Forums  > Books & Papers  > espen haug unified revolution  
     
Page 7 of 7Goto to page: 1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7 Prev
Display using:  

EGH


Total Posts: 82
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2020-06-03 13:33
my theory leads to rest-mass acceleration also. we have rest-mass energy E=mc^2 i standard theory and also derived from atomism.

we also in my theory have rest-mass momentum and rest-mass acceleration. It is a bit ironic, Schrodinger is a non relativistic appriox for v much smaller than c, but then it is derived also from standard momentum, that dose not exist for v=0. So dose rest-mass particles do not exist in standard theory, if so then how can E=mc^2 exist as it is for rest-mass particle, as the relativistic case naturally is E=mc^2*gamma

why rest-mass acceleration from my theory? well yes in the collision-space time theory all mass consist of colliding indivisibles and this collision last one Planck second, and happens at the Compton frequency of the particle of question. The indivisibles moves at c when not colliding (round trip measure, or Einstein synchronized), and stands absolute still when colliding. Each compton time one have an acceleration lasting one Planck second going from 0 to c. Taking this into account it matches dark matter.

precession of mercury I have started looking at, there are a few angles to investigate here. Most of the papers that have looked at Newton theory have not actually even looked at Newton theory here, they have looked at the Newton theory presented by their "professors", that over generations have been altered from Newton's own theory. Newtons original gravity theory can only been understood from atomism. Newton explicitly points out that his theory is rooted in indivisible particles and indivisible time.

Collision space time is consisted with Newton's main idea on mass and time, standard theory is very very far off from Newtons core principles. There are some very interesting historical points here totally missed, that I hope to get time to write about also. Some english translations of ancient texts are very very wrong. This I first found out when doing transaction of many sentences one by one and looking closely at the words.

All in all my theory looks very promising, certainly several things need to be looked at more closely.


nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-06-26 13:11
Hi, I looked into your article.
Major comment: You take liberty to simplify (reduce) nomenclature of existing terminology and then tag it as a discovery or even theory.

After such careful and consistent relabeling you come to the very same results. No surprise. Time is wasted.

This is worrying:

"Most of the papers that have looked at Newton theory have not actually even looked at Newton theory here, they have looked at the Newton theory presented by their "professors", that over generations have been altered from Newton's own theory. Newtons original gravity theory can only been understood from atomism. Newton explicitly points out that his theory is rooted in indivisible particles and indivisible time.

Collision space time is consisted with Newton's main idea on mass and time, standard theory is very very far off from Newtons core principles.
"

Are you alive thing? If not, adjust your NPL algo.

EGH


Total Posts: 82
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2020-06-27 20:14
""Most of the papers that have looked at Newton theory have not actually even looked at Newton theory here, they have looked at the Newton theory presented by their "professors", that over generations have been altered from Newton's own theory. Newtons original gravity theory can only been understood from atomism. Newton explicitly points out that his theory is rooted in indivisible particles and indivisible time.

Collision space time is consisted with Newton's main idea on mass and time, standard theory is very very far off from Newtons core principles."

Are you alive thing? If not, adjust your NPL algo.""

Standard theory uses two different mass definitions (without knowing about it). In their mass definition they indirectly have some quantization due to Planck constant, but same time point particle, leads to much infinities etc..

In their indirect mass definition that they have in gravity theory, without knowing about it ( read AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND the collision space-time paper) they actually get a minimum spatial dimension into their mass (without even understanding that is the mass and even without knowing it)...

They use the 1873 constant they invented to get their non-Newtonian mass definition to fit observation....without understanding why. SOLVED!

They cannot unify. I can!! More papers coming out on it!!

"No surprise?" Who do u think u are bullshitting? the sheeps (so a large crowd yes) ? My theory simplify, more proofs coming that the Planck length replace G and h. In addtion we no longer need dark matter fantasies etc.

"you come to the very same results." what have u been smoking? from G and h to l_p, from fantasy of dark matter to no dark matter, from micro black holes planck mass size, where escape velocity is above c at the reduced Compton wave length to where the speed is c, different escape velocity formulas, from nothing stopping a single electron from having relativistic mass equal to the rest-mass of the galaxy or the assumed observable mass of the whole universe, to strict max limit at the Planck mass, from non unified, to unified. If this is the same result for u, then good luck to u!

And something totally not related. I strongly recommend the book Flash Crash, I got to page 35 now and it says

"SHEEP ARE HOSTILE WHEN ENCOUNTERING BRILLIANCE!" the book is right on man! Thanks to pj for recommendation! Worship I read it while pumping iron, one page, one set, one page, one set...feel the gravity! Flash Crash will make me stronger!




EGH


Total Posts: 82
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2020-07-02 09:22
My latest paper show why G and h can be replaced with only the Planck length. That is a reduction in the number of constants.

The findings here strongly support my collision-space time theory. And yes we can now easily unify gravity with the rest of physics.

G is just a composite constant.


Finding the Planck length multiplied by the speed of light without any knowledge of G, c, or ħ, using a Newton force spring

As clearly demonstrated in the paper this is not just hiding G and h inside something else. G contains h and is needed to cancel out h from the modern mass definition, and to get the Planck length in. When one understand this, then there is no need for G.

nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-07-02 16:42
Still, I cannot get it why do you focus on alignment and reduction of number of constants...

M.Planck fixed black body radiation problem assuming corpuscular/discrete EM radiation. The rest comes naturally. Where collisions are coming from? Can I say that waves are replicas of collisions and vice versa? If equations are the same then what is new? Your approach resembles 1001 way to derive Black-Scholes ending up with same prices.

EGH


Total Posts: 82
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2020-07-02 18:20
In all of physics except gravity one do not have the collision-time, but indirectly the ratio of collisions (through the Planck constant). It is not enough to have the number of collisions indirectly, as one can get with wave theory only (combined with Planck constant). One also need the time of the collision itself.

It is only by incorporating this in all of physics one can unify parts of physics, as I already have. And as I have told before the theory predicts series of different things than standard theory.

It is all explained in my paper. I did never expect EVERYONE to understand my papers. Especially not people full of prejudice! If you dont like a theory that strongly simplify, and unify and also predicts things not predicted by standard theory (without adding fudge factors) then good luck!

The Planck constant is embedded in G and is needed to get h out of the incomplete mass definition of modern physics. (read Principa and understand how Newton looked at mass, very different than modern physics, he would likely never have approved G, a constant he never invented, nor used, nor needed, to introduce it he had would have been forced to go away from his view on mass and energy.)



No need for G or h


More papers coming out on this! Stay tuned!


nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-07-02 20:02
Newton didn't know Planck's constant, that explains everything!
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 7 of 7Goto to page: 1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7 Prev