Wiki-based? What does that mean? I don't see the problem - I'm only asking for you to elaborate on the things you wrote down! Why so hostile?
Sheesh!
Mass *has* gravity
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
Sheesh!
''Describe a revolution. It is something revolving around something, or is it revolutionary in that it is new and bold?''
It's certainly, new and bold. I have never heard of a claim that energy decoheres by its surroundings.
''I am not quite with you on the concept of "initial change" in an energy fluctuating.''
In my model, and quite appropriately, yours, if any mass is to exist, there MUST BE a prior state of energy, since all forms of matter are but trapped fluctuations of energy itself. The revolution, is the energy taking that quantum leap.
''They exist in a background of dark energy.''
I certainly wouldn't deny that. We only live in a percentage of the universe that is actually less than 1% of all the matter known in the vast cosmos. This means that about 1% of the universe is made of mass. We have much to learn.
''QWC is designed to handle the description of the cause of mass, the cause of gravity, and the cause of dark matter. These are all pre-particle phases in the grand unification process.
I would love to show how the QWC quanta could fit into modern particle physics but right now it doesn't. ''
If it fits the math, it will fit the model
It's certainly, new and bold. I have never heard of a claim that energy decoheres by its surroundings.
''I am not quite with you on the concept of "initial change" in an energy fluctuating.''
In my model, and quite appropriately, yours, if any mass is to exist, there MUST BE a prior state of energy, since all forms of matter are but trapped fluctuations of energy itself. The revolution, is the energy taking that quantum leap.
''They exist in a background of dark energy.''
I certainly wouldn't deny that. We only live in a percentage of the universe that is actually less than 1% of all the matter known in the vast cosmos. This means that about 1% of the universe is made of mass. We have much to learn.
''QWC is designed to handle the description of the cause of mass, the cause of gravity, and the cause of dark matter. These are all pre-particle phases in the grand unification process.
I would love to show how the QWC quanta could fit into modern particle physics but right now it doesn't. ''
If it fits the math, it will fit the model
Wiki-based? What does that mean? I don't see the problem - I'm only asking for you to elaborate on the things you wrote down! Why so hostile?
Sheesh!
Why so hostile? I don't mean to be. Maybe it's a ''revolution'' of what i have had to put up with around here.
Why don't you simply read the variables as they are, instead of trying to act the cunt.
"Read the variables as they are" - that doesn't make any sense! If they don't have any meaning then your post is devoid of meaningful content!
I don't get it with you. I'm perfectly civil, I ask a question about something you've written and I get profanities thrown at me! Is there any need for this?
Thanks and yes, mass has a prior state as we both insist. In QWC I described it in great detail; the energy density background, equilibrium and the equalization threshold, the energy in excess of the threshold that causes the energy density fluctuations, the frequency (count per volume of space) of those fluctuations, the intensity of those fluctuations as energy density increases, the quantum action and quantum waves in the background, and finally the quanta the stand out form the background when the energy density reaches the matter formation threshold. Read it and tell me how it differs from the prior state that you predict.
Last edited:
I luv it when you talk that way...
If it fits the math, it will fit the model
. Truth will find its way into math in three dimensions.I'm being deadly serious. I don't see the problem - why don't you just elaborate and tell us what all the bits mean?????
Yes, once again I will tell you: I'm deadly serious.
Again - this doesn't make sense! How do you "answer" an equation? Never mind actually, I'm far more interested in your elaboration. I don't see the problem.
Well, it's quite simple really. To start, do you at all know the variables presented, and let us progress from there shall we?
Oops, sorry. I'll try again.
Last edited:
I have asked you precisely which aspects of your post I'd like for you to elaborate on:
Hello Reiku,
I don't understand any of your mathematics at all I'm afraid. Could you explain what each term means?
What is $$W$$ and where is this formula derived from - you've lost me!
And what does this mean? What are the measures $$dW,\, dy$$? What is $$\gamma$$? What is $$K$$? Why are we integrating? Where has this formula come from? I'm confused!
Again, net force of what? And what is $$t$$? Where does this come from?
What event? And what are $$P,\, \epsilon, \, \psi$$? Can you explain please - I don't follow.
Probability of what event? And what on earth are $$S_f$$ and $$S_0$$? What is the range of integration? And what are you integrating with respect to? And what does the notation on the right hand side mean? It just seems like you've written down gibberish!
Can you elaborate a bit for me?
Why are you dodging this - it doesn't make any sense!
No start clean.
OK, let's have a go at it.
First a nice clean LaTex of the equation.
Then list each important element of the equation and then define what that element means, like:
$$g_m=q*((-e)+(+e*(1-c)))$$
List:
$$q_m$$ is the gravity of mass m. Gravity being the net negative energy emitted by mass in the units called quanta.
Quanta are the incremental energy increments of matter and gravity.
$$q$$ is the number of quantum increments that make up the mass, also defined as the number of quantum actions that are maintained repeatedly by the mass within the space occupied by the mass.
$$-{e}$$ is the negative energy portion of the quantum wave. It is the leading low energy density spherical wave that forms the trough of the quantum wave structure.
$$+e$$ is the positive energy portion of the quantum wave. It is the trailing high energy density spherical wave that forms the crest of the quantum wave structure.
I have explained within the thread how that partiuclar wave sturcture comes about.
With zero containment, the net energy of the quantum wave is zero; $$-{e} +e = 0$$
$$c$$ stands for the containment ratio of the particular mass. Containment is the portion of the positive energy crest of the quantum wave structure that is delayed as subsequent quantum action within the mass "captures" or contains small portions of the positive energy to complete a subsequent quantum action.
Quantum action is explained in detail throughout the thread and I expect if you are reading this you know what it is by now.
Please present your equation in this method and we can discuss on an equal footing.
Last edited:
I have asked you precisely which aspects of your post I'd like for you to elaborate on:
Why are you dodging this - it doesn't make any sense!
Very well, let us start with the first equation. I presume you understand the foremost part of the equation. W then is your only incongruity?
W can stand for mass, and also acceleration. I can provide equations which henceforth describe $$W$$ and $$W/c^{2}$$ in differential forms. Normally, in the algebraic solutions of relativity, an increase of mass is also given by $$W/c^{2}$$.
Is that fine for tackling the first equation?
So which is it?!?!
Please don't talk down to someone who has demonstrated out standing grasps of maths and physics while you can't even do basic algebra. Whatever Guest's level of learning in physics (his maths seems to be at least postgraduate) I would bet all the money I have he could take you in a 'physics-off'.
Wanna see?
Did he ask you to put up or shut up? Where was this?
Oh please do. I bet you don't know anything to do with differential forms. They are highly mathematical so you'll probably be on Guest's home turf there. And given you cannot even multiply out brackets, differential forms is going to be way beyond you.
No, it cannot. And you say this after talking down to Guest about him 'only' being a mathematician!!
Let's look at units.
$$\Delta E$$ is 'change in energy', so it has units of energy. Which are $$kg.m^{2}. s^{-2$$. c has units of velocity, which is $$m.s^{-1}$$. So the units of W must be kilograms. So W CANNOT be acceleration! It MUST be a quantity of mass.
This is stuff taught to 6th form students! And yet you continue to try to convince me via PM that you'd doing a 'National Diploma' in what is beyond Cambridge graduate material!! Despite a National Diploma not even being enough to get you into Cambridge! And you seriously think you're going to convince me you aren't a pathetic lying dirtbag who has an obsession with pretending he's doing and capable of things he so obviously isn't?!