Zodiac

Ban time for me again ! 

You are still a bunch of arrogant mediocre minded fools who know jack shit about physics . Your Nasa boy included , Cia lmao fools . 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

How is there a net effect of the effect is isotropic?

Meaningless

Ah, enthalpy. Not enphalpy.

How does an electron have enthalpy?

 

That equation has no meaning

 

That's a tautology, so we're good.

Word salad.

 

You should try discussing it here sometime.

How about answering my question on the energy of the sun?

How about you learn how to create math as inputting values to existing formulas isn't math! 

If (a) = -0.5 and (b) = 0.5 then a+b=0  and a^3+b^3 still equals 0 . 

And if you mean the suns density question , the answer is var (p) where p is density . cm^3 on the Sun are dynamic in energy levels dependent to the kE going on ! 

Friction between particles creating heat energy etc. 

Tensor x = <E 

Tensor y = <E

Tensor z = <E 

Not difficult too understand ! 

We could use +x or -x if you'd like .

+v(x)=tensor <E etc...

P.s Just to add something ''juicy'' .   A cold core reactor will retain plasma flow around the core .  The cold core will act as a ''tractor beam'' . 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So there’s no net effect? Then why mention it?

Exactly - the effect of empty space is removed, because the space isn’t empty. But you haven’t accounted for this.

How do you measure the energy? What is the energy of the sun?

What is an enphalpic system? Does this exist anywhere outside your imagination? (Google has a grand total of 5 matches)

The net effect is momentum and additionally the visual universe expansion of the singularity we are within . 

Space isn't empty within a singularity , it is empty outside a singularity ! 

Enthalpy is thermodynamics , pressure etc . An enthalpic system has retaining properties etc . 

Field properties of the singularity are simple a^3+b^3=1/t and bodies within the field are also a^3+b^3=1/t i.e volumes 

The natural physics of the universe is only functional if a^3+b^3 = a^3+b^3

What this means is that bodies have to be equal and likewise in neutron polarity to the singularity spatial field .  If this were not so then the permeability of the field would oppose motion . 

Thanks for taking the time to reply and read . 

I just love physics ! 🤩

1 minute ago, Strange said:

This, like everything else you have posted, is complete and utter meaningless drivel.

Do you always say things you can't personally understand is meaningless drivel ? 

Consider a HIgg's field , a^3+b^3=V/R^n

The field has the mechanics for free electrons to retain form but they will degrade over time to energy loss . 

 The visual universe is a singularity of a^3+b^3=1/t that exists within R^n/t 

Within, the physics are slightly different to the out ! 

28 minutes ago, taeto said:

Then the system that you are talking about, in which an electron spontaneously disintegrates, might be neither created nor established. And that is the only reason why we never see it happen, an electron going off like a firecracker? 

More or less yes !  

A system can only develop if an electron and proton was to manifest simultaneously at any given point of a void . This is the only possible way some thing can form to have stability in a void . Then rather than self annihilating , a stable volume is formed and expands . 

a/R^n=0/t

b/R^n=0/t

delta 0 = a+b/t = 1/t 

1/t = a^3+b^3+kE/t 

kE=(a^3+b^3)(hf)/t 

E=(a^3+b^3)+kE/(R^n/t) 

That is the physics ! 

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Zodiac, it's pretty clear you've based much of your concept on misinformation. There's also a great deal of basic science you're ignoring as well. You should be asking questions instead of trying to claim mainstream explanations are wrong. You've made up a LOT, so your ideas make perfect sense, but only to you. You can't explain them to anyone, despite how clear they are in your head, because they aren't well grounded in science.

For this thread to stay open, you're going to need to step up the rigor and support your ideas with evidence, accuracy, and reasoned thinking. 

 

I've added math and for support I add the Cavendish torsion ball experiment F(G)=<E , different mass balls . I also added earlier fire always points up towards less energy space , the stratosphere is cold hence the force is shown F=<E . 

Additionally the earth magnetic field is curved towards the poles , F=<E . the curve is what makes the density . 

To add : We can use internal energy of a system u and u/R^n=V/t 

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

No, why would you think that? Oh yes, because you don't know what you are talking about.

And yet they do. Electrons are stable. There is nothing else for them to decay into.

As you know approximately zero about physics, you are not really in a position to say it is impossible.

Electrons are stable within an enphalpic system that is a^3+b^3=V , a singularity . 

14 minutes ago, taeto said:

I think the point the physicists are making is that the electron on its own is not unstable. it does not decay. 

Within an already created , established system , maybe so . However in a void  it is an impossibility and on the lines of Dirac thinking ,  a single electron or proton in a void would self annihilate by the extreme stress caused by the absolute force of gravitational transition F(G)=<E 

It would be a natural requirement for the energy to be divided by the void .  All R^n spatial points naturally requiring to reach an equilibrium of energy level . 

To retain magnitude both the electron and proton must be present a^3+b^3=V  to retain form and stability . 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Electrons don't take part in strong interactions.

Nope.

And yet they do.

Stunning levels of ignorance, there.

Are you really suggesting the present atomic model isn't electrons , protons and neutrons ?

Gravity isn't push and pull , I'll retract that statement as a messup error , worded badly ! 

A single electron cannot exist in a void , it is impossible physics , there is no mechanical bond of the electron to retain stability ! 

50 minutes ago, taeto said:

Will that be in this thread or in a new thread?

In a thread which explicitly discusses gravity, it should be quite interesting and novel to combine it with a discussion of the strong force. 

Let me guess: at a certain distance between nucleons, they are attracted to each other because of the existence of vacuum in between them. But as they approach each other too closely, they get repulsed, because they physically bump into each other in a similar fashion as billiard balls?

Actually the electron strong force (force 1) converges with the proton strong force (force 2) to produce a weaker emitted  force (force 3) ! F1+F2=F3 

In science force is push and pull , gravity is both push and pull !  The field space interior of an atom also playing a role . 

Returning to the earlier post , I mentioned E/R^n and particles self annihilation , the reason a virtual particle self annihilates is because it is has no bond to retain form without a counterpart .  

A single electron in a void cannot exist , it would be torn apart by the mechanical stress of F(G)=<E 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Nice excuse.

You might as well drop the pretence. You obviously don't know enough physics or mathematics to have come up with anything meaningful.

Pathetic fantasy excuses.

 

The beauty of physical process is that physical process is not subjective or fantasy .  The physical process does not care what I or you think as the physical process works ! 

I don't know enough physics ? 

I have just explained a single spark in a void being attracted to the entirety of the void . This of course in regards to Dirac's work , particles popping into and out of existence . Advancing on that and correcting it .  Virtual particles manifesting at any given point of R^n , that self annihilation as a consequence of F(G)=<E . 

Please do not make false claims that I do not know enough physics ! 

Recap :  

Newtons absolute space (Advanced and modernized:R^n an unspecified volume of real coordinate spatial points , an immovable reference frame ) 

Dirac particles popping into and out of existence (Advanced and modernized: E/R^n=0 density, causality F(G)=<E 

I told you , that physics agrees with me ! I am not making things up , I have advanced every scientists work who is involved ! 

I will return later to discuss the strong force required to stop virtual particles self annihilation ! (Atomic model) 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

And yet you are unable to share them

And yet you are unable to show us.

Pretty much everything you say is contradicted by physics.

Based on the evidence, you have nothing. 

Ah, bless.

The reason I am presently unable to present models is that I am working off a broken chrome book with limited uses . 

Based on evidence I have everything including the Universe expansion confirming my analysis and theory to be more fact than anything presently available . 

Do you really want me to produce dangerous math live for anyone to see ? 

Do you really want me to show you the physical math process of how to destroy an entire planet ?  Not only show you but include the design to the doomsday device ? 

I know how to arc space-time energy my dear , I can sink an entire Navy my dear ! 

However I am a man of peace so i'd rather leave the boys with toys playing alone . 

Back to physics , a single spark in a void is attracted to the entirety of the void .  The point energy source will be divided by the void , decreasing in magnitude and density to 0 . 

This is a fact and the momentum of dispersal is c , c being a consequence of F(G)=<E  !

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course you don't. You don't have anything. 

I have models , I have math  and I have present physics knowledge to back me up !  I have everything which of course begins with R^n=0 .  An unspecified volume of real coordinate spatial points .  

Now of course we could go into a^3+b^3=V  and so on but simply E/R^n = F(G)<E explains most of the physics involved . 

P.s Yes I have useful calculations that work but they are dangerous calculations (Nukes are matches compared) . 

Just now, Strange said:

In other words, you have nothing. 

Actually I have T.O.E including the relevant physical math ! 

As a consequence of discovering T.O.E , I have advanced physics .  Additionally present physics , confirms my physics . 

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

If it is attracted equally from ahead and behind, then that is not the reason it keeps moving. You have just destroyed your own claim.

Never gonna happen.

And can you show that this produces results consistent with observation?

Irrelevant. They don't "decay to nothing"

Yes I can demonstrate all my work is consistent in observation ! 

I have sketched a basic model for you to ponder over .    hf/x=F(G)<E

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

There is no 'lines' in space or space-time.
There are in the mathematical model.

Can you show me a tensor, or is it a mathematical concept ?

I have a visual model , can create the math  concept and additionally have the engineering for a working device !  

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Stars don't decay to 'nothing'.

Keep digging.

Stars don't occupy the same volume of space constantly . The space within a star is constantly changing . 

Just now, swansont said:

Why is it not attracted to the empty space behind it?

Since the sun is not empty space, doesn’t that mean there is less attraction toward the sun, since there is less empty space in that direction?

We already know a point source is isotropic with a 1/r^2 behavior; no preference for empty space. We know that light is deflected toward non-empty space (e.g. the sun)  

It is equally and proportional attracted to behind it so the body in motion will continue its motion unless acted upon .  There is no gravitational drag and slowing down of the body in motion because of the equality of attraction . 

The Sun occupies an equal and proportional underlying volume of empty space .  When the Sun eventually dies , decays to nothing , the volume of empty space will still be there . 

(E/R^n)/t    Energy divided by real coordinate space over time is how I describe gravitational transition !  

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

While energy will contribute to the geometry of space-time, just as mass does, it does not curve in any way.
You can in fact, argue that even space-time doesn't 'curve', but geometric curvature in the mathematical model ( GR ) effectively reproduce observational evidence. After all, space-time is merely a mathematical concept, a co-ordinate system geometry, if you will.

Unless you are confusing energy with light, and the fact that light follows null geodesics ( curved by gravity ).

That is not correct !  The tensor of space time energy is the gravitational transition .  This pulls the field lines really tight and it takes a lot of ingenuity to know how to make a curve . 

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

1. I didn’t ask what the sun’s energy density isn’t. You need to quantify your claim. Otherwise how can we test it?

2. Show that the sun is attracted to empty space. The earth, too. The data are consistent with them being attracted to each other.

For example, if I drop a ball, it doesn’t accelerate toward empty space. Why not?

3. How would you test your claim that EMR requires this attraction to empty space? Light is generally not generated via the gravitational interaction. You are making an improper extrapolation, leading to a false conclusion (the sun emits light into empty space, the sun has gravity, therefore the sun’s gravity somehow causes/permits the light to travel in empty space is invalid logic)

 

1. I am working on quantifying it 

2. Attracted to each other and ''empty'' space . A comet shows a comet is attracted to the space ahead , that is why Newtons law of motion works . 

3. I'd strike a match and see which way the high energy state was directed 

19 hours ago, swansont said:

So what’s the energy density of the sun?

I can tell you now that it isn't 1.41 g/cm^3 !  The Suns density per cm^3 is dynamic and variable . I can tell you that the volume of the suns energy is denser than the surrounding space and as a natural condition of gravitational transition the Suns energy is attracted to that surrounding space .  If this were not so , then EMR could not travel A to B ! 

20 hours ago, Strange said:

The "tiny caveat" I mentioned earlier is the fact that mass and energy are equivalent. So adding energy to an object (e.g. by heating it up) does increase its effective mass. (This effect is so small it can be ignored in almost all situations.)

But that doesn't change the fact that:

(1) the gravitational effect between two objects depends ONLY on their mass-energy, not on the difference between them and

(2) energy is a property of an object: you can move the object along with its associated energy, colour and shape. But you can't push shape, colour or energy as they are not independent things.

 

!

Moderator Note

I hoped this was just a question. As it isn't: moved to Speculations.

 

1. True but there additional physics to this which I am trying to explain 

2. You can push energy , in fact you can curve it as in space-time curvature (please don't ask how as this process will cause the entire universe to arc) 

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Energy is a property of the configuration of a system.
A volume of atoms, where all electrons are in their lowest orbitals will have less energy than the same volume of equivalent atoms where all electrons are in higher orbitals.
And as a property of the system, you can't separate it from the system; Saying the volume ( object , mass, etc...) follows the energy flow is non-sensical.

And if you were serious, you wouldn't post delusional crap about Black Holes.

I think this may be my last post of the day !  

Replying to this post and Mordred's post . 

Consider a void appearing in the center of a volume of energy and then apply E=(mc^3+kE)/(V/t)    You will find if you think proper , that mc^2 applies to area not volume ! 

Quite obviously the physics is that the surrounding energy of the center void , collapses into the void ! 

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

Are you are only here to be provocative and tweak noses and post false statements.

The most massive things in the universe (and the most energetic) can be net recipients of energy flow. At best they are in simple dynamic equilibrium.

 

I am here in a serious nature !  The internal energy (u)  of any system must be equally and proportionally divided by the volume of the system (u/V)/t  

Any system increases in (u) when that system experiences kE within the interior of the system that increases the magnitude of temperature in that system  (u/V)/t+kE=>T  where T is temperature 

A temperature increase IS an increase in energy in the system and this increase has to be divided , equally and proportionally throughout the volume of the system 

A BH is a lack of mass  that gives the BH its mass !  What this means is that any point of space has the potential to become a BH by becoming a negative point , having no mass or energy . 

When a BH is formed , the negative point at an instant gains the maximum gravitational transition potential . 

All surrounding energy is then governed by gravitational transition to be centripetally attracted to the negative point .

The BH is then formed and starts to expand gaining mass that in turn becomes a high energy state attracting lower energy states ( an apple falls to the ground ) 

The kE of field dynamics is a bit more complex but I am sure you are aware it is electrifying ! 

I think I only have one or two posts left today as forum first timer rules apply ! Sorry if I miss something out . 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

No.

No.

Energy is not a "thing" that can be moved around by a force.

No.

Note that motion (and energy) are observer dependent. So one person may say an object is stationary with kinetic energy of zero, while another may say it is moving and therefore has kinetic energy. 

You are a moderator ? 

Mass and energy are equivalent as Einstein stated !  You can pick up an object with your hands and move it .  A force is required to move that mass energy !  I am sorry but your answer is not good thinking! 

A body orbits another body because of gravity and Newtons laws of motion ,  a body will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force . An orbiting body is trying to travel a linear path but the gravitational hold , inertia , stops the orbiting body flying off into space in a linear vector .  

I do not accept your no answer to be correct as spectral transitions suggests high state energy transitioning to lower state energy . If energy is retained in a body in the form of mass then gravitational transition must be applicable ?

A body will remain in motion because the bodies retained energy wants to make the transition to less energy state space ! 

No doubt this will be a short lived forum experience as moderators are often quite stubborn and become offended easily . 

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

How are you defining energy state? Regardless, it isn’t the cause. We know that Newtonian gravity depends on mass and distance from that mass. Not correlated with thermodynamics 

 

I am defining the energy state as energy density per point of a volume and proposing in question that any points energy is passive to other points that have less energy .  If we are all in agreement that things reach room temperature , we have to explain the motion of energy from A to B . 

A force of propulsion or other is required ? 

In regards to space , the retained mass of a moving body , moves the body .  The body in motion will continue in motion because the retained energy is required to move to less energy points , as the energy cannot leave the body ,  the body moves with the energy ?

In reply to Strange ,  mass is attracted to mass but mass is also attracted to space ? 

High energy state volumes such as the Sun transfers the volumes high energy to lower energy state volumes in transition . A volume of absolute space would effectively have E=0 and as a consequence of this , the maximum potential to gain energy as in accordance with thermodynamics , ''cold things reach room temperature'' . 

It is my belief that high energy is attracted to lower energy states , the force I assume is a gravitational transition ? 

>E attracted to <E volumes ?

Force gravity = <E ? 

Thank you for your consideration and answers in advance .