What's your guys' take on Moving Dimensions Theory? Vs. String Theory / LQG?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect on 7 Nov 2009 12:29 The point in a fact, is that a trying does takes a lot and a lot of a time, as anything along that matter, requires a mostly a mind, whether it is a certainly as it has had been already remarked when, t, is the supposed proposed age of the universe, and, m e, is the mass of an electron, as, m pr, is the mass of the proton, something which let the, G, a constant along the gravitation, as the, c, would remains the speed of light as the, e, the electron charge... Therefore, as according to an infinite amount of hypothesis, the following would be the most plausible along the numbers N1, N2 and root square of N, that would be an equal matter along a small numerical factors along an order unity, but this must be also according to the nature as would requires an eventual formula, like, for instance, N1 = N2, or, N1 = 2N2... For the time being, that, the number like 2, or 3, would not be so different from the I, simply because it would be a smaller than the large numbers along the formula, and would be be what the coefficients, is all about... Therefore, as the N1 would be equal to ct/(e�/mec�)~10coef.40, which would be equal to the supposed (size of the universe)/(electron radius) and N2 would be equal to e�/Gme mpr)~10coef.40... Therefore, which also would be equal to an electromagnetic along a gravitational force among the proton and the electron, and a simply the N, would be equal c� t/Gmpr ~10coef.80, and this is what is all about, whether would requires a define as a definite a changing as the age of the universe along the time, t, as would be as follows, N1~N2~rsqN oo t, and this what is all about, a definitely as a matter a fact... -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestiss�:47019ecb-db9e-41ef-8955-0efcb9c0ddcb(a)k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > This is Conrad Countess > > Ahmed Quahi, Architect what is your theory? > > I want to understand what you are trying to say. > > Conrad J Counteaa
From: cjcountess on 7 Nov 2009 13:47 Ahmed Ouahi, Architect This is Conrad Countess Where did you get that from? What does it actually mean in layman terms? Please don't say that it is only understandable in mathematics, because then I will question if you really understand and know it. No disrespect meant but I can explain everything I say in everyday language For example, if I stated: The ground state energy field expanding at "c" with kinetic energy of "h" on quantum level, might be substituted for the Higg's field, as the inertia foundation upon which all waves and rest mass is builds, as energy oscillates about, analogous to orbiting, at E=hf/c^2. as if "f", the variable, is mass/energy orbiting "h", the constant, which is analogous to and directly proportional to, and in fact equal to F=mm/ r^2 on the quantum level. Could you explain it as simple as that? Conrad Countess
From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect on 7 Nov 2009 14:12 " An extraordinary amount of arrogance is present in any claim of having been the first in inventing something. " -- Benoit Mandelbrot -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestiss�:0523abeb-53fe-4db2-a9c4-134a33f5bf73(a)r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect > > This is Conrad Countess > > Where did you get that from? > > What does it actually mean in layman terms? > > Please don't say that it is only understandable in mathematics, > because then I will question if you really understand and know it. > No disrespect meant but I can explain everything I say in everyday > language > > For example, if I stated: > > The ground state energy field expanding at "c" with kinetic energy of > "h" on quantum level, might be substituted for the Higg's field, as > the inertia foundation upon which all waves and rest mass is builds, > as energy oscillates about, analogous to orbiting, at E=hf/c^2. as if > "f", the variable, is mass/energy orbiting "h", the constant, which is > analogous to and directly proportional to, and in fact equal to F=mm/ > r^2 on the quantum level. > > Could you explain it as simple as that? > > > > Conrad Countess > >
From: cjcountess on 7 Nov 2009 14:35 Ahmed Are you saying you have evedence of someone befor me clearly outlining this? I am not claiming to be the first to invent anything, other than what I here stated, unless someone can point out where it was stated earlier. When I first introduced this idea to sci physics site, lots of so called educated physicist said it did not make sence, so I figured that it must be a new idea, at least in the form in which I presented it. But as it becomes more and more clear through my own discription of it and others discovering it, people are now claiming that it is not new. Oh well, I expected that. But I do have it all on record and can confidently say that even if I were not first to discover it, I am first as far as I know, to have discovered it, and succesesfuly argue it. But what I logged on this time to say is that I looked up the electron "radious/universe age", relationb and found it very interesting. Indeed there nust be a correspondence and proportionality constant that relates both. Furthermore I think that with my clear understanding of the electron radious I might also be able to understant this corelationship as well Thank you Ahmed Conrad J Countess
From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect on 7 Nov 2009 16:44
You are the most welcome! -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestiss�:a7aa83e2-9dce-40a4-a9e1-4891c6604b38(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > Ahmed > > Are you saying you have evedence of someone befor me clearly outlining > this? > > I am not claiming to be the first to invent anything, other than what > I here stated, unless someone can point out where it was stated > earlier. > > When I first introduced this idea to sci physics site, lots of so > called educated physicist said it did not make sence, so I figured > that it must be a new idea, at least in the form in which I presented > it. But as it becomes more and more clear through my own discription > of it and others discovering it, people are now claiming that it is > not new. > Oh well, I expected that. > > But I do have it all on record and can confidently say that even if I > were not first to discover it, I am first as far as I know, to have > discovered it, and succesesfuly argue it. > > But what I logged on this time to say is that I looked up the electron > "radious/universe age", relationb and found it very interesting. > Indeed there nust be a correspondence and proportionality constant > that relates both. > > Furthermore I think that with my clear understanding of the electron > radious I might also be able to understant this corelationship as well > > Thank you Ahmed > > Conrad J Countess |