A different theory

Dear Shaddow,

Thanks for the return reply, and for that bit of useful insight into randoms. This will be useful in contemplating new theories on order and chaos. As of right now I do not have access to a super computer to do any real world simulations. However, I will look around and seek out some friends of mine who are better with computers then I am and see if they can put together a basic model.

I would have to say that the model for right now applies to subatomic particals at the quantum level; though, I would have to say that the concentric space rings within rings model would also apply to planetary processes and to large interstellar interactions as well.

The theory that I have proposed is backed up by measurements that have already been made. For instance, an electron orbiting an atom, during a high energy interaction, say when the medium is bombarded by high energy radio waves, appears to be more point pointlike when viewed by the measuring equipment. conversely, an electron orbiting an atom during a low energy interaction, say when the medium is bambarded with low energy radio waves, appears to be less point like and more like a cloud. The uncertainty principle explains this as the electron having more time to occupy different points enabling the electron to be less point like.

I expound on this observation by presenting the above stated theory which I gathered by considering the big bang theory. I quesioned whether or not the current observable data could also be true if the universe was at a constant size and did not expand. I found that it could, if space were being added to the volume of the universe allowing for the universe to have a conserved circumferance, but an every increasing volume of space. I quickely ascertained the affect that this increasing volume of space would have on ordinary energy if energy was increasing volume at a slower rate then space, or if energy were not increasing volume at all. For, knowing that energy occupies space I was able to ascertain, by already existant mathematics, that energy occupies space, and by definition, if energy expands to occupy a greater volume of space, as we observe a magnetic field does, the energy decreases density. We can see this with a magnetic field, the greater the cirumferance the lesset the density of the magnetic field, which is energy in the form of light. Now, mathematically speaking, there is no difference between energy moving/expanding to occupy a stationary vollume of space, and space moving,or, filling a volume of stationary energy.

Whether energy expands to occupy a greater volume space, or whether that greater volume of space is compressed into that quantity of energy makes no difference for either way energy ends up occupying a greater volume of space and therefore decreases in density.

Conversely, if you were to vacuum out a volume of space from a quantity of energy, then the energy would be occupying a smaller volume of space, and therefore, would increase in density.

So, by observing allready published experiments that have shown that an electron, a quantity of energy, compressed to a smaller size and increases in density when the overall energy density present in the medium that the electron exists within, we observe the theory in action.

For, as the energy density increase space is forced out of the medium and since the space that the electron occupies is also dimenished the electron has less space to occupy and therefore, " appears more point like during high interactions".

So, alot of the ground work for this theory is already layed in that this theory is supported by the current model and only adds to what is already commonly known amongst physicists.

Any how I will look into extablishing a model that encorporates numerical values. The model is the same for strong force but since strong force increases density as it expands, the mechanics for this theory, when applied to strong force, will look a little different. But since strong force is energy and occupies space, when the density of strong force increases the density of space will decrease.

Regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen
 
[email protected], I just want to let you know that I've been following your interesting research. Please take this as congratulations, and I prefer not to get your reply. I just feel happy for expressing my comments. To all: I'm not upset, I'm happy instead. "Looking for friends not for trouble" (not a complain) "Not trying to impose or criticizing. I'm trying to be part of you".
 
Dear Celebi,

Thanks for the reply and I appologize for the delay in replying to some of your posts. I do all my posting on a public computer that is on a timer so I usually only have time to reply to either, one post and one e-mail, or one indepth e-mail or indepth post perday. This makes it time consuming to get around to everyone but I try to get to everyone who I believe I can contribute something useful to.

Any how, most of of time I reply based on the subject matter. If what is being discussed is something that I recognize and that I can expound upon, I then reply as best as I can either to refute,support, or both, the idea being expressed.

Regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen

P.S.

We are all friends here and since you post here consider yourself a friend of ours as well. On behalf of the rest of this board-if this is ok- I would like to formally welcome Celebi to this forum. We look forward to sharing our thoughts with your and to recieving whatever valuable input you so wish to post.

Take Care,

Your friend,and Co-Researcher,

Edwin G. Schasteen
 
rgrunt...

Would the density at the edge of the universe be denser than the central point?.. acting much like a wave spreading outward...and if so, it would make sense that the measure of chaos would be greater on the edge farthest from the original point.
Chaos then being high density energy and Order low density energy. Sense?

Be safe and dream sweetly

WS

PS If I ever win the lottery, I will personally pay for your college *little smile*
 
Dear WanderingSoul,

Thankyou for the reply. Yes I believe that would be correct. The density of energy and order would dimenish to zero when compared, or measured in terms of space-time density and chaos. Since chaos counters order and vice-versa, then the density of order would diminish to zero as the density of disorder, would rise to infinity. Even if the universe does not extend to infinity, for beyond the universes edge would lie infinity since clearly a region beyond the borders of this universe is independent of this universe. The only connection between what lies outside the edge of the universe and what lie inside the universe is the edge of the universe.

I must expound to point out that if my space ring model is correct then the number of infinitely small points would have multiplied as the universe expanded at the big bang. For as the outer most rings of space were connected to the inner most rings via hyperbolic vortexes that torque between 0 and 180 degrees between each space ring would result in a constriction of the vortex at its center to a singularity which is a zero point. So infact the point from the center mass of the universe would be replicated with each spacering since each space ring is connected by a series of hyperbolic vortexes. With each new point we have a brand new full circumferance or space ring and a temperal delay between the points. I would say that mostly the order in each of these rings is primarily determined by a single point which is one of these replicated points which is located at the centermass of these systems. Because each of these points' existances were caused by the oringonal point at the center of the universe there would be delay between each point as measured from the centermass of the universe to the universes edge. For this reason the order in these systems will not decrease to zero unless all the points in the universe are accounted simultaneously.

Regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen
 
Back
Top