen many posts like that.
  11. It might also be I didn't give them the time. I've got to admit, I'm a bit paranoid about it. Just who I am. It demonstrates how the speed of light, the photon's structure, and magnetic waves are all linked. Where have I explained it poorly? I have my own ways of thinking, one of the reasons why I wanted so badly to collaborate on this. I was afraid I'd explain the theory poorly in a way people couldn't understand. I feel like I'll need to repost the entire paper to explain that, but okay. All energy being directional in nature is confusing, as it was to me at first, so
  12. While I realize some of what I'm about to say will bear the hallmarks of pseudoscience, I hope once people read it they will see the merit and the moderators won't remove it out of hand. This isn't an attempt to avoid peer review, it's a rush towards it. Abstract: This theory will attempt to explain all matter, energy, space and time in the universe as massless momentum expressed in different dimensions. The core postulation is that all energy at the most basic level is inherently directional. This comes from over a decade of research breaking down each possible clue to the bas
  13. Thank you all for your insightful comments and helpful links, and sorry I didn't reply earlier but I just joined and hit the five reply limit. You've helped me see the flaws in my thinking and weak areas of understanding, especially misunderstanding space/time to have elastic potential energy (as this was just a misunderstanding of how the models are visually represented), not using accepted vernacular, and uniform expansion. In retrospect, I should've just left out the Quantum Field explanation as I'm sure most of you understand more of it than I do already and it's already discussed on these
  14. Maybe I didn't describe that with enough detail. If the size of the big bang expansion relates to the current acceleration and the lower zone of field pressure around it that would mean it's the difference in pressure causing the acceleration. I.e., if you can determine the size of the big bang expansion based on the acceleration or visa versa. Edit: To my knowledge acceleration is still being nailed down, so it'll be a while till that can be proven, I'm just hoping someone can help me with the equation itself.
  15. I was just saying constant pressure on a field has already been described. Don't worry, my head remains firmly on my shoulders. One another, causing potential energy. I also just meant to hand wave away wave functions since most people probably have probably heard of them and not quantum fields. Yeah, it was unnecessary and poorly stated.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.