I can define the variables as well... but there is more to this story if you are willing to hear?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A Pet Theory... will probably need some guidence in any mistakes
- Thread starter Green Destiny
- Start date
No.
I sware on Gods good grace that I never copied anything from anywhere. The dimensions for the energy density became evident when one multiplied both sides by the half-quantity. There is not really a great deal to the equations, I can't see how I copied it anywhere.
The history started when I considered the quantity $$\mathbf{E}^2(qt^2)^2$$ - I noticed this had dimensions of ML - this quantity truely was something I made myself one night. I was just scribbling away because I thought I took slight enjoyment from messing around with the dimensions.
I then decided to place an integral in front of the expression to retain the constant nature of the variables used, so in effect, I took the integral of velocity with the dummu variable of dt. This gave me an extra dimension of length, so giving in total ML^2. As far as I know, I have been the first to define the electric field under the description of $$\frac{\epsilon_0 D}{c^2$$, so I decided to use this in a series of replacements in some of the derivations. Again, the idea of the electric field density did not become apparent until I took the half quantity of the inertial moment.
The inertial moment was not by mere choice; I did before that an even more elementary derivision of $$E_0t^2=I$$ where this time E_0 is for the energy, or inertial energy. Because of this, the rest was reasonably simple, but the end result was interesting, at least for me.
Don't just agree with alphanumeric because he has a good track record. He's quick to accuse without any basis.
Can you explain the $$\delta$$ that appears before the integral ?
It wasn't as straight-cut as I've shown above. before I took the line of thought or reasoning above, I did come to a different line of reasoning which ended in an equation which could successfully describe Guass' Law.
From my little derivation describing the electric field:
$$\epsilon \frac{\mu D}{c^2}$$ I decided to employ the electric field surrounding the charge $$q$$ to the quantity of $$4 \pi r^2$$. This gave me
$$\epsilon \frac{\mu D}{c^2}(4 \pi r^2)=q$$ the charge of the system. Moreover, taking into account the scalar field $$\phi$$ we can final equation $$\epsilon \frac{\mu D}{c^2}(4 \pi r^2)\phi=M$$
Which is an interesting mass-term. From that equation, one can derive the law of Gauss, however, I was disatisfied. I wanted something which led to a description of inertia itself, not the mass term, because I find making both mass and inertia equivalent as being .. .. incomplete. Plus, simply adding inertia as the result would not have made it dimensionally-consistent.
From my little derivation describing the electric field:
$$\epsilon \frac{\mu D}{c^2}$$ I decided to employ the electric field surrounding the charge $$q$$ to the quantity of $$4 \pi r^2$$. This gave me
$$\epsilon \frac{\mu D}{c^2}(4 \pi r^2)=q$$ the charge of the system. Moreover, taking into account the scalar field $$\phi$$ we can final equation $$\epsilon \frac{\mu D}{c^2}(4 \pi r^2)\phi=M$$
Which is an interesting mass-term. From that equation, one can derive the law of Gauss, however, I was disatisfied. I wanted something which led to a description of inertia itself, not the mass term, because I find making both mass and inertia equivalent as being .. .. incomplete. Plus, simply adding inertia as the result would not have made it dimensionally-consistent.
Can you explain the $$\delta$$ that appears before the integral ?
Yes.
It's comes from the principle of least action. It's just a sign on the integral so that the path chosen takes the least possible action, retaining as much energy as possible. This is why the units $$\hbar \omega$$ where finally chosen to replace the energy term, because the value just above represents the least amount of harmonic energy frequency in a given volume of spacetime - in other words, a zero-point field.
Anyway, as I said. I am still reconciling mathematically how to unify the first set of derivations to the final two equations which involve an inertial energy.
Its no skin off my nose whether you are or not. Doesn't make your mistakes any less wrong.I will not entertain any of the conspiracy or non-related atatcks on me.
Seriously?! That's your response? You don't know what a square root is?Now, I thought the square root was the half of something. If it wasn't then why does squaring the quantity remove the square root sign? That must go for the other two examples I gave.
If that's the case then everything I've said is even more valid because you are deluding yourself if you think you can do any physics relating to anything beyond high school if you can't do the kind of basic mathematics I'd expect a 13 year old to know how to do.
Wrong, as your integral the same on both sides and thus you can't square it up to itself. You're trying to make excuses.Secondly, I did not pull anything out my arse. If you take the half of the quantity $$I^2\epsilon$$ and then look at the other side and multiply all that by a half, then inevitably $$u_e$$ will show up, because it's quantity is exactly $$1/2 \epsilon \mathbb{E}$$ - which is the maxwell energy density of the field.
Copying notation and then using it to make up your own expressions is still pulling stuff out of your backside. This is another mistake Reiku likes to do, botching together different expressions he's seen in the (mistaken) belief it'll make his equations more valid.How could I pull something like $$u_e$$ out my arse when it's a common usage in electrodynamics?
Simply getting the symbols you use from a science book doesn't make randomly combining them 'science'.
Given you've just demonstrated you don't know stuff expected of children I don't the "But I did the algebra myself!" line is a good one to follow. You do realise you're capable of being mistaken, right?First it's not a mishmash of equations - I truely did arrive at multiplying many of the variables and constants in there because I sat down to do it. The only part I will admit, is the above again
I calls it like I sees it. You don't want to be called a hack or deluded stop acting like it.. So don't superfluously blame me for any more than that.
Ah, the "More than one person has said I'm wrong. Since I can't possibly be wrong they must be in cohoots!". The reason those of us who do physics for a living often have similar views of 'pet theories' on this forum is not because we're 'in a cult' together but because anyone who didn't sleep through science class can see through much of the garbage posted on these forums as 'pet theories'. Its not a cult which makes us have similar low views of your posts, its our educations and understanding in science.but I think you's two are close friends, so that's expected... along with guest, rpenner... it's like a cult here.
You can post it but don't expect people not to say "That's wrong" when you say something wrong. If you don't want to have any replies at all get a blog. The difference between pseudo and the main science forum is that nonsense is allowed in pseudo, which is entirely different from saying no one is allowed to call nonsense nonsense.I should be allowed to freely post a pet theory in the psuedoscience area, neverfly. I kind of expect attacks, but... hey. That's life.
Besides, doesn't your title say something about needing guidance?
And in another thread you said you'd only just started learning calculus this year. No one just starts learning calculus and then gets onto energy densities in electromagnetism and the Dirac equation. You are displaying another trait of Reiku's, the "Oh I only just started this in class but I'm already doing beyond degree level material" syndrome. I started learning calculus in class when I was 15 and I didn't do electromagnetism till I was 19. I didn't do the Dirac equation till I was 20. And you'll be hard pressed to find a more direct route to quantum field theory than the one I took. Your story doesn't hang together, you can't simultaneously expect people to back off because you supposedly only just started calculus and yet claim you're familiar with the Dirac equation or Maxwell's equations. You want to have your cake and eat it, you want people to talk to you about high level stuff but you don't want them to point out when you get the basics wrong.
There's nothing wrong with getting the basics wrong, happens to everyone. God knows it happens to me often enough but I just say "Opps, I did that wrong" and I start over. The attitude you're displaying is not going to get you very far in the physics community if you're serious about wanting to do advanced physics topics.
I'll correct you, you're wrong. I think your entire post was garbage. Yes, you mentioned things which are found in actual physics but that doesn't mean you can just mix them all together and call it valid. Your 'work' doesn't need a 'nip and tuck' it needs to be nuked from orbit..... just to be sure.1. Alphanumeric, you seem to believe, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to indicate the mathematics would have been correct, if it were not for a poor understanding of algebra. That's a good start, because it means it just requires a small nip-and tuc somewhere along the lines.
How am I a hypocrite? Am I here presenting my own work? No. And in that thread I didn't go into the details, I gave a quick overview. If I had been asked to go into the details I would have quickly flicked through the relevant bits of papers and books to refresh my memory and then I'd have gone into the details. That why I wouldn't be saying anything specific which I was just making up or in danger of getting completely wrong. Your posts present themselves not as "I'm a little rusty on this, can someone help me" but "I know about this stuff, let me explain" and then you get it wrong.2. You are a bit of a hypocrite. I haven't been in an algebra class for over 10 years. Did you, or did you not just admit rceently in a thread in physics concerning a topic *which I forget* that you could have explained a complicated series of equations a little clearer, but it has been six months and you were quite surprised how fast it is all faiding? In the same context, multiply that to the length in which I have not studied algebra in a general class, but you seem unsurprised that one can even become hazy on it? If you're not surprised, then should we all go about and make fun of you because you can't remember something after six months? Mmmm?
If you're rusty on square roots then you're incapable of doing stuff like the Dirac equation. If you can't remember calculus properly then since all of electromagnetism is written in calculus you're unable to do that. Yet here you are presenting a 'pet theory' about it and whining when you get your nonsense exposed. The fact I admitted, without prompting, I was beginning to forget shows that I'm not a hypocrite because its the opposite of what you're doing, where you only claim to have forgotten something after someone points out your mistakes. You're trying to make excuses about 'forgetting' things I suspect you never learnt in the first place.
And besides, the things I referred to 'forgetting' are stuff on the bleeding edge of research, stuff I wrote papers on. Things like calculus are so ingrained in me I sometimes forget I once didn't know it.
Ah, it was all nice until it was clear I wasn't going to let your shit slide. Boo freakin' woo.Think about it pal. Seriously. You just seem to be a nasty piece of work, and I had formed this opinion well-before we began talking - by reflecting on threads you had already spoken to members in not only the psuedoscience area, but in other subforums as well. Moreover, you still continued this attitude when the other person(s) tried to remain civil and obviously indicated they wanted to learn... in my case, look above. I did clearly state:
If you were intellectually honest you'd heed my advice. Instead you're going to continue deluding yourself and I bet you get nowhere if you stick to that path. My advice was honest and you'd do well to follow it. If you think someone giving you honest advice, even if its advice you don't want to hear, makes them 'a nasty piece of work' then you have a very warped view of the world.
What 'work'? Your 'work' on the Dirac equation when you can't do calculus?Now, I will continue with my work
That's a very silly way to go about things, assuming that after someone points out a slew of mistakes at the start of your 'work' that since they stopped replying by the end of your work then everything which follows must be fine. That's self delusion. And whether or not I go through every post of yours with a fine tooth comb or not, if you're just pulling stuff out your backside and deceiving yourself then you'll get nowhere. In the end the only person who is hindered is you, so you can pretend like all your work is perfect but you'll get nowhere if you do. Ask yourself, do you want to only appear to be doing physics or do you actually want to do physics? If its the former than keep going as you are. If its the latter then you need to seriously reevaluate your attitude to science.The fact you never said anythin concerning the last two equations, I will assume they were perfectly fine
And as something to think about you'll notice that none of the people on this forum who are paid to do science research post their work here for others to evaluate. Occasional questions perhaps but none of us post our results here. Hence one of the first warning signs of a hack is they post their work at all. Can't you find a reputable journal which will publish your work?
I've given you my advice. That's all the help you'll get because if you don't listen to it then no matter what anyone else does you'll go nowhere. Sometimes the best help is the thing you want to hear the least.If you want to help me, or others in the future, do so that they may want to listen, but not to be deterred by your insolent attitude.
So if I'd been really polite you'd have accepted your work is wrong? I doubt it.Brutally honest then, is a cruel and nasty wasy of action.
Except that $$u_e=1/2 \epsilon \mathbf{E}$$ can't be right, you meant $$u_e=1/2 \epsilon \mathbf{E}^{2}$$. And that's not to say the equation is right but just that to even go from one line to the next you've got it wrong. This is basic stuff and if you still have such a HUGE mistake in your 'work' after spending (supposedly) two hours going through it then it demonstrates just how poor your algebra skills are.The next part caused Alphenumeric discomfort, to say the very least: so now I modify it in hope I get it correct this time:
$$u_e(qt^2)^2 \int v dt= \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_0 I^2$$
where $$u_e=1/2 \epsilon \mathbf{E}$$
Yes, why listen to the guy who actually does mathematical physics for a living when you can listen to the guy who doesn't know the difference between a square root and division by two.Don't just agree with alphanumeric because he has a good track record. He's quick to accuse without any basis.
Cannot be true, any of them. The expression $$\epsilon \frac{\mu D}{c^2}$$ is related to the electric field in a non-vacuum, its a vector (as some of your previous posts have used). Therefore it can only be equated to other vectors, yet you equate it to charge and also to mass. And the scalar field $$\phi$$ you just pull from nowhere, for no reason.$$\epsilon \frac{\mu D}{c^2}$$ I decided to employ the electric field surrounding the charge $$q$$ to the quantity of $$4 \pi r^2$$. This gave me
$$\epsilon \frac{\mu D}{c^2}(4 \pi r^2)=q$$ the charge of the system. Moreover, taking into account the scalar field $$\phi$$ we can final equation $$\epsilon \frac{\mu D}{c^2}(4 \pi r^2)\phi=M$$
No, you couldn't because Gauss's law is consistent in terms of vector structure. What you most likely have done is read someone else talking about charges and spheres and integrals and you've tried to reword it to claim as your own work and you've failed to do so because you don't understand it at all. If you understood Gauss's law you'd know how to put in the electric field into the equation, which you haven't done, you've just multiplied the field by the surface area of a sphere. You should have bothered to look up what the expression actually is before pretending you understood it.From that equation, one can derive the law of Gauss, however, I was disatisfied.
Given you've just demonstrated how terrible your vector calculus is (as well as your calculus and basic algebra) I think you're stretching it even more to pretend you have a grasp of variational principles.It's comes from the principle of least action
Wow, you're really just rolling out the buzzwords aren't you? Why not just drop in about how you're considering black hole thermodynamics and causal structure of flux tubes or the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin?because the value just above represents the least amount of harmonic energy frequency in a given volume of spacetime - in other words, a zero-point field.
You should start by reconciling how you're supposedly working with degree level physics concepts when you can't do high school level mathematics.Anyway, as I said. I am still reconciling mathematically how to unify the first set of derivations to the final two equations which involve an inertial energy.
Right. I'm ignoring you alphenumeric. You know, that ignore mode. I don't mind learning, but there are so many things here I disgree with, I just don't have the patience like you do, to write walls of words.
And this is a warning to anyone. The words ''brutally honest'' is just a free pass to be a condescending fuck. Not in my book, and I won't entertain walls of words. I don't mind a few questions, or a few references, but not to that extent, atleast for me.
And this is a warning to anyone. The words ''brutally honest'' is just a free pass to be a condescending fuck. Not in my book, and I won't entertain walls of words. I don't mind a few questions, or a few references, but not to that extent, atleast for me.
No, it means Honest.
Something a person must be with themselves, as well. And if you can't- Let's nip it in the bud and have you put me on ignore as well.
I replied to the posts once I got home from work. The fact you'd done a lot of whining and made a lot of mistakes I responded to doesn't make my comments any less relevant.Right. I'm ignoring you alphenumeric. You know, that ignore mode. I don't mind learning, but there are so many things here I disgree with, I just don't have the patience like you do, to write walls of words.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping all your mistakes will magically right themselves is a naive way to go about doing science. Well it wouldn't even be science, it would be deluding yourself into thinking you're doing science.
Cannot be true, any of them. The expression is related to the electric field in a non-vacuum, its a vector (as some of your previous posts have used). Therefore it can only be equated to other vectors, yet you equate it to charge and also to mass. And the scalar field you just pull from nowhere, for no reason.
I do have you on ignore, but you can see the posts when not logged in .. so... yeh. I read the whole thing now that I have some time.
You are right, none of them are true because I completely and utterly neglected that you have to take into consideration the equation balances when one side is a vector or a scalar quantity.
This will be a mistake I will gladly avoid in the future. Thank you for pointing it out.
I do have you on ignore, but you can see the posts when not logged in .. so... yeh. I read the whole thing now that I have some time.
You are right, none of them are true because I completely and utterly neglected that you have to take into consideration the equation balances when one side is a vector or a scalar quantity.
This will be a mistake I will gladly avoid in the future. Thank you for pointing it out.