Bez

Unified Theory?

Recommended Posts

E=MC squared

F=Friction

E + F = electromagnatism

Electromagnetism X Motion X Form = Everything

evidence:  Electromagnetic field surrounding this planet actually drives (produces) the molten core center

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bez said:

evidence:  Electromagnetic field surrounding this planet actually drives (produces) the molten core center

Nonsense. Melted core of the planet is result of decay of radioactive isotopes present in the planet, and size of the planet, which didn't have yet enough time to radiate entire energy which was released and accumulated during planet formation (bombardment of smaller parts in early stage of formation of Solar System). i.e. smaller cosmic object would radiate energy faster and cool down faster. Example is Moon.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bez said:

E + F = electromagnatism

This is just an assertion. And what does "electromagnetism" mean? What units is it measured in?

1 hour ago, Bez said:

Electromagnetism X Motion X Form = Everything

What does "form" mean? And how is it measured?

1 hour ago, Bez said:

evidence:  Electromagnetic field surrounding this planet actually drives (produces) the molten core center

This is not evidence, it is just an assertion.

You need to use your "equations" to calculate the magnitude of the effects you are claiming, and then show that these predictions match what we observe better than existing theories. Can you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Nonsense. Melted core of the planet is result of decay of radioactive isotopes present in the planet, and size of the planet, which didn't have yet enough time to radiate entire energy which was released and accumulated during planet formation (bombardment of smaller parts in early stage of formation of Solar System). i.e. smaller cosmic object would radiate energy faster and cool down faster. Example is Moon.

Isn't it also more accurate to say that the molten core is what allows the flow of nickel and iron to produce our magnetic field? The field can't drive (produce) the molten core if the movement of the core is required to produce the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Isn't it also more accurate to say that the molten core is what allows the flow of nickel and iron to produce our magnetic field? The field can't drive (produce) the molten core if the movement of the core is required to produce the field.

Good point +1.That particular egg definitely came first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Strange said:

This is just an assertion. And what does "electromagnetism" mean? What units is it measured in?

What does "form" mean? And how is it measured?

This is not evidence, it is just an assertion.

You need to use your "equations" to calculate the magnitude of the effects you are claiming, and then show that these predictions match what we observe better than existing theories. Can you do that?

Thank you for constructive paths to pursue!

No really knows for sure what is going on in the center of the Earth or what causes it so that is a hypothetical!

I will obviously detract that part as evidence graciously for the time being and back to the drawing board (which is my mind as never have written anything down (may be the problem good time to start relearning math) but has helped me here to post and formulate this for myself). I have never taken a Physics class (I know it shows) and have never had anyone to discuss this stuff with.  I am also a work in process!

Bez

 

Edit: somehow replacing form with mass doesn't work geometrically. Form would be the size of a given particle or planetary body.

Also, oftentimes the simplest observation/explanation is the correct one.

 

One last edit as not sure how many more posts I will have here. I think it's possible (in my hypothetical Universal Universes on other thread) that black holes not only serve as vents in relation to the expansion of the universe but also regulate the speed of expansion.

Edited by Bez
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Oops ran out of edits!

Electromagnetism X motion X form = everything

So the, "form," part of this is size of the given particle or planetary body.

Both, "form," and "motion," then we can measure.

We also know Energy = acceleration squared (the speed of light) E=MC squared

So the only variable here is friction.

Friction would be in direct relation to, "Form," (size of the particle or planetary body).

In the hypothetical Universal universes there would be layered friction.

The other intersecting universes, our expanding universe, the galaxy motion, and those parts the sun doesn't protect us from and even our orbit and rotation.

edit: This friction could also be the, "dark energy," just as all the intersection universes are the missing, "dark matter."

 

Edited by Bez
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of something else...gotta get em when the come through.

So two main elements of ,"friction,"

1. Motion

2. Size of particle or planetary object

So let's count the speeds/directions we are currently going in from Earth

1. Our universe expanding and spinning                           (2 speeds)

2. Our galaxy spinning and crossing  universe                 (2 speeds)

3. Our solar system spinning and going around galaxy  (2 speeds)

4. Our Earth around the sun and rotating                           (2 speeds)

                                                                                 Total          (8 speeds)

Don't mean to scare you but there may actually be nine speeds (one unseen entirely but we will stay withing the Universal universes for now as the 9th motion won't effect us (I don't think)...I have an even bigger hypothetical beyond the Universal universes).

Each of these speeds (and associated friction) will have to be taken into account to determine, "friction".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bez said:

No really knows for sure what is going on in the center of the Earth or what causes it so that is a hypothetical!

If you are referring to the scientific theory that the Earth's molten core is caused by radioactive decay and along with the heat left over from formation, as being only hypothetical, then you are wrong. It is the current best evidenced theory of the Earth's molten core according to current knowledge and evidence. https://www.livescience.com/15084-radioactive-decay-increases-earths-heat.html Also you do realize that a scientific theory is as good as it gets, don't you? Further observational evidence and data forthcoming can always possibly moderate or even invalidate a scientific theory, and obviously also, further enhance such theory and  make them even more certain. eg: the discovery of predicted gravitational waves further enhancing GR.

Quote

I will obviously detract that part as evidence graciously for the time being and back to the drawing board (which is my mind as never have written anything down (may be the problem good time to start relearning math) but has helped me here to post and formulate this for myself). I have never taken a Physics class (I know it shows) and have never had anyone to discuss this stuff with.  I am also a work in process!

It's always admirable to see someone thinking for themselves, and on that score you get points. But coupled with that thinking for one's self, must be first and foremost, total knowledge of what is entailed and evidenced in the accepted incumbent version of the relevant science discipline being researched...

Quote

 One last edit as not sure how many more posts I will have here. I think it's possible (in my hypothetical Universal Universes on other thread) that black holes not only serve as vents in relation to the expansion of the universe but also regulate the speed of expansion

There is absolutely nothing to support your hypothetical conjecture...no observational evidence, no maths, no predictive powers, nothing. 

A hypothetical is absolutely useless if not supported by evidence. I could just as well invoke a magical spaghetti monster as equal to what you are proposing.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bez said:

Oops ran out of edits!

Electromagnetism X motion X form = everything

So the, "form," part of this is size of the given particle or planetary body.

Both, "form," and "motion," then we can measure.

We also know Energy = acceleration squared (the speed of light) E=MC squared

So the only variable here is friction.

Friction would be in direct relation to, "Form," (size of the particle or planetary body).

In the hypothetical Universal universes there would be layered friction.

The other intersecting universes, our expanding universe, the galaxy motion, and those parts the sun doesn't protect us from and even our orbit and rotation.

edit: This friction could also be the, "dark energy," just as all the intersection universes are the missing, "dark matter."

 

Sorry Bez, but could not find anything in this post that was correct or made sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a typo or two but for now let's call all of this a decent sci-fi story (today's sci-fi tomorrows fact).

E = MC squared  (energy = mass x acceleration squared....speed of light)

F = Friction

E + F = Electromagnetism

Form = geometric form as well as size (from smallest particle to largest planetary body)

On other thread I posted that a simple observation shows us that almost exclusively we see (from smallest particle to largest planetary body) spherical, circular, and elliptical in formation and motion. 

No matter how one slices a sphere it's still geometry....thus the "Form," included in equation.

So in the equation,  "Electromagnetism X Motion X Form = Everything," the only, "unknown variable," is Friction because we can measure both Form and Motion and we know, "the speed of light,".

The accumulation of combined friction from the 8 speeds/motions mentioned above should be near constant. The background, "Friction," behind our universe (intersecting universes) is constant also so for our universe can we get by with just the accumulation within our universe?

It is interesting to note all the motion going on around us (8 speeds/motions) within our universe. That's a lot of Friction.

Also, we notice none of this motion beyond seasons and day and night and all that we perceive is relative only to this uniform motion system.

In the above post I used the term, "layered", friction (for lack of better words) but meaning the combined friction of all motions within this uniform motion system (expansion/spin of universe, expansion/spin of galaxy, etc.).

Also,   Larger object = greater friction

I mentioned as speculation (this is the speculation forum) that the, "dark energy" (missing energy) is the, " Energy + Friction = Electromagnetism." Because we can't see it...but we should be able to measure it.

Also, as speculation I put forth that all the missing matter (dark matter) are the other intersecting universes (that we can't perceive).

I'll mention the super-heated surface of the sun as evidence of this unseen friction. And below looks a generator to me!

Earth_magnetic_field.thumb.jpg.744486db745f687a9c7234c2fa9b49da.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bez said:

There is a typo or two but for now let's call all of this a decent sci-fi story (today's sci-fi tomorrows fact).

E = MC squared  (energy = mass x acceleration squared....speed of light)

This is incorrect.  Acceleration is not squared, the speed of light is squared.

4 minutes ago, Bez said:

E + F = Electromagnetism

This is incorrect.  The addition of energy + friction is meaningless.  It is like adding Apples + oranges to get bananas. 

6 minutes ago, Bez said:

Form = geometric form as well as size (from smallest particle to largest planetary body)

Your definition of form is lacking.  What are the units of form?  What is the difference between the form of the Moon VS the form of the Earth.

10 minutes ago, Bez said:

On other thread I posted that a simple observation shows us that almost exclusively we see (from smallest particle to largest planetary body) spherical, circular, and elliptical in formation and motion.

This is incorrect.

13 minutes ago, Bez said:

No matter how one slices a sphere it's still geometry....thus the "Form," included in equation.

It is still geometry?  No mater how you slice any shape at all you still have geometry. 

The rest of the post is more inaccuracies and confused misunderstandings.  I would highly recommend that you ask questions instead of making things up that don't really even make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

This is incorrect.  Acceleration is not squared, the speed of light is squared.

This is incorrect.  The addition of energy + friction is meaningless.  It is like adding Apples + oranges to get bananas. 

Your definition of form is lacking.  What are the units of form?  What is the difference between the form of the Moon VS the form of the Earth.

This is incorrect.

It is still geometry?  No mater how you slice any shape at all you still have geometry. 

The rest of the post is more inaccuracies and confused misunderstandings.  I would highly recommend that you ask questions instead of making things up that don't really even make any sense.

Wow, thanks man! Good stuff!

So it's Energy X Friction?

So we don't see mainly, "near sphere's", in circular and elliptical orbits from the tiniest particles to the largest planetary systems? 

I am posting what I see (not making stuff up). My mind works mainly in pictures.

Anyway, I would appreciate all the help I could get here!

Thanks

 

Edit: I have a picture like a puzzle and am trying to piece it together to get the full picture.

 

edit: doesn't help that I rolled in here with nearly all the signs of a crackpot...lol.

I also have never taken a Physics or Astronomy class (I do have a BS in Anthropology of all things...lol).

I was top of my class in upper mathematics (University level) and my instructor said I had a future in Math because only two of us got A's (out of 25) and when I went to pick up my final exam she asked me how I figured out a shortcut. I said I must have learned it in class and she said no she hadn't taught me that it was new and how did I know to do that. I told her I guess, "I saw it,".

 

Edited by Bez
additon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Partner Up?

I can see the whole shooting match moving in my mind like my mind is the Universal universes! I swear I can even hear it! Like a giant engine!

You might be surprised if you asked me some questions!

If we truly are close to the scientific, "Holy Grail," (which surely would include a Nobel) then let's partner up. 

You are the guys that know about his stuff (I'm just the guy with the pictures)!

And it's your lucky day! You guys get 2X the money because I can't take money for this stuff and I'm a poor man (somebody can buy me dinner though..lol).

If it's still a million then you could have a team of two or whatever and split the money.

Why can't I take the money?

Hard to explain without looking like a crackpot. About the only clue I could give you is, "talking donkey"!

So no worries and think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bez said:

I have a picture like a puzzle and am trying to piece it together to get the full picture.

There's a huge problem with this tactic if you aren't learning from a structured approach to the material. Humans love patterns, our brains look for them everywhere, and will even force us to see them where they don't exist. You can't trust pictures you make up yourself. They seem PERFECT, because you made them up based on incomplete knowledge. They seem so simple to you, but only to you. You see them so perfectly it resembles some ideal machinery, because you made it from the parts you had, and only those parts.

You need the knowledge and vocabulary (using standard definitions is a key to expressing your ideas to others) of formal education in the subject. Khan Academy is a great place for someone who knows mathematics to also learn physics. You need some mainstream study more than you need to spend time making up explanations for various phenomena. You obviously have a sharp mind, and you need to apply it more meaningfully. 

I think you would tell me the same thing if I told you about my Speed Dating Theory in Anthropology, or my How Dividing By Zero Creates Black Holes Theory in Mathematics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 10:53 AM, Bez said:

E=MC squared

OK

Quote

F=Friction

No. This is not a quantifiable thing. We have things like forces, energy (work), and momentum that we can quantify and relate to friction, but friction by itself is not something we assign a value to. What would its units be (and why)?

Quote

E + F = electromagnatism

Electromagnetism X Motion X Form = Everything

This is beyond wrong. Wrong was a few exits back.

20 hours ago, Bez said:

Oops ran out of edits!

Electromagnetism X motion X form = everything

So the, "form," part of this is size of the given particle or planetary body.

Normally we would use something like radius, if it were a spherical body. So why introduce new and undefined terminology? 

Quote

Both, "form," and "motion," then we can measure.

Again, we would use velocity, or perhaps momentum, for motion.

Quote

We also know Energy = acceleration squared (the speed of light) E=MC squared

The speed of light is not an acceleration. It's a speed. Says so right there in the name.

 

I'll just point out here that this is not the WAG forum, it's the speculations forum, and thus far you have hit on zero  of the necessary elements for this discussion to continue.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bez said:

I can see the whole shooting match moving in my mind like my mind is the Universal universes! I swear I can even hear it! Like a giant engine!

I am sure you can, however if this whole 'shooting match' is based on a lack of understanding of physics - it is just a fantasy.

1 hour ago, Bez said:

You might be surprised if you asked me some questions!

I am afraid the only question that will be asked is, "if you are interested in physics, why don't you learn some physics?"

 

1 hour ago, Bez said:

If we truly are close to the scientific, "Holy Grail," (which surely would include a Nobel) then let's partner up.

We aren't remotely close to even the most basic physics in this thread.

 

Your BS is in Anthropology so let me use that as a basis to help you understand the problem here.  Suppose I went to an anthropology forum and said I have 'the' answer!  If everyone wore an orange shirt mankind would live in peace for all of eternity.  That is about how much sense your ideas are making.  

If you find physics interesting for goodness sake learn some physics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Your BS is in Anthropology so let me use that as a basis to help you understand the problem here.  Suppose I went to an anthropology forum and said I have 'the' answer!  If everyone wore an orange shirt mankind would live in peace for all of eternity.  That is about how much sense your ideas are making.  

We have a political party in the UK that claim exactly that.

Funnily enough they got hammered at the last General election but are making a bit of a come back as a result of even bigger boo-boos by their rivals.

 

:)

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, studiot said:

We have a political party in the UK that claim exactly that.

Then the world is losing it's mind, I guess.  This is a bit of a hijack i suppose, but the thread is a train wreck anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Then the world is losing it's mind, I guess.  This is a bit of a hijack i suppose, but the thread is a train wreck anyway...

Not at all, we won't have train wrecks in this country quite soon.

I hear a whisper that one manifesto pledge will be that due to the success of pilot projects around the country (London, Bristol, Aberdeen, and so on) all trains will soon be replaced with buses.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, OK!

I never said what, "I see," didn't need to be tested! (seems even with the unknowns could plug in some numbers/etc. and see what comes up).

Screenshot everything and email it to myself (computer forensics will date it). And on to the next site (at least I'll be more prepared next time).

Why no dislikes on the equation post?

E=MC squared

F=Friction

E X F = electromagnetism (changed)

electromagnetism X motion X form = everything

and thanks for the info on it's:

Energy times Friction

If at least one person can see something here and run with it then it was worth my posting. Your allowing me to post allowed me to formulate the equation (now I just need to quantify it).

Thank you for your time I won't bother you guys any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bez said:

Thank you for your time I won't bother you guys any more.

Please don't misunderstand. It's no bother, it's just frustrating. We're saying you need some formal physics study, and you're saying you can calculate the height of a geostationary orbit using a screwdriver, two poems, and a gallon of root beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Bez said:

The accumulation of combined friction from the 8 speeds/motions mentioned above should be near constant. The background, "Friction," behind our universe (intersecting universes) is constant also so for our universe can we get by with just the accumulation within our universe?

It is interesting to note all the motion going on around us (8 speeds/motions) within our universe. That's a lot of Friction.

Also, we notice none of this motion beyond seasons and day and night and all that we perceive is relative only to this uniform motion system.

In the above post I used the term, "layered", friction (for lack of better words) but meaning the combined friction of all motions within this uniform motion system (expansion/spin of universe, expansion/spin of galaxy, etc.).

All motions of bodies in the universe can be put down to conservation laws and gravity. 

You also seem overly concerned and confused re friction.

Quote

I'll mention the super-heated surface of the sun as evidence of this unseen friction. And below looks a generator to me!

Nuclear fusion and of course the corona and associated heat probably due to magnetic fields from deep within the Sun. Again, you seem preoccupied with friction.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, beecee said:

Nuclear fusion and of course the corona and associated heat probably due to magnetic fields from deep within the Sun. Again, you seem preoccupied with friction.

Are you sure?

I was under the impression that gravity drove the fusion processes deep within the Sun, and that the surface was not hot enough for fusion.

It may be noted that the surface of the Earth's core is hotter than the surface of the Sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, studiot said:

Are you sure?

I was under the impression that gravity drove the fusion processes deep within the Sun, and that the surface was not hot enough for fusion.

It may be noted that the surface of the Earth's core is hotter than the surface of the Sun.

Sure, agreed,  I was though referring to the fact of the Sun's Corona being hotter then the photosphere by many orders of magnitude, and the general thought that this was due to magnetic fields emanating from deep within the Sun. And of course that the mechanics of the Sun/stars are fusion based. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. 

Again though, I still fail to understand his [Bez] apparent infatuation with friction?

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now