Physics Help Forum My hypothesis of energy and time-space

 Physics Physics Forum - General Physics Discussion and Physics News

 Jan 14th 2017, 02:19 AM #1 Junior Member   Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 2 My hypothesis of energy and time-space I can't post the whole paper here so I added it to a google document. I'm also looking for some mathematics and physics gurus to help me with the maths behind this. I'm also open to suggestions and constructive criticism. Here's the link : https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4...ldRWUMtVHNIc2M
 Jan 14th 2017, 08:40 AM #2 Senior Member   Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 240 You start off by saying that0 $\displaystyle e= mc^2$ means that "as energy accelerates with the speed of light ($\displaystyle c^2$) it becomes matter". That is wrong for a number of reasons. First energy does not "accelerate" and the speed of light is "c" not "$\displaystyle c^2$, but I would accept those as typos. What is important is that $\displaystyle e= mc^2$ has nothing to do with motion at all- it is true of mass-energy in an atom sitting still. One couldn't make an atomic bomb if it had to be moving near the speed of light! You also say "as we know as speed becomes bigger than the speed of light the time itself reverses". No, we don't know that! In fact, we know it is not[ true. It is the case that if one puts a speed greater than c into the time dilation formula you get an imaginary result which some people interpret as "reversing" time. But all that says is that if you put in impossible values to start with, you get an impossible result- garbage in-garbage out. What relativity says is that it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light. Please actually take a course in "relativity" or at least read a good book on it before saying things like this. You keep saying "we know" about things that simply are not true. topsquark likes this.
 Jan 14th 2017, 03:46 PM #3 Junior Member   Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 2 Thanks for the reply. First off I want to thank you for your reply which was very pertinent. I want to start by thanking you for pointing out that I wrote c^2 instead of c, I was a little tired when I wrote it. Also radioactive matter fits in a different category in my hypothesis, one that I haven't wrote yet. Radioactive matter is denser than normal, it can't hold itself together and looses energy, when that loose energy level gets big enough (critical mass) it alters the structure of the atom itself breaking it apart. Second, it doesn't move at the speed of light, check Fig. 2 (4th drawing), in my hypothesis, the energy simply becomes "localized" because the space-time gathers "in front" sending it to zero time, zero space, I know I didn't explain it very well (that's my fault, what I wanted to point out is that energy and matter as we know it could be just bent space). And yes, you are right I shouldn't use the words "we know" on theories that haven't been proved in an experimental manner. Also you're looking at this hypothesis in the wrong way, because your mindset is in all you've learned in school, try looking at it with an open mind as an alternative to current explanations. P.S. I'm sorry I can't explain it well enough, English is not my native language.
Jan 17th 2017, 09:08 AM   #4
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 240
 Originally Posted by PhonEtic First off I want to thank you for your reply which was very pertinent. I want to start by thanking you for pointing out that I wrote c^2 instead of c, I was a little tired when I wrote it. Also radioactive matter fits in a different category in my hypothesis, one that I haven't wrote yet. Radioactive matter is denser than normal, it can't hold itself together and looses energy, when that loose energy level gets big enough (critical mass) it alters the structure of the atom itself breaking it apart. Second, it doesn't move at the speed of light, check Fig. 2 (4th drawing), in my hypothesis, the energy simply becomes "localized" because the space-time gathers "in front" sending it to zero time, zero space, I know I didn't explain it very well (that's my fault, what I wanted to point out is that energy and matter as we know it could be just bent space).
If you don't know how to "explain it", then you don't know what you are saying! In particular, saying "matter as we know it could be just bent space" simply doesn't make sense! What in the world do you mean by it? How "bent space" affects matter (indeed, what "bent space" means) is well known to physicists.

 And yes, you are right I shouldn't use the words "we know" on theories that haven't been proved in an experimental manner. Also you're looking at this hypothesis in the wrong way, because your mindset is in all you've learned in school, try looking at it with an open mind as an alternative to current explanations. P.S. I'm sorry I can't explain it well enough, English is not my native language.
I am going to assume that is why you do not realize how insulting your assumptions about me are.

Jan 17th 2017, 09:49 AM   #5

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,152
 Originally Posted by PhonEtic Also you're looking at this hypothesis in the wrong way, because your mindset is in all you've learned in school, try looking at it with an open mind as an alternative to current explanations.
I don't find your comment to be insulting, just tiresome. In general the assumptions that many people use when discussing new ideas are to call them hypotheses and to start tearing down the established structure. The problem with these assumptions is that their statements aren't hypotheses at all (hypotheses require some sort of collection of facts, which they never post) and they don't actually know that much about the theory they are trying to disprove.

Einstein is one of my buddies. I'm not talking about the Relativity theories here (though they are good). I'm talking about Quantum Mechanics. It is well known that Einstein didn't like Quantum Mechanics as it was developing. The thing is that he fully understood the theory that was being constructed and put forth a number of tests that it should be able to pass. In fact his suggestions were a good test bed for experimentation and actually helped QM to develop! That is how you need to work in order to advance Science.

Long story short: Know the theory you are trying to debunk. Then and only then you can try to replace it using the Scientific Method.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Tags energy, hypothesis, timespace

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Hero Energy and Work 27 Nov 9th 2015 03:49 PM MaartenV Special and General Relativity 4 Nov 26th 2013 12:09 PM Troll Philosophy of Physics 1 Aug 27th 2013 08:58 PM mars shaw Special and General Relativity 2 Aug 30th 2009 07:55 AM Ahmed Adel Theoretical Physics 0 Nov 28th 2008 11:21 PM