Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [6 Posts]
Author Message
science forum beginner

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 11

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:39 am    Post subject: Re: mass and space functionality equals charge Re: gravity a fictional force in the Atom Totality

There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.
~Goethe
Or annoying when it posts physics, and half baked at that,
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:47 pm    Post subject: Re: mass and space functionality equals charge Re: gravity a fictional force in the Atom Totality

boson boss wrote:
 Quote: Magnetic force as an electric force molded by (special) relativity of motion... I don't know. Holding a magnet in hand makes me think how motion in the magnet has been captured and synced (at least a little bit), but with a difference because magnetic field goes around and gravity is just radiating and going on and through forever?... although magnetic field is not related to spacetime (in official newspapers), but gravity is all the way untill the end of space?

Don't go overboard on an analogy and resemblance. The Ampere-Maxwell
law I refered to was just a resemblance.

Keep in mind, all I needed was to reconcile how Coulomb force could be
gravity if the Cosmic matter we see is all the pieces of the last six
electrons of 231Pu Atom Totality.

We know electrons repel one another, so I had to reconcile why the Sun
and Earth attract and not repel. Why galaxies attract and not repel as
pieces or fragments of the last 6 electrons of the Atom Totality. I
have to reconcile how electron pieces only attract.

I did this reconcilation by using "mass bends space". Sun and Earth and
galaxies are pieces or fragments of the last electrons of the Atom
Totality. So why do they not repel.

So I solve it with "mass bends space" and that charge = mass +
functionality of space.

**Another argument**. There could be a different argument to reconcile.
One could say that electrons come in two types. The ball type or the
dot-cloud type. And electrons repelling would occur if you bring close
together 2 or more ball types of electrons. The ball type is a
collapsed wavefunction or ground-state-electron. The dot-cloud is the
uncollapsed wavefunction, the type most electrons are found in. In this
viewpoint, one could say that there is a little bit of energy or force
between Ball state and Electron-Dot Cloud state and this difference is
what we call and see and observe as gravity. It would appear to us as
only attractive not repelling. And it is a form of the Coulomb force
itself where we replace charge with mass.

Perhaps both viewpoints are the same thing. The viewpoint of "mass
bends space" and the viewpoint that electrons are both ball type and
dot cloud type.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:56 pm    Post subject: Re: mass and space functionality equals charge Re: gravity a fictional force in the Atom Totality

a_plutonium@hotmail.com wrote:
(snipped)
 Quote: I am not sure yet of the mathematics involved, whether I am dealing with composite functions for mass to space to form charge or something more complicated. Thus I call it "functionality" at the moment.

In other words, space exists only at the pleasure of atoms. Space is
not independent of atoms. Space is a derivative or byproduct of the
existence of atoms.

There is a good experiment to verify my above claims. If my claims are
true then the allowed existence of any nucleus isotope would be the
mathematical limits of the nuclear-electrons involved.
Nuclear-electrons are electrons inside neutrons that spill out and run
around holding together the protons in the nucleus. This is the
StrongNuclear Force. But a nuclear-electron has only so much "space" to
contribute as "glue" to hold the proton together. An electron-dot-cloud
uses up its space for the sake of space and none for "glue".

So, now, can you have a helium atom with no neutrons? Can you have a
helium atom with 7 neutrons? Nuclear-electrons provide the answers to
those questions because there is a mathematical relationship of the
limits of nuclear electrons.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:20 pm    Post subject: Re: gravity a fictional force in Atom Totality Re: Can thermodynamics be a subset of the Maxwell Equations

I am having a hard time finding an analogy that will make this easier
to see and understand. But I can talk about it more and by doing so,
will provide clarity.

The Universe is just one big atom and the galaxies are tiny fragments
of the electron mass. What holds the Universe together is the Coulomb
force of the Nucleus with its electrons. In Chemistry and Physics we
have pictures of the electrons of atoms as the "electron-dot-cloud".
Each of those dots is a galaxy and held to the nucleus by the force of
coulomb.

Now, intelligent life in the Milky Way galaxy would look upon the
Cosmos and see that some force holds together the masses of every
object in the Universe. They would call it "gravity". It would have the
same Mathematical Form as the Coulomb force; both inverse square. Both
identical except one has charge and the other has mass and that Coulomb
is approx 10^39 stronger.

In a Big Bang Model, Coulomb and gravity are different and independent
forces. In a Atom Totality, gravity is a fiction, and exists dependent
of Coulomb. In an Atom Totality, when we think we are seeing a force of
gravity, what we really are seeing is the after-effect of what the
Coulomb force is doing on the Sun, planets, stars and galaxies. Gravity
is the after-effect of Coulomb.

It is hard to think of an easy analogy for this. Because it is the
whole of something-- the universe itself. But let me try some feeble
analogy. Remember the game in our youth of the etch-a-sketch where we
have a rectangular heavy box with two knobs that move a cursor either
up and down or sideways. Now think of the picture drawn is gravity. And
think of the mechanism of the two knobs and the inside guts of the game
as the Coulomb force. The picture is merely the endresult, the
after-effect of the mechanism inside the box. The turning of the knobs
has the same formula as what the picture has. And the picture is
dependent, not independent of the knobs.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:37 am    Post subject: Can thermodynamics be a subset of the Maxwell Equations

The idea was launched in a thread of mine about production of ethanol
in petrol based farming.

--- post earlier tonight ---
a_pluton...@hotmail.com wrote:
 Quote: That of course is the 2nd law of thermodynamics with its entropy concept. And the 3 laws of thermodynamics. In short summary, it takes 3 liters of petrol fuel to produce 2 liters of ethanol fuel.

That of course is a 2/3 ratio where 1/3 of the energy is lost. Now I
wonder if the 2nd law of thermodynamics actually gives this ratio.
Something intrinsic to thermodynamics.

This magical number occurs in the Fusion Barrier Principle in that no
fusion tokamak will surpass 2/3 breakeven because the Coulomb force is
interacting with the Faraday law, where one is spherical and the other
is cylindrical and to fit them together is a maximum of 2/3. So the
Maxwell Equations have 2/3 as a limiting barrier.

But is the Maxwell Equations the limiting barrier in the conversion of
petrol to ethanol? Or is it the laws of Thermodynamics? I think it is
the laws of Thermodynamics.

Perhaps maybe Thermodynamics combined with Maxwell Equations that is
the root fundamental physics involved with conversion of corn to
ethanol using petrol.

Now the Germans during WW2 if memory serves me, were able to convert
coal into gasoline or diesel. Is that true? If true, I would be
interested to find out if this magic number of 2/3 occurs here also.
Whether at best, the coal energy gives 2/3 into diesel and the other
1/3 is irretrievably lost.

Now there is a bright spot on the USA future of energy in that our
enormous tar sands and oil shale in the Wyoming and Utah areas. Canada
has already begun conversion of tar sands into gasoline. I do not
suspect this 2/3 ratio occurs in this since it is not really a
conversion but a release of the oil or a refinery action.

All in all, I would say I am much closer to getting at the root of the
problem than I was in previous years discussing petrol based farming.

One thing I know for sure, is that this subject is very deep and
complex and where you think you may have crystal clear answers, turns
out, you just have skimmed the surface.
--- end of post earlier tonight ---

Is Thermodynamics really a aspect of Maxwell Equations? Instead of
charge we have heat.

Is the 2nd law of thermodynamics really that of a version of Faraday's
Law? Is the Coulomb law really of the Conservation of Energy? What
about the 3rd law of zeroth law is it perhaps a Maxwell Equation that
no magnetic monopole?

So that would suggest there is a 4th law of thermodynamics that is the
mirror image of Ampere's law of the Maxwell Eq. Perhaps thermodynamics
as presently understood is lacking in the idea that entropy is a law
itself and separate from the 2nd law. That entropy constitutes a 4th
law of thermodynamics.

Now if I can get away with the above in a schemata like this:
1st law of thermodynamics is the Maxwell Coulomb law
2nd law of thermodynamics is the Faraday law
3rd law of thermodynamics is the Maxwell Gauss law of no magnetic
monopole
4th law of thermodynamics is the entropy concept and is the Ampere law
in Maxwell Eq.

If I can get away with that schemata that heat is just a different form
of charge in electromagnetism and that the Maxwell Eq are another form
of the laws of thermodynamics and vice versa.

Then I can make rightful claim that the conversion of corn farmed in
petrol based agriculture to ethanol meets a barrier of 2/3 where every
2 liters of ethanol produced costs a minimum of 3 liters of petrol.

I think there is much merit to the above schemata. The field of
thermodynamics has always seem foreign or alien to the rest of physics
and seemed to not fit well with other fields. Maybe that is now going
to change. And although electromagnetism has 2 types of charge and heat
seems to be of 1 type can be remedied and is not a fatal flaw.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [6 Posts]
 The time now is Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:34 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics a subset of natural number levine121323@yahoo.com Math 1 Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:17 am Defeating Maxwell's Demon Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:50 pm Iterative solution to non-linear equations laniik Math 5 Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:38 pm Equations Rahul Math 0 Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:06 pm Dense subset of C eugene Math 9 Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:35 am