So I solved dark energy...

Post Reply New Topic

And no one wants to acknowledge it.

The gravitational field is a particle field.
The particles are one dimensional.
Photons are one dimensional particles travelling two dimensional paths in the particle field.
Matter is the same particle spun up into a local, chaotic 3D path.
Electrons are between, discs that act as monopoles.

E/M=C^2 where E gets smaller as the field increases (aka spacetime now photontime), M gets bigger (wave equation) and C^2 represents time as a cross section of the particle field indicating density of the field.

Dark energy is particles being displaced from the gravitational field by trapping them in stars as they are spun up to higher energies in the intense particle fields. Dark matter is the particle field.

Hermit. Once daily checks, mostly.

I love what you said and I wish I understood a word of it. It's always been that way with me - a great love for science - unrequited love.

You mentioned spacetime. This does not exist, right? You used the word photontime. Is that universally accepted?

Can you help me with one-dimensional? I can't wrap my head around it.

I'm sorry, maybe it's because you never defined what E,M, or C is that I am left to assume E=energy, M = mass, C= the speed of light squared. If that is the case I'd love to know how Energy divided by Mass equals Light squared. I'd also love to know the rest of the formula for how you got to that equation as an answer. If you would like people to believe you you may want to show the work.

There is a current theory on dark energy and it's a fairly elegant answer using already known physics and math. It was released from the University of British Columbia. They surmise that vacuum energy is dark energy and the amounts in volume can make it behave in either expanding or contracting ways. It was published roughly a month ago.

Uhm... Facebook page has the deep info. Scott Van Note, skinny aspie wizard.

One dimensional collisions continue on in the same plane. If they always turn to the same side after a collision then they will form spirals in afield of like particles.

The wave equation shows the probability of the particle "appearing" at a location on the surface of the proton.
These are the spots where photons bond to the surface and give attach points to the electrons.

Einstein said that " E = mc squared".

So logically E/M would equal C squared.

The reason for this is that you must clarify your definitions and then provide a sound mathematical proof. Perhaps you are on to something, and my aim is not to discourage you, but assist you in proving your theory. So I will be asking questions and for clarification and so on.

The gravitational field is a particle field.[/quote]

Do you mean gravitons?



Do you mean spatially or otherwise?



Again, do you mean spatially, or otherwise? I've not heard of photons being described as one dimensional before.



I don't know what this phrase means. Please clarify. It seems similar to something called projection. For example, a shadow is a 2D projection of a 3D object. Is this what you are speaking of?



What kind of discs? This is a new concept to me. How about a diagram?



E can't get smaller as M gets bigger because that would change C, and C is a constant as far as anyone knows. For example, if C were 2 (it isn't of course but we will assume it is), C^2 would be 4.

So let's say that E = 12 and M = 3 so that E/M = 12/3 = 4 = C^2 thus E/M = C^2 as you have stated above.
Given that, then if we increase M to 6, to keep C^2 = 4 and C = 2, we must increase E to 24.

If you have determined that C isn't a constant, you would have to demonstrate mathematically how all of the other proofs of C being a constant are invalid, and you would likely win a Nobel Prize, or at least become very famous.



I think I understand. You are proposing that these particles do not manifest as mass until they are "spun up" into the 3D world, but when they become trapped in a star during this process, we see the effects of the mass but not the mass itself?

There's an idea called the hologram universe, which proposes the universe actually exists in a lower dimension form, and the universe we observe is an illusion. Much like all of the information in a hologram is stored on a 2D surface, and is then projected into a 3D image, or like all of this we see here on the screen in front of us is actually some projection of the that which represents the 1's and 0's on hard drives. So I don't refute your theory but you do need to present it in the form of a formal proof for any peer review committee to look at it. I recommend starting with a book of how to do mathematical proofs.
Hermit. Once daily checks, mostly.[/quote]

I'm a sculptor. Don't have access to the process of peer review.
I tried to contact physicists and mathematicians for assistance, but was completely ignored.
I have the model.

And spending most of my daily effort just thinking it through and describing what I can.

Single atom, start small = big circles, add energy to gain size/velocity and more collisions cause tighter circles in the same density field. Extrapolate to spinning disc in field for electron. Extrapolate to spinning within the length of particle to get chaotic environment. Use chaos iterative structures to explain periodic table.

As I said, the proofs have to be written in formal manners, much like book manuscripts must be in a certain format.



You may PM it to me if you wish.



I don't understand what you are saying here. Use complete sentences. What does "Start small = big circles" mean? How does adding energy increase their size and how do collisions cause tighter circles? Do you mean the added energy increases the energy levels of the electrons of the atom? Are you talking about thermal kinetic energy?

well you may have "solved" some manner of philosophically conceiving of it, but i have also given much thought to the matter, but i never "solved it"

anyway, energy, being the constituent of mass (or in other words "matter") implies that dark energy is the constituent of dark "matter" (or in other words "mass").

the idea of "dark" is enlisted to describe the fact that the dark matter emits no energy, and therefore is invisible, but is a necessary building block to account for the gravity that holds spiral structures together like galaxies, which do not have enough "perceivable" mass (therefore gravity) to hold the structure in place.

so does mass create gravity? or does gravity create mass?
if there was no gravity, then no sub atomic particles would ever have assembled into an atom (mass), but if there were no particles, then gravity would not be operative or existent in any way.

so visible energy is energy that has coalesced into matter that is radioactive and decays, and dark energy is energy that has coalesced into a dormant state. it would have to have a temperature of zero degrees kelvin to be dark.

but what if there was nothing but infinite gravity in a universe of empty space?
space is really nothing but "room"

there could not be infinite gravity in an empty universe because it takes mass to create gravity, and also gravity to create mass.

so it has to be a simultaneous equation to be looked for.

so i am not the brightest mind in the world and i will never solve it, but here is some stuff i did to think about it......no variables defined and hard to see but the point is that mathematics is the only vehicle that can be used to travel to an explanation.

this is an interesting thought:

the 0th dimension is a "point"
a point has no width or height or length.
it has no volume, and therefore does not exist. it is merely a location.


however the infinite space that exists in the universe is composed of infinite points.
if points did not exit, then space would not exist either.
but if points have no dimension, and all space (the 3rd dimension) is composed of them, then infinite nothings make an infinite something.

that means infinity multiplied by zero is infinity.

infinity is the boss in that clash of the titans.

infinity has been driving me crazy for ages!
i tried to research what you said in this post but didn't get very far.

except for this: the operations of zero do not work on infinity because infinity is not a number.
maybe that's a baby-step.

and this: n x infinity = infinity, because the operation can never cease.
and so maybe: 0 x infinity = 0, because the operation can never start.

infinity is pretend, right?

Unfortunately your photos are too blurry for me to make out.

You are correct. Though I wouldn't say it's pretend. Rather, it's a concept.

Thank you.
Do I understand correctly that infinity is a concept, an idea without proof, of human invention?
Why don't we just ditch this maddening concept?
Oh, because it helps our equations come out nicely?
We base mathematics/physics on a convenient concept of our own creation?
<runs screaming from the room>

The Universe is something which can be speculated on endlessly---and much of the speculation could turn out to be correct.

However, I find that one really cannot determine the complete efficacy of any cosmological theory until one actually experiences travel away from the confines of the Earth/Moon system.

I tend to believe, "on faith," that the Universe is infinite.

You experienced travel away from the confines of the Earth/Moon system? You didn't send me a postcard!