My Math Conjecture on Accepting That They Can Change, But...

R

Reiku

Banned
Banned
Bloblorana enhanced this, really, with her thread showing constants may change. But, i am troubled by it so i sat down and worked out a mathematical mechnanism that can explain a different view... I just want some general views, cheers ;)

The attractive statistical averages of particles, or real pointlike objects in spacetime,''may indeed'' vary, due to a negative mass formula:

$$Mc^2 - GMm/R=0$$

because it is derived from Newtons Second Law,

$$F=GMm/R^2$$
$$F=Ma$$
$$Ma=GMm/R^2$$
~$$a=GM/R^2$$

So they can indeed describe ''constants'' variating over time. However, there are no equations tha stop this process from reversing. It may turn out, that what is described above, is of too much a linear vector nature.

So to solve this, i would state:

$$Mc^2((GMm/R)\sqrt{(-Mc^2)(GM/R)})$$
 
Reiku said:
$$Mc^2 - GMm/R=0$$
Click to expand...
How is that a negative mass formula? M is cancelled and m>0.
Reiku said:
$$Mc^2 - GMm/R=0$$
Click to expand...
Reiku said:
because it is derived from Newtons Second Law,

$$F=GMm/R^2$$
$$F=Ma$$
$$Ma=GMm/R^2$$
~$$a=GM/R^2$$
Click to expand...
$$E=mc^{2}$$ is not from Newtonian physics. And your formula is $$Mc^2 - GMm/R=0$$, yet you derive $$a=GM/R^2$$. Not the same.
Reiku said:
So they can indeed describe ''constants'' variating over time.
Click to expand...
The 'constant' in that expressions if G. The acceleration due to gravity 'a' is not a constant, it's a function of position. If you're far from the Earth, you feel it's influence less. Anyone knows that.
Reiku said:
is of too much a linear vector nature.
Click to expand...
Incoherent nonsense.
Reiku said:
So to solve this, i would state:

$$Mc^2((GMm/R)\sqrt{(-Mc^2)(GM/R)})$$
Click to expand...
Solve it for what? What is that equal to? You cannot rearrange either of the expressions you gave to get a quantity equal to that.

Do you REALLY think anyone who didn't fail GCSE physics will believe you? Your posts aren't even coherent and anyone who sends more than an hour on this site knows you're so full of BS and hatred for anyone correcting you you're blind to your own ignorance.

£100 says if I give you a question on Newtonian mechanics you cannot do it.
 
Bloblorana enhanced this, really, with her thread showing constants may change. But, i am troubled by it so i sat down and worked out a mathematical mechnanism that can explain a different view... I just want some general views, cheers ;)

The attractive statistical averages of particles, or real pointlike objects in spacetime,''may indeed'' vary, due to a negative mass formula:

$$Mc^2 - GMm/R=0$$

because it is derived from Newtons Second Law,

$$F=GMm/R^2$$
$$F=Ma$$
$$Ma=GMm/R^2$$
~$$a=GM/R^2$$

So they can indeed describe ''constants'' variating over time. However, there are no equations tha stop this process from reversing. It may turn out, that what is described above, is of too much a linear vector nature.

So to solve this, i would state:

$$Mc^2((GMm/R)\sqrt{(-Mc^2)(GM/R)})$$

Continuing:

Abstract:

The Next Conjecture:

The attractive gravitational mass of an object varies ONLY IF there is a correspondance to negative energy in the vacuum, and this all depends on the relativistic proximity of other gravitational objects:

So:

$$Mc^2 - GMm/R=0$$

factorsizes the solution into

$$G_{tot_{E_{1,2}}><Mc^2 + GMm/R \pm 1$$

Not only to integrate statistical equations themselves, but in this case, working on a different ''potential* energy surface equation,'' in this case, working with the chemical reactions, which are further reduced down to quantum chemistry,

* Potential is the same as virtual, considered by physics terminology.

In order to keep its $$(tot_{E})$$ potential energy is equal to its negative and positive mass.

............

I wondered about somethig conluding the following equations:

$$E_{-1}=M_{-2}c^{2}_{+Mc^2}$$
gives $$M=0$$
$$M_{-2}=E_{-1}/c^{2}_{-E}$$
gives $$E=0$$

And i found similarities with these two premises.
 
Is there some reason you're ignoring my comments about the specifics of your post? And your second post isn't even coherent. Why do you persist in posting stuff you know you're just making up? Do you have a psychological disorder which compels you to lie? Are you starved for attention at home? Is your life that miserable you have to try and BS people online, who you know see through your lies? You're like Sisiphus, except you do it willingly!

And it's easy to try if you know the answer.

Question 3
Question 12

Pick one. You have till lunch time. And to be honest, the second one is an absolute gift.
 
Ben/James

Will you lease lock all the threads that are here on physics section i have made?

Thanks.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Is there some reason you're ignoring my comments about the specifics of your post? And your second post isn't even coherent. Why do you persist in posting stuff you know you're just making up? Do you have a psychological disorder which compels you to lie? Are you starved for attention at home? Is your life that miserable you have to try and BS people online, who you know see through your lies? You're like Sisiphus, except you do it willingly!

And it's easy to try if you know the answer.

Question 3
Question 12

Pick one. You have till lunch time. And to be honest, the second one is an absolute gift.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is going to really try to answer.
I guess that Reiku is doing some sociological or psychological research to watch the reaction of people when he is only posting nonsense
 
And yet you didn't answer. The question 12 I asked was basically using the equation $$\ddot{r} = -\frac{GM}{r^{2}}$$ equation to get an expression for the time to fall to the Earth and to then solve it.

Grand total of time needed to answer the question? 5 minutes. It's about 14 hours later and you haven't even tried. Despite it being based on equations you have posted in this thread. But that's why I asked it, it's not something you'd realise if you're completely incompetant at physics. And, oh look. You didn't realise.

If you don't want to be shown to be a liar, stop posting BS.
 
I'll stop posting my so-called bullshit, when you stop talking bullshit. I related Newtonian Principles and Laws, not that its new or anything... but i also showed the negative solutions of relativity (WHICH are also deriviations of math itself from Newtonian Physics, only changing the outlook, but not the laws themselves), everything then, i have shown, follow on, despite what you may say... ok?
 
Some Other Relations

I have also equated that if an end is desired by time and the cosmos, then somehow mass and energy is an illusion:

$$E=Mc^2_{+E}$$

And if ‘’$$c$$’’ is not equal to zero, which we know it isn’t, then we find through algebra that:

$$Mc2=0$$

This can be found to be true about this universe. All matter comes to zero when added with the energy in the vacuum:

$$(E=Mc2)+(E=-Mc2) = 0$$

So the converse can be accumulated:

$$M=E/c^2_{+M}$$

Then all energy comes to zero as well:

$$E/c2=0$$

The reason why this happens, is because we are adding all the matter and energy, about $$10^{80}$$ particles ‘’pop’’ into existence, and when added to the negative energy of the vacuum produces a zero-total. The negative reservoir is called The Dirac Sea, and it is filled with negative spinning particles. In fact, Dirac postulated this sea using relativity. Virtual particles, like the kind found in this sea, don’t share the same properties as real energy:

In fact, Dirac postulated this sea using relativity. Virtual particles, like the kind found in this sea, don’t share the same properties as real energy:

$$E^2 = m^2 c^4$$

And is found to reduce to this instead of the normal energy and momentum formula:

$$E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m2c^4$$

… for when a particle is at rest p=0. Where p is momentum and c is the speed of light. This new relativistic outlook on the electron allowed Dirac to formulate his famous equations describing antimatter.

$$E \pm Mc^{2}$$
 
Last edited:
Reiku said:
I'll stop posting my so-called bullshit, when you stop talking bullshit.
Click to expand...
What, in my last post specifically, was BS?
Reiku said:
but i also showed the negative solutions of relativity (WHICH are also deriviations of math itself from Newtonian Physics, only changing the outlook, but not the laws themselves), everything then, i have shown, follow on, despite what you may say... ok?
Click to expand...
You didn't show that and relativity doesn't come from the postulates of Newtonian mechanics.
Reiku said:
This can be found to be true about this universe. All matter comes to zero when added with the energy in the vacuum:

$$(E=Mc2)+(E=-Mc2) = 0$$
Click to expand...
This is another thing I've corrected you on in the past, because you haven't added in the energy from gravitational fields and they are incredibly hard to account for.
Reiku said:
This new relativistic outlook on the electron allowed Dirac to formulate his famous equations describing antimatter.

$$E \pm Mc^{2}$$
Click to expand...
There's a touch more to it than that. You've said nothing about fermions. The reason Dirac predicted antielectrons is that negative energy solutions exist for the Dirac equation. Obviously you can just take the square root of $$E^{2} = m^{2}$$ but there's more to it. Instead, you have to make an ansatz for

$$(i\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} - m)\psi = 0$$

where the dependence on position is entirely within the phase of the spinor, ie $$u_{s}(p) = e^{-ip.x}\chi_{s}$$ where $$\chi_{s}$$ is a 4 component spinor with entries which satisfy $$(p\gamma^{\mu}-m)\chi_{s} = 0$$. But also you can have states $$u_{s}(p) = e^{ip.x}\xi_{s}$$ where $$(-p\gamma^{\mu}-m)\xi_{s} = 0$$. Notice the sign change on the p, the 4-momentum. That means that the energy has changed sign and so the Dirac equation admits negative energy modes.

All of this is covered in any introductory course in quantum field theory. Peskin & Schroder cover it in excellent detail. See section 4.7 here.

See, that's why I call your stuff BS. It is. And I continue to demonstrate why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top