Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:

# My Energy and force theory

page: 1
0

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:50 AM
This theory is my latest theory, and like always please tell me if you find something wrong with it, please criticise it.

My first law is :
An object will look to stabilise its energy content unless forced to change ie. this law is basically Newton's law of Inertia, except I have brought energy into the law.

An example that shows this law is the photoelctric effect.
In the Photoelectric effect, the energy of the wave = energy of electron released. What must be noticed is that when extra energy was added by the wave to the object(which would be a metal), an electron was released with the same energy as the wave to keep the energy constant in the object. The object has rejected additional energy, proving part of my first law.

Now my law also states that the energy of an object can change if forced to. By 'forced to', I mean literally to exert a force on it. When enough of the force is exerted, the object will move or gain in kinetic energy.

The underlined statement is very important and leads me to my 2nd law, which is probably the most important:

Force and energy are directly convertible. But act in opposite directions.

This means lets say we exert a force on an object from one side, as we exert the force on the object, the object will gain in energy. But the energy of the object will be more concentrated on the side where the force was exerted, and will decrease as distance from the side or force increases.

Why is this anything we should be bothered about ?

Because the fact that energy can be concentrated in one section, and will gradually fade out as distance from that section increases implies that energy fades out in a radial way, and there are points of 'peak energy'.

Now perhaps we can explain gravity. ( bear in mind that I said Force and energy act in opposite directions in my 2nd law)

E = mc^2 shows mass contains energy. I have just said that energy fades out radially, energy is directly convertible to force, and energy and force act in opposite directions. Therfore, energy in a mass spreads out radially past the boundary of the mass. Now since energy can turn into force, this energy that has spread radially away from the mass can now be manifested as force, and since energy and force act in different directions, this force will act in the opposite direction and actually act toward the piece of mass !

What do you think ! What is so good about my theory is that it can explain in the same way the electromagnetic force and perhaps the weak and strong nuclear forces ( although I lack knowlege about them, therefore, I have not seen if my theory works for them as well). My theory links all forces.

I shall explain how my theory explains elctromagnetism once I get responses for this thread.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by siddharthsma
An object will look to stabilise its energy content unless forced to change ie. this law is basically Newton's law of Inertia, except I have brought energy into the law.

What do you mean by this? How does it look to stabilise its energy content?

An example that shows this law is the photoelctric effect.
In the Photoelectric effect, the energy of the wave = energy of electron released. What must be noticed is that when extra energy was added by the wave to the object(which would be a metal), an electron was released with the same energy as the wave to keep the energy constant in the object. The object has rejected additional energy, proving part of my first law.

Ok, now this sounds like a take on another of Newton's Law. Does this happen at all scales? Will it happen on a galactic scale or intermediate scale?

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 11:00 AM
Quote : What do you mean by this? How does it look to stabilise its energy content? End of Quote

Sorry I was unclear about this. By Stabilise I mean an object will always look to remain in its present energy state or condition. It will not want any additional energy or it will not want to lose energy either. It will reject additional energy or energy loss.

Quote : Ok, now this sounds like a take on another of Newton's Law. Does this happen at all scales? Will it happen on a galactic scale or intermediate scale? End of Quote

Yes it will happen on a galactic scale. An example is Inertia shown by an object, where an object tries to reject additional energy.

new topics

0