| Pages:
1
2
3 |
futurenobellaureate
Harmless
Posts: 15
Registered: 14-7-2006
Location: Under The Bridge
Member Is Offline
Mood: nerdy
|
|
theory of all matter
I have come up with a theory for how all matter in the universe was created. It goes below:
Blank universe (no energy or matter) -> change in velocity of universe creates small amount of electrical energy -> small amount of electrical
energy form quarks -> quarks form protons, neutrons, and electrons -> protons, neutrons, and electrons form atoms -> atoms form compounds
-> compounds form matter
This knowledge is useful because it tells us how matter formed, tells us how we can create matter, explains why new elements are constantly being
discovered, and possibly implies that the universe is older than we think. What do you think about this? How can I publish it?
[Edited on 16-7-2006 by futurenobellaureate]
Sciguy
|
|
|
DeAdFX
Hazard to Others
Posts: 339
Registered: 1-7-2005
Location: Brothel
Member Is Offline
Mood: @%&$ing hardcore baby
|
|
I don't follow this section very much but by looking at the other publications I can tell you that you are far from the publishing state. Where are
your sources, background, experimental, conclusion, and fancy graphs .
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
What is " velocity " when there is nothing to relate it to
and velocity is by definition relative .
And what is electrical energy ?
These are entirely nonspecific quantities which are being used in an effort to define specific quantities .
Perhaps the way in which God put everything into being
is something which is not the capability of human thinking to understand even if it were all correctly explained and life was long enough to hear the
complete explanation .
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Seems to me the most likely possibility is that this universe is the result of a compression of a previous "big crunch", essentially the ultimate
expression of gravity and conservation of energy. Hmm, I don't remember the Schwartzchild radius of the estimated universe...
...As for how it got here, it just *IS*. If you need God to explain that, by all means please do. 
Tim
|
|
|
chromium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 284
Registered: 27-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: reactive
|
|
To explain universe (or anything in it) scientiffically you need formulas that describe numerically how things behave. If these (numerical)
descriptions follow facts with greater precision than those we have so far then its considered new and valuable theory. As presented here it is just
"some philosphical thoughts about universe". May be great for sci-fi but not any help for science or technology.
[Edited on 16-7-2006 by chromium]
|
|
|
futurenobellaureate
Harmless
Posts: 15
Registered: 14-7-2006
Location: Under The Bridge
Member Is Offline
Mood: nerdy
|
|
The proofs of my theory are:
1.The fact that Hydrogen has an atomic number of one and an atomic mass of 1.079.
2.The composition of atoms. All atoms in general are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons; suggesting the particles come from a single source.
3.The universe, as we know it, began devoid of matter and energy. This is common sense, because for at least one second, the universe had to be
blank. And in a universe without energy or matter, the only way that the matter could form is through a change in velocity.
An experiment for this would be impossible and without an experiment, I cannot develop a mathematical model for this phenomena.
[Edited on 17-7-2006 by futurenobellaureate]
Sciguy
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Er...okay...those facts have nothing to do with each other, and don't make much sense in and of themselves. For instance, neutrons are related to
protons, but carry no charge; therefore, intuitively, one might suspect they were generated from a different source. You have a *lot* of work to go
before you get a sensible syllogism going there.
1. This means...!? No duh it has an atomic mass of 1 point something, that's how we defined the unit convienient for nuclear-scale masses. What's
that have to do with it being #1?
2. According to current theories, protons and neutrons (and other complex, heavy particles) condensed from quarks, at an extremely high temperature.
In contrast, electrons are an elementary particle, and coexisted within the quark gas in the first couple nanoseconds of the "Big Bang".
3. A groundless assumption; for all we know, space has dimensions such that the amount of mass/energy remains constant. Conservation of mass/energy
IS supported by the last 15 billion years of observed astronomical evolution. The observation of "empty space" would be a product of attractions, not
so much the inherent properties of space. (For all we know, interstellar or intergalactic space is chock full of exotic stuffs anyway.)
I don't even know what to make of "a change in velocity". How can absolute, impermeable nothingness have velocity? With respect to what? WTF!
Tim
|
|
|
futurenobellaureate
Harmless
Posts: 15
Registered: 14-7-2006
Location: Under The Bridge
Member Is Offline
Mood: nerdy
|
|
Basically, what I am generally saying is that "matter came from energy".
Sciguy
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Matter is energy which is organized and behaving
in a certain way which gives it a definite form .
What is the nature of the energy ?
Did it have an origin and/or ending or is it eternal ?
Why is it organized in certain forms ?
If these things cannot be explained , then what
substance has your theory of matter ?
Also you relate things like time and velocity to a universe
at a point of non-development which was a state of nothingness supposing that such a blank condition existed
for at least " one second " ......during such a condition
when time itself would be irrelevant since time is related
to different progressions of development of one thing
compared to another . When no * things * have yet come to
exist , then neither does time . Because time is a relationship between the workings of one thing as compare to some other thing ....time is relative
and requires different
* things * for comparison . Velocity is a function of distance
travelled and time , and distance is also relative ....so it is clear you are applying quantities which only exist in an
already existant universe , and have no form yet in a universe not yet existant . This is oxymoronic .
[Edited on 18-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by futurenobellaureate
Basically, what I am generally saying is that "matter came from energy". |
Well, it certainly did; if you do the calculations, you'll see that, due to the intense temperature of the early (first couple seconds/minutes)
universe (according to Big Bang), so much black-body radiation, matter-antimatter annihilation and whatnot, that energy (primarily as photons, and
probaby as kinetic energy as well) was in excess of the mass-energy of the masses present.
Tim
|
|
|
sparkgap
International Hazard
Posts: 1234
Registered: 16-1-2005
Location: not where you think
Member Is Offline
Mood: chaotropic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by futurenobellaureate
Basically, what I am generally saying is that "matter came from energy". |
Yep. Original.
In any case, if that's that, as you claim, why did you have to spew a cloud of mumbo-jumbo that don't lend credence to your theory anyway?
And yes, would you mind telling us your definition of velocity and *what* exactly changed in velocity in your, ehem, "unique" theory?
sparky (~_~)
"What's UTFSE? I keep hearing about it, but I can't be arsed to search for the answer..."
|
|
|
Marvin
National Hazard
Posts: 995
Registered: 13-10-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The most important part of any theory, is that it must contain a difference to the existing theory that can be tested.
|
|
|
joeman2194
Harmless
Posts: 1
Registered: 18-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
actually, god created the universe in six days... thats how it was created... read yo' genisis boi!
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
If a bear shit in the woods would he have heard the big bang?
If he did, theory proved! If he did not, then another detritical thesis bites the dust.
|
|
|
guy
National Hazard
Posts: 982
Registered: 14-4-2004
Location: California, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Catalytic!
|
|
Hey I was always wondering if exothermic reactions cause loss in mass due to E=mc<sup>2</sup>. Every book, site I have read supports
this, but I was wondering what you guys think.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Not sure where you are getting "every book" but chemical reactions involve electrons, not more massive particles (other than proton donors or
acceptors but really they are not being "lost" anywhere). Any loss would have to be small as electrons are light and the final products should be
electrically neutral for the most part. The only loss of electrons would be from compounds which are sharing electrons to give neutrality meaning yes
there could be less electrons at the finish of a reaction in a given product than the electrons within the original elements which made up that
product. I am sure there can be esoteric reasons I am wrong here but in the final analysis the electrons are so light it would not have a lot of
meaning in terms of mass loss.
[Edited on 19-7-2006 by IrC]
|
|
|
chromium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 284
Registered: 27-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: reactive
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by guy
Hey I was always wondering if exothermic reactions cause loss in mass due to E=mc<sup>2</sup>. Every book, site I have read supports
this, but I was wondering what you guys think. |
They surely cause (as energy always has certain mass according to this formula) but change in mass is so small that we rarely can measure it even if
best manmade devices are used.
[Edited on 19-7-2006 by chromium]
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by futurenobellaureate
The proofs of my theory are:
1.The fact that Hydrogen has an atomic number of one and an atomic mass of 1.079.
2.The composition of atoms. All atoms in general are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons; suggesting the particles come from a single source.
3.The universe, as we know it, began devoid of matter and energy. This is common sense, because for at least one second, the universe had to be
blank. And in a universe without energy or matter, the only way that the matter could form is through a change in velocity.
An experiment for this would be impossible and without an experiment, I cannot develop a mathematical model for this phenomena.
[Edited on 17-7-2006 by futurenobellaureate] |
Reminds me of Archimedes Plutonium 
Do we have a serious troll????
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by guy
Hey I was always wondering if exothermic reactions cause loss in mass due to E=mc<sup>2</sup>. Every book, site I have read supports
this, but I was wondering what you guys think. |
Even better still 
Does a burned out light bulb whose envelope and seal is intact ......have less weight than when it was new ?
|
|
|
guy
National Hazard
Posts: 982
Registered: 14-4-2004
Location: California, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Catalytic!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Rosco Bodine
| Quote: | Originally posted by guy
Hey I was always wondering if exothermic reactions cause loss in mass due to E=mc<sup>2</sup>. Every book, site I have read supports
this, but I was wondering what you guys think. |
Even better still
Does a burned out light bulb whose envelope and seal is intact ......have less weight than when it was new ? |
A light bulb as far as I know does not undergo chemical reactions. It heats up due to energy supplied.
The energy loss is very very very little for chemical reactions that it has not been conformed experimentally. Example, 1 Kg of TNT will lose
1/10,000,000 of a kg.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
I would guess that there is some small loss in mass for the burned out light bulb even if the vapors from the burned out filament are condensed on the
inside of the glass . I have no data to support that guess , it is just my guess that some small part of that incandescent filament
did not remain as intact matter within that glass envelope , but likely as ions or other particles escaped .
I could be wrong , but I can't find any data on this either way .
The loss of mass for purely chemical reactions would
probably correspond to the change of energy associated
with electrons populating different orbital shells , the
transition to a lower energy state for electrons in the compounds formed as reaction products , corresponding
with a very tiny loss in mass . Only nuclear reactions
would show a substantial change in mass , and of course a lot greater energy associated with the greater change
in mass .
|
|
|
tumadre
Hazard to Others
Posts: 171
Registered: 10-5-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There is a loss of mass in a light bulb because a good 550 watt halogen lamp will lose half its tungsten, and become half as bright by the time it
burns out, and the tungsten is not visable on the glass, as it can be is smaller lamps.
correct me if i'm wrong but the pressure in halogen bulbs during operation can be several hundred pounds.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Please stop, my brain can't take the pain. Everythying inside the light bulb is still there. No difference in weight. The tungsten is still in there,
even a pet chimp knows this much.
"as energy always has certain mass according to this formula"
Not true. A photon obeys that formula but has no mass. It has momentum. In effect the momentum would be the mass equivalent just as gravity would be
felt whether on earth or inside an elevator under a steady 1g acceleration, meaning the equivalency between the attraction between masses and
acceleration is like unto the equivalency between mass and momentum . The m in mc2 would be the momentum equivalent and the numbers would come out the
same. When electrons and a positrons collide you find photons with the energy (frequency) directly equivalent to the mass of the particles, so e=mc2
still holds. Again, this does not give the photon the right to claim it has mass.
|
|
|
Marvin
National Hazard
Posts: 995
Registered: 13-10-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It has no *rest* mass, I'm not sure that amounts to the same thing as your argument.
Einsteins general theory is beyond me, but a ray of light bends due to gravity of a star, it therefore seems reasonable to suspect a force must also
be felt by the star.
With regard to the lightbulb, if we assume it to be a truly sealed container with no atoms exscaping or entering then we still have the seperation of
the filement. Breaking metalic bonds requires energy, so we'd expect the bulb with the filiment spread over a larger surface area to be heavier than
a new one.
|
|
|
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by woelen
Reminds me of Archimedes Plutonium
Do we have a serious troll???? |
Indeed, all of the few Futurenobellaureate's posts up to now were more or less obvious trolling. Some might be considered a joke like this one, but it
gets quite annoying after some time. Especially if considering that such an attitude is nothing else but mocking on this forum and its members (not
that I take that personally, but nevertheless…).
PS: However, I must admit that his nickname is just perfect for a troll. I appreciate such creative imagination.
…there is a human touch of the cultist “believer” in every theorist that he must struggle against as being
unworthy of the scientist. Some of the greatest men of science have publicly repudiated a theory which earlier they hotly defended. In this lies their
scientific temper, not in the scientific defense of the theory. - Weston La Barre (Ghost Dance, 1972)
Read the The ScienceMadness Guidelines!
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
