Quote:
Originally Posted by elas
tusenfem
In reply to your questions:
What do you mean by drawing the force field?
Newton showed that a gravity force field without a central mass consisted of two lines; to the left of the maximum force the line increases from zero to maximum force at a ratio of 1:1 and to the right the force decreased according to the inverse square law
Why do you think that eeisemceesquared has something to do with directional motion?
Because all the books I have define it as a constant of speed.
So now you are summing the forces at different radii, so you get sumr(F(r)). That's cool, but it still leads to a sum of quatities with unit Newton (kg m / s2) whereas your Fl still has units kg m (Fl = r m) so, you talk about force but you ain't working with force.
Physicist measure mass in units of eV the V stands for volts a measure of electromotive force.
Using the radii found with the CLF equation plot a field with no central mass so that the force (mass in eV) is divided equally either side of the maximum force. Measure the force at regular intervals and add them together; it will be found that all particles have the same total force; this is the Linear Force Constant. Because the vacuum wave rotates around the central Vacuum Zero Point, the wavelength is equal to the diameter therefore it is convenient to change the constant so that 2r equals the wavelength.
I have shown that this produces an equation which, as you pointed out; applies to a single momentum. I then re-worked the equations to produce an equation that holds true for any rate of momentum.
Finally I have shown, in a rough draft; that the Fine Structure Constant (Coupling Constant) can be derived from the proposed particles structure.
I have not been able to track down any reference to Einstein’s dissatisfaction with ‘c’ squared so I will concede that point rather than debate what is only a side issue to my proposal.
|
Gravity in the absence of a central mass, how, what, why, do you mean the mass is uniformly distributed over a very large volume and you are somewhere inside? No, I don't think so, because you say that there is a maximum in the force, and along the two lines the force increases and decreases. Are you trying to explain here that there is a r
-2 relation and are you looking at the gravitational potential defined as GM/r
2? If so, please state that, instead of giving mumbo-jumbo. Ofcourse the unit of your potential would be N/kg = m/s
2, still not the same units as your Fl.
About c
2, this has NOTHING to do with motion of the mass, because E = m c
2 calculates the
rest-mass energy of the particle. If it would move you would have E =
gamma m c
2, where gamma is the relativistic factor. The c
2 here comes in only as a conversion factor, nothing moving here. I would advise you to go back to your books and read up on it again.
Physicists measure mass in units of kg. Now, it just happens that kg is a bit big when dealing with e.g. protons 1.7 10
-27 kg (and electrons even a factor 1836 smaller) and therefore, they convert the mass of the proton to its [b]equivalent rest-mass energy[b], i.e. 1.7 10
-27 kg is
equivalent to 940 MeV.
Then you go on with your "without a central mass" stuff and make the clain the "the force (mass in eV)". Again, this is not a force, a mass in eV is just an equivalent energy in units of eV, or changed back to kg. Whereas a force is still measured in Newtons (i.e. kg m / s
2). You are not dealing with a force and you are not even dealing with a potential.
Measure the "force" at regular intervals, and one will see that all particles have the same "force", so if I measure it for the second time, but cut the intervals in half, then the "force" will be double that of the first measurement, mmm, something fishy here.
The changing of the 2r to lambda now suddenly has a new reason, because "the vacuum wave rotates around the vacuum zero point". What is that? I guess you mean the wavelenght in vacuum. What is a zero vacuum point? It that the central mass that is not there, like above? Give us some understandable definitions, and use mainly mainstream definitions and not your own for standard stuff. And why would we not expect that the wavelength is 2
Pi r instead of 2r, if it is moving around the "vacuum point".
And you did most definitely not work the equations such that they are valid for all velocities. On your page 5 you say well if I choose v = some small number (in unnamed units) then I find that 2r is equal to the deBroglie wavelength. Then you do some other math, saying Einstein had some emceesquared and the Fl has a mass so I take out the two masses and divide and get 1. And then I can put in the special result for v = some small number again. Well, this makes your ideas, if anything, valid for that small number.
With so much wrong in the beginning, you can get any result in the further pages.