|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
The ISU Dialogues, Part Two -- Numerology
Our cups refilled, we got back to Bogie's Infinite Spongy Universe: CM: "We're taking a brief detour to discuss Bogie's assertion that the proton contains 699,955,457,517 EEPs and the electron contains 381,239,356 EEPs." BH: "Why those magic numbers?" CM: "We'll see in a few moments. I'll quote the relevant passages from post #20:" Quote:
Quote:
CM: "Exactly correct. And that's why this computation is wrong, as so often happens when amateurs finally start putting numbers on their stories. I do offer a way out, though." DB: "How?" CM: "Consider a proton to be made up of M EEPs and an electron to be made up of N EEPs. If the EEPs all have equal mass, and binding energy does not enter in, which I realize is a bit of wishful thinking, then M/N = 1836. Let the proton have radius R and the EEP a radius of r. Then if a proton is put together out of M EEPs with no spaces or overlap (possibly another bit of wishful thinking) then M = (4/3 pi R3)/(4/3 pi r3) = (R/r)3. Now let us imagine trying to put N EEPs on the surface of this proton. The area of a great circle of an EEP would be 4 pi r2, so N of these squeezed together on the surface, again ignoring gaps and overlaps would be N = (4 pi R2)/(4 pi r2) = (R/r)2. So finally 1836 = M/N = (R/r), that is the radius of the proton must be 1836 times the radius of an EEP if the mass of the EEPs on the surface of the proton is to add up to the mass of the electron. CM: "Knowing that the radius of the proton is about 1.3x10-15 m then tells us the radius of an EEP. Of course this is still numerology and there is precious little physical content in it." BH: "Amen!" CM: "After this sidebar, I'd like to get back to discussing post #2." To be continued ...
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it. The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high. |
|
||||
|
CM's dialog is good and I want to participate by putting in emphasis here and there.
ISUEEP5-13-07 We must always keep the following in mind when talking about the ISU and the EEP. It is not practical to think of a universe containing one EEP, but if there was just one, would it expand forever as its tiny quantum amount of energy spread thinner and thinner or would it simply expand and contract by itself in empty space? I think it would be the latter. If so would each expansion be fulfilling some finite relationship as to full expansion and each contraction reaching some limit as to its own internal density? I think so, and I think that the full expansion and full contraction would have specific limits and would define the space that one EEP could occupy if allowed to fully expand and contract. If so we could assign a constant to the fully expanded size and a constant to the fully contracted size, and assign a function to the pulsing by using a time factor for each full pulse cycle. It is not practical to think of a universe containing so many EEPs that they could not expand at all. They would be locked in their contracted state and could never have enough space to expand. Even if while in the locked state they had potential to expand they would have no space to expand in. The value of that potential would eventually be derived from the math of the pulsing EEP if it could be quantified, and I think it can be. Each of the above two cases is an extreme of energy density. One EEP expanding and contracting may only need a tiny amount of empty space to exist and fully pulse representing the lowest possible energy density, while a universe of fully locked EEPs that could not expand at all would have the highest possible energy density. Energy density of space is the number of EEPs divided by the volume of space that they occupy. Lets us explore the energy density possibilities that are between those two extremes. Let us take first a “low energy density environment” where all of the EEPs can fully expand and contract in their own space, there is even room to add more EEPs before you begin to get some overlap. And let us define the term overlap to simply mean that there are too many EEPs in a given space to allow them all to fully expand and contract with intruding on each others required allotment of space. In this low energy density environment there is no overlap. Let us take next a perfectly “equalized energy density environment” where all of the EEPs can fully expand and contract in their own space, but if you add one more EEP there will begin to be some overlap. This energy density of space (EDS), with complete freedom for each EEP, and yet with the maximum EEPs allowed without overlap we will call the equalized energy density. This is the perfect EDS for an EEP that likes companionship but wants its own space; the perfectly equalized energy density of space. Not only is this perfect for the comfort loving EEPs, this is the energy density that space seeks to achieve. It is the perfect background. Now don’t take me literally, I am not suggesting that EEPs or space have a mind of their own; I am speaking figuratively. The perfect background is the energy density that allows this perfect relationship between all EEPs and the space that they occupy. Next let us take an energy density of space that has too many EEPs to allow them each to fully expand and contract in their own sufficient space, but that does not cause them all to be locked so that they can never expand at all. They are only compressed to some degree and go on pulsing with only minor inconvenience. Just to define that landscape in the most general parameters, this would be termed a high energy density of space that causes there to be some degree of compression at all times. The term compression means that none of the EEPs can fully expand, and before they can fully contract their space is intruded upon by an adjacent EEP and they can never fully contract without intrusion. They are slightly compressed. Up to this point we have discussed five different energy densities of space: One EEP alone in space, so many EEPs that they can only exist if they are locked in their contracted position, a low energy density environment, the ideal energy density of space, and a moderately high energy density of space. I think the universe, the greater universe in the ISU, has a high energy density on that scale. And I think that the universe has always existed and has always had this high energy density. High energy density forces matter to exist. The proportion of matter to energy density of space is determined by how high the average energy density of the greater universe is. The matter that exists is made up of the excess EEPs over and above the ideal background of perfectly "equalized energy density" described above. Last edited by Bogie; 14-May-2007 at 04:20 PM. Reason: Phrasing |
|
|||
|
Quote:
In the ISU idea, what is the equation relating the acceleration of photons to "gravity"? If photons "can be accelerated by gravity", then your idea requires replacing (or trashing) the theory of Relativity (both Special and General), right? |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Certainly not by the mechanism you summarise here! You need to get it published, in a relevant peer-reviewed journal ... and that would be just the first step in your idea becoming mainstream. |
|
|||
|
It seems you've sorta covered gravity, in this thread, and along the way electromagnetism crept in, via your speculations on the charge of an EEP.
Let's see if you've actually covered electromagnetism, in a semi-classical way ... What, in the ISU/EEP idea, is a photon? How, in the ISU/EEP idea, does electromagnetism 'work'? As in, is it a force? (if so, how does it arise, what are its fundamental characteristics?) If not, what is it? For gravity, what is its speed of propagation, in the ISU/EEP idea? Which of the relevant equivalence principles, at the heart of GR, does the ISU/EEP idea say are wrong (or need re-stating)? Going a bit further, perhaps beyond the scope of this thread, what are the weak and strong (nuclear) forces, in the ISU/EEP idea? In particular, how many EEPs to a neutrino? |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Photon mass is a discussion that has to take place. The only place that I mention it is where you picked up the quote from my earlier post. But in the ISU, anything that forms from the energy density of space is denser than the energy density of the space from which it forms. Therefore anything that travels through the energy density of space will follow the energy density fluctuations (low energy density caused by mass). That includes photons. However photons differ in that they don’t exert gravity themselves like other mass that is composed of atoms. It is the electron/proton relationship that is responsible for gravity and the photon does not have that relationship. Therefore mass is accelerated in a gravitational field because mass is both affected by and exerts gravity. A photon is affected by a gravitation field because a gravitational field is a low energy density fluctuation surrounding mass that causes the path of photons to follow it like “curved” space, but photons do not contribute any curvature themselves and so they pass through the gravitational well in a straighter path. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
.That post was to demonstrate that I was not getting and responses and I was pretending that in the abscence of responses my content must be OK. I was kidding. |
|
|||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is an energy density differential caused by the formation of the proton. The formation of the proton occurs as EEPs become synchronized and join together to pulse alternatively. When they become synchronized there is space vacated that causes an energy density differential between the vacated space and the energy density of the surrounding background. That differential still exists when the proton has completed forming and is the reason why EEPs swarm the proton. The swarming results in the formation of an electron which I predict has a one for one relationship between the number of EEPs in the electron and the number of EEPs on the surface of the proton. That energy differential is what holds the electron to the proton. I haven't tried to analyze that in regard to weak and strong (nuclear) forces. I also have not built atoms bigger that hydrogen using the bottom up approach. Quote:
Neutrinos probably form from the collapse of the first hydrogen stars but I have not gotten that far in my bottom up approach. Right now, where I stand in the bottom up approach is at the point that the young new matter is heating up from the proton emissions due to gravity, i.e. the photons that are emitted by atoms perpetuate the low energy density surrounding mass. Gravity is the response of mass to the low energy density surrounding mass. Mass tends to move toward the low energy density path through space. The lowest energy density path is a straigh line between masses. This tends to cause mass to move into the gravitational wells of other mass. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Are you joking now too? I mean, take a look at this Bogie post, from earlier in this thread (my bold): Quote:
In particular, in this phrase, what is the meaning of "electrical charge"? |
|
|||
|
Quote:
In particular, how many EEPs go to make up a positron? What happens in (electron-positron) pair production (according to the ISU/EEP idea)? What happens in electron-positron annihilation (in thie ISU/EEP idea)? In the ISU/EEP idea, can photons be emitted by positrons? by protons? |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU You can see I was kidding about declaring it mainstream; the joke being as if just by saying it, that made it so. That is what I was kidding about. Quote:
Quote:
Am I wrong to make a comparison between an electrical current and the flow of EEPs that is due to an energy density differential? Quote:
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
My description of the formation of the hydrogen atom and the generation of photons as part of the flow of gravity takes place in a very low energy environment. Positrons are the product of high energy physics that I have not addressed in my posts.
Quote:
I did say that the electron at rest contains 381,239,356 EEPs. I don’t know if it is possible to have a positron are rest, is it? I’m not sure of how your positrons are created put I think you are talking about producing them in high energy experiments. I haven’t addressed high energy physics in my posts. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
1) your post, which I quoted, intended to make 'gravity as (electrical) current' an analogy (despite what you actually wrote in it)? 2) In the ISU/EEP idea, there is no relationship between photons and electrical charge? 3) introducing calculations of the charge on an EEP, in that post, was not intended to have any relevance to 'gravity as a current' (other than that both involve some kind of 'flow')? 4) Other than 'flow', from some kind of higher (density) region (or state?) to a lower one, in what respect(s) is it legitimate to use the 'gravity as current' analogy? For example, charge carriers (both positive and negative)? generation of gravitational radiation (due to accelerating charges)? existence of a 'gravitomagnetic' force (due to special relativistic 'frames of reference')? |