metacogitans

If you can express that section of the 3 dimensional shape in 2 dimensions, you can do this. But if you look at the third picture closely, there's not really an easy way to write a function for that curve without using multiple variables. I posted the problem in /r/mathematics and no one's solved it there yet either. That makes me assume there's a huge drop-off between Calc II and Calc III

So as some here may know, I've been teaching myself calculus. I learned differentiation and finding tangent lines to curves using infinitesimals with a little help from my friend's calc book; then about a year later I finally grasped the fundamental theorem of calculus after someone pointed me to an illustration on wikipedia which showed that the addition of an infinitely thin rectangle in relation to a section of area under a curve ends up working out to differentiation, except giving you the function for the curve instead of a derivative, meaning that inverse differentiation is used for finding the area under a curve. Then after that, with much struggle and confusion trying to understand differential operators and things like "the chain rule" all of which I had skipped over, I was eventually able to figure out implicit differentiation and actually make sense of it - which was the last problem I asked at this forum: finding the area under circles. Now, I'm finally moving on to the big boy calculus and am attempting to take on multivariable calculus. I find it easiest to learn by asking a problem and watching how its solved, so here it is: The equation in question is z = x^2 + y^2 + 2x + 2y + 2 The graphed equation looks like a sort of circular parabola bowl. Now, what I want to find is the 2 dimensional area under that shape's curve between the x values 0 and -3 on the line y=2x Edit: fixed the problem; the problem I had up before was unsolvable This is the 3 dimensional function: And this is the line segment that I want to find the 2 dimensional area of underneath the curve of the 3d function: Any takers? I'm looking for how you found the solution; the solution itself isn't that important.

Zitterbewegung is the hypothetical rapid trembling motion of subatomic particles, which is sporadic in different directions and could be thought of more or less as occurring in every direction due to how rapid the sporadic changes in direction are. If it exists, it would supposedly be caused by fluctuations in positive and negative fields around/nearby the particle, such as from other particles, and this would mean that Zitterbewegung becomes more intense when particles are grouped together. So, if we assume Zitterbewegung exists as a property of all matter and all of those facts about it are true, it would end up producing an effect very similar to gravity would it not? Imagine a lone particle traveling through space, going past a group of particles all experiencing zitterbewegung with each other. As the lone particle gets closer, it starts to experience zitterbewegung. The more it experiences zitterbewegung, the more it picks up more zitterbewegung, because as its trembling sporadically in different directions, every time it trembles in the direction of the group of particles it would pick up more zitterbewegung from them and start to move farther towards them each time it trembled towards them. That would be pretty indistinguishable from gravity wouldn't it? Also, looking at the Einstein Field Equations, the gravitational constant present in the equations (which was carried over from Newtonian gravity and is the same plain old meters/second constant it was in classical physics) describes a force and how it behaves, but doesn't describe where that force actually comes from. The tensors in the rest of the Einstein Field Equations describe warped space-time for us, but don't forget that without the gravitational constant in the equation, warped space-time does not produce free-fall by itself (it would cause the trajectory of moving objects to curve, but not free-fall). So, there most definitely is still missing puzzle pieces (in the field equations themselves even) that General Relativity didn't give an explanation for. From the wikipedia article on Zitterbewegung, there's not much proof of it existing, but there's not much proof that it doesn't exist either. It would stand to reason that subatomic particles should be experiencing some kind of trembling motion anyways just from random fields affecting them, like just from background radiation for example. And it would also seem logical that anytime a particle with a charge moves at all, the field of its charge moving would cause a fluctuation in other nearby fields and would influence other nearby particles slightly. If that influence were strong enough, it could cascade causing acceleration resembling gravity,

I think there might be two opposing forces causing them to evaporate at the same rate: while salted water may evaporate slower, the overall percentage of mass that is H2O is less, so there is less water that has to evaporate overall.

I thought of doing this, but in order to be scientific I would have to control all the variables of the experiment, which would require making sure they get the same amount of sunlight at the same angle and I'd have to calculate all that, and also set up duplicates of the same experiment to make sure there aren't inconsistencies in the results, and after all that, a decent amount of water would take days to evaporate - animals might come drink the water at night (or during the day for that matter). And I'd have to keep checking on them during the experiment, and to be honest I'm just too lazy to do all that. Thanks for setting up the experiment! And sounds like it's the right weather for it too.

By 'heavily salted' I mean with table salt, NaCl, and nothing else. Both bowls sitting in the sun; assume they are both under the same conditions; both receive the same amount of sun light, one isn't sitting somewhere that's windier or anything. And if there would be a difference, how would sea salt hold up versus table salt? And bringing up wind just made me think of a bonus question: would water evaporate quicker in a location that is windy or slightly breezy? Yes, it is a question of air water-vapor saturation versus keeping heat from sunlight hitting the water close to the water as long as possible to aid in evaporation. My guess is that a slight breeze across the top of the surface of the water (but not disturbing it) would help only if the water was already very warm, on a day that is very humid. If I were stuck back in ancient times, lacking a chemistry book, periodic table, and the internet of course, and had only my very limited knowledge of chemicals and materials in nature -- if I for some reason felt myself to become the Renaissance man of the age and try to develop the science of chemistry and advance it out alchemy, I personally would view the safest place to start when handling an unknown type of chemical found in, say, a new type of rock the villagers dug up or something, would be placing it in water and letting the water to evaporate, and see how it compared to sea salt - and then start trying to piece together deductions of how similar it is to sea salt. I suppose someone more knowledgable in chemistry than me would already know ways to determine what most everything if not everything is if stuck in the ancient world trying to make your own chem lab, I'm sure some know how to visually identify most substances in nature. Perhaps if my evaporation technique proved too slow or as not giving enough useful information, I could just start researching substances by taking a flame to it; or if I got my hands on conductive wire, running electricity through things. Those are probably great ways to expose yourself to a ton of toxins and contaminate your work environment though

Does this part of my original post explain where the force behind the gravitational constant comes from? Like, GR doesn't tell you where gravitational attraction comes from, it just shrugs its shoulders and throws in the gravitational constant just like Newtonian gravity. Let's get this straight: GR solves two major problems with Newtonian gravity: 1. It describes gravity so it doesn't violate special relativity. 2. It describes how light is affected by gravity by following the geodesics in curved space-time (I'll just give up on this point; I can't remember why I thought it wasn't true anymore) But although GR is an improvement on the Newtonian theory of gravity, it still doesn't tell us what the force of gravity actually is or where it comes from.... Did I just.. by chance explain where it comes from? Increasing Zitterbewegung of a particle as it approaches a massive object - with the Zitterbewegung being the result of loose radiation diffracted by the massive object hitting the particle in different directions? Makes sense doesn't it? Am I a genius?

Here's the Einstein field equation: Not as crazy mathematically as it looks at first glance; you have some tensors and constants basically. G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light in a vacuum, the capital lambda is the cosmoglogical constant (this is not essential to the equation for gravity, and was added to the equation by Einstein some time later after he introduced the equation) and the tensors from right to left; R mu nu is the Ricci Curvature Tensor, the g mu nu is the metric tensor, R is the scalar curvature, and T mu nu is the stress-energy tensor. We don't need to know the tensors in detail, all we need to know is that they ultimately describe the curvature of the Euclidean grid (space with its own coordinate included) caused by mass, which can be used to calculate the effect of gravity. The equation is often intepretted as 'mass telling space how to be shaped' and 'space telling mass how to move'. Now, that equation is strictly used to calculate an objects path through space-time under the effect of gravity resulting from a given mass; it doesn't tell us whether light is subject to gravity as well - after all, light is massless according to most people you ask. It certainly doesn't make 'precise numerical predictions about gravitational lensing'. The real reason Einstein and co ever thought gravity affected light, and how that played a role in the delevopment of GR, is because of a thought experiment: If you are in a box on Earth with downward gravitational force g, and then you're in a box thats flying in outer space accelerating at the force g, you will not be able to tell the difference between the two. Now, if you shine a light through a window in the box thats flying through outer space, the light would curve towards the floor of the box because it is accelerating. Because of this, it is assumed that light would also curve if shined through a window in the box on Earth due to gravity. That thought experiment lead to a series of deductions which lead to the correct prediction that the time dilation and length contraction described in special relativity must also be true with gravity. But, the idea that gravity bends light ultimately comes from a series of assumptions and thought experiments, and its basis in reality is highly questionable. If you disagree, please explain to me its basis in reality in detail. One thing I was thinking is that light could follow the geodesics in curved spacetime described by GR, but is not subject to gravitational attraction (light won't enter free fall or accelerate exponentially due to gravity) since light is massless. Those geodesics are, I believe, the consequence of another phenomenon: there is no objective notion of 'location, or, 'there is no underlying grid of space'. Whatever 'space' is, it has to be made of something, and since two things can not occupy the same location simultaneously, an object/particle with mass displaces space, causing space to have a higher density around the massive particle/object. This ties in with the idea that a particle only has location relative to other particles it is in immediate contact with in its surroundings. So does that mean light is subject to gravitation though really? Light doesn't start accelerating exponentially due to gravity. Or is it just the path light takes when travelling through certain mediums? That only explains the geodesics of space-time though, right? Which is only one part of General Relativity's explanation for gravity. Like, light is not experiencing attraction from gravity, it's just moving through 'stuff', which is all that space is: 'stuff' in a big soup with other 'stuff', and having 'a bunch of stuff' in a small region of space results in that 'bunch of stuff' displacing the 'stuff' and giving it a higher density in certain regions than others. So when light appears to be taking a curved path, the path it took was actually a straight line through 'stuff' (with 'stuff' being whatever spacetime itself is made out of).

What proof is there other than gravitational lensing during a solar eclipse? Consider: a) all the examples of 'gravitational lensing' occuring in pictures taken by hubble are obscured depictions of it, and none show with a decent certainty that gravity is responsible; it could be just as likely that the lensing was caused by light diffracting as it travels through a medium (i.e., space dust). b) a picture of a black hole where light is lensing dramatically due to gravity would be sufficient enough evidence to close the books on this case; unfortunately, Hubble nor anything/anyone else has ever taken a picture of such a thing - every picture you've seen of a black hole online with light bending wildly around it was simulated. If the gravitational lensing observed during the 1919 Solar Eclipse Experiment is the only evidence (where the change in location is significant enough that the distance it moved is noticeable with the naked eye) we have supporting the idea that gravity bends light due to the geodesics of 'warped spacetime', then this idea that gravity affects light, which is popularly included in the philosophy behind General Relativity, seems fairly unfounded. The idea is commonly packaged as part of the philosophy behind General Relativity; although in a strictly mathematical sense, the field equations in General Relativity tell us nothing about how light behaves - it is strictly a set of mathematical equations for calculating gravity produced by mass - so I'm not saying that General Relativity is wrong, just that the philosophy often promoted alongside it as an approach to the concepts is wrong. The tensors, of course, involve a Euclidean grid that is warped, hence 'warped space-time', but any physics using tensor calculus also involves changes in a Euclidean grid, and someone could come along and call it 'warped space-time' (assuming time is included as its own coordinate) if they wanted to, and be just as correct. As an alternative explanation to the 1919 Solar Eclipse Experiment, we could, for example, say that as the light passed by the sun, it interacted with gas particles in the sun's upper atmosphere, causing it to bend (the same as it would when passing through any medium where density increases). If that's the case, then maybe we could take an alternative approach to the philosophy behind 'warped space-time' described in General Relativity as well. Let me make it clear though that I am not posting my own alternative theory. I repeat, I am not posting my own alternative theory. If I was posting an alternative theory, the equation would have to be different, but the math is exactly the same, I'm still using the field equations in GR - so I'm not posting a made up alternative theory and not breaking any rules. Just making that clear. I'm just posting a different possible approach to the concepts in General Relativity, like how there's multiple different ways people go about long hand multiplication, some people start at the left digit, some people start at the right digit, some people break the number they're multiplying up into chunks - all approaches give you the right answer, and just because your approach is different doesn't mean it somehow ceased to be multiplication and became some arbitrary 'alternative' alchemical ritual of yours that uses bizarre esoteric subscript or something. We can give an explanation for what is actually happening with gravity using General Relativity without just saying 'the underlying grid of space-time itself is curved' and dropping it at that without any further explanation: Bodies of massive particles (be it planets, stars, celestial gas clouds, etcs) essentially act as speed traps for electromagnetic radiation. An electromagnetic wave can not pass right through the body of massive particles, but instead ends up bouncing around back and forth between the particles -- the body of massive particles effectively absorbs the electromagnetic radiation for a short while, slowly dispersing it in various directions. Because of this, bodies of massive particles act like giant hubs of electromagnetic activity -- electromagnetic radiation shoots out randomly from the body of particles in different directions; so for any particle approaching from outer space, the closer it gets to this body of particles, the more it starts getting pushed and pulled in different directions by electromagnetic radiation coming from the body of particles. This vibration in different directions (the German word is Zitterbewegung) means that the closer the particle is to the body of particles, the more it will be vibrating sporadically in all directions, and the longer it takes for the particle to travel the same distance when a force is applied, affecting the particle's initial velocity. Not only will this cause the particle to curve towards the body of particles, but the effect of this phenomenon accumulates exponentially (as the closer it gets to the body of massive particles due to curving towards it, the more its Zitterbewegung will increase from interacting with electromagnetic radiation from the body of massive particles), causing the particle to accelerate. This is mathematically identitcal to the 'spacetime' curvature in a gravity well described by the tensors in the Einstein Field Equations, and we are able to incorporate 'warped space-time' into our understanding of General Relativity without having to say whether light is curved by gravity or not, and also without claiming there's 'underlying grid to the universe called space-time and its responsible for all of gravity'. We are able to explain time-dilation, saying time-dilation occurs the closer you get to a massive object, where the same amount of force applied to an object takes a longer amount of time to make the object move the same distance - except in our new approach, the time-dilation is caused by Zitterbewegung and not the 'invisible grid of space-time underlying everything being curved' without being able to explain what that grid is made of or why mass curves it - in our approach, the grid of 'space-time' is strictly a mathematical device that comes with tensor calculus, which Einstein needed to be able to explain gravity without violating Special Relativity (that was, after all, what General Relativity's goal was). If everything in our approach is flush, then the older popular approach where the "underlying grid of the universe called 'space-time' being curved is the sole source of gravity" seems to be quite wrong; it's an outdated, archaic, and inappropriate (for additional reasons I'll get into shortly) way to be introduced to the concepts of General Relativty If you ask me, Einstein's General Relativity never suggested there to be an underlying grid of 'space-time' in the first place; the tensor calculus used in the Einstein field equations simply describes gravity in terms of a Euclidean grid (where space is given its own coordinate) that is warped. Any physics which uses tensor calculus is also explaining things in terms of changes in a Euclidean grid. Following logic, the burden of proof is on supporters of the idea that gravity affects light, as the result of the solar eclipse experiment was not definite evidence supporting their approach, as other possible explanations exist; it wouldn't be right for the burden of proof to be placed on me to have to disprove their approach without it having evidence to support it in the first place. Why would I have to show proof that gravity doesn't bend light? They still need to prove it does bend light! Both approaches are consistent with the results 1919 Solar Eclipse experiment, as well as the math of the Einstein Field Equations in GR; as far as I see it, both approaches have a similar possibility to be valid given that the only evidence supporting either rests on whether light from the star in the 1919 experiment bent near the sun because of gravity or because it diffracted in the sun's upper atmosphere. In my opinion, my approach makes more sense, and my approach also leaves out one big hole in understanding: If curved space-time were the only factor involved in gravitation, it is a mystery how free-fall can be initiated when an object is at rest relative to the source of the gravity, since in order for curved space-time to produce something resembling gravitation by itself, the object has to be moving. Light takes longer to travel through a medium of massive particles because it ricochets off particles in the medium, causing its path to no longer be a perfectly straight line and therefore making its travel time in one direction longer. When light is being 'held up' in its travel time when passing through a group of massive particles (or in the case of denser groups or 'bodies' of massive particles, like planets and stars, the light is absorbed and slowly disperses from the group/body of particles in many directions), the light is being diffracted by the medium (although for denser groups of particles, 'diffracted' might not be the most appropriate term), which causes the radiation to contribute to the Zitterbewegung (German for trembling motion) of any particles it interacts with. This Zitterbewegung, assuming it is being experienced in all directions by a particle, affects the particles velocity in the same way as curved space-time traditionally does in General Relativity; simply speaking, it causes the particles trajectory to curve and causes the particle to slow down in the direction of the body/group of massive particles, which is essentially the same as time-dilation described in the philosophy behind General Relativity, in that it takes a longer time for the same amount of force to make an object/particle travel a certain distance (but from the reference point of the object/particle of course, it traveled the normal distance one would expect to travel during an increment of time from the force applied, as there is no noticeable change in the passage of time locally). The closer it gets to the group of massive particles, the more Zitterebewegung-inducing radiation it will encounter, causing it to move sporadically even more (and also mitigating its initial velocity even more as well); while the particle is vibrating, any instance where it vibrates in the direction of the body of massive particles, it will experience Zitterbewegung even more - which means the effect is self-sustaining and self-initiating, which is what we would expect with free-fall. As an afternote, I don't know if I'm the first person to ever explain GR in terms of Zitterbewegung and EM radiation, but if I am and there turns out to be a consensus on it, I'd hope credit gets traced back to me. I spend a lot of time on physics; if it ever turned out that an idea I had was something new and significant, it'd be nice to see things pay off by being acknowledged for it. I got that 'breakthrough' feeling tonight and almost didn't want to put it online, because if it was a breakthrough I might just be giving it to everyone else. Q. "Do I have any experimental evidence supporting this approach?" A. "No, I have a fuzzy photograph with a bunch of different colored blotches on it, with numbers and arrows all over it pointing at different things, and then at the top of the photograph I wrote 'Gravitational Lensing' in marker." Citation: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/14-283_0.jpg (if you search the internet for proof of gravitational lensing, that's what you find, among a few other similarly lackluster photos the physics community deems 'photo evidence' of gravitational lensing; "you see that smaller smudge? In this photo, it looks like its moved over a little bit more because there's this big smudge in front of it.. or maybe the light from the big smudge just makes the small smudge a little harder to see so it looks like it moved, I don't know I can't tell, the resolution on these photos is so terrible, at the scale to actually look at something, you can only see a handful of pixels and we tell people, "oh yeah that's signature pattern of a quasar there" and "oh you can tell that star is close to having a supernova", and if anyone doubts us we tell them our conclusions are backed up by super-sensitive instruments and equipments that measure small fluctuations which we use to support all the claims we make.. when really, this is all just guesswork, I mean, it's not like anyone will ever actually know, it's not like we'll ever be able to go to these galaxies and take a look to check if all our equipment on the space satellite was working.. I mean, it's going to either kinda work, or kinda not, we sent stuff up into space to take pictures of far away galaxies, that's the first time anyone's ever made something to try to do that, we had nothing to compare it to before building it. I'm just amazed the damn thing sends anything back at all, that's a plus. At least this way we can argue over what various blotchy smudges mean and get paid for it, when the odds are just as good that the blotchy smudges are actually just our equipment malfunctioning, because there's no benchmark here, we have nothing similar to it to even know if its been working right").

I originally wrote all this back in March, but earlier tonight I found an article by chance from 2006 where physicists had proposed this exact same thing. And if you look at this link, it looks like they even have a working model and set of equations for it. Here's the link: http://phys.org/news77190620.html%29./ This gravitational hypothesis explains the phenomenon which 'dark energy' is popularly used to explain as just a geometric consequence of gravity at the macroscopic scale of superclusters, and the math involved particularily with gravity at this scale had always been overlooked. Another noteworthy point about this gravitational hypothesis is that there's no longer any need for dark energy or dark matter in explaining anything. Basically, all that's left is getting people to break away from the 'dark energy' bandwagon preventing this gravitational hypothesis from gaining more recognition. So now, here's my post I wrote in March which also has some assumptions and predictions of mine I think would be implications of the gravitational hypothesis: Assuming that galaxies were more or less evenly dispersed after the early aggressive expansion of the universe following the 'big bang', small variations in their dispersion eventually caused galaxies to begin gravitating towards each other, starting the formation of superclusters. Vacuoles in space between super-clusters where galaxies are absent kept growing. As the spaces between superclusters becomes larger, the escape velocity required for a galaxy to leave a supercluster and cross the vacuole to a neighboring supercluster becomes greater and greater until its impossible. We can deduce how the shape of the universe would continue changing next simply by following General Relativity: the lessening gravitational influence between superclusters across the vacuoles between them would cause the vacuoles to accelerate in their growth; the galaxies in superclusters would begin to gravitate into larger galactic rivers, and superclusters would start becoming less branched out in shape. This likely would be the point in the process that our universe is at if correct. As the branches of superclusters continue to merge into central rivers, they acquire a general uniform momentum, as the net gravitational influence on the centralized branches is more exclusive to its own gravitational influence on itself. Due to the vacuoles between superclusters accelerating exponentially in growth, the overall shape of the universe is seemingly expanding. The shape of the universe changing in the described way fits with all observations consistently, without anything left out still needing an explanation. The observed "expansion" of the universe is then simply a result of entropy in its shape due to gravity - without inventing or assuming the existence of new concepts like "dark energy" to explain-away things that aren't understood. -- That's not all though; we can keep going in our explanation and roughly predict how the shape of the universe would continue to change from gravitational entropy. The galactic rivers of superclusters that are farthest out, would flow out deeper into empty space, and although the shape of the universe would still be generally expanding, the galactic rivers of the superclusters wouldn't keep going off out into empty space but would arch back in towards the rest of the universe due to gravity -- this restriction for any object to permanently maintain a trajectory away from the rest of the universe's contents out into empty space is simply a mathematical limitation involved with the physics: no matter how great the velocity of the object might be, the velocity is only constant, while gravity's influence exhibited on the object, no matter how weak it may be, accelerates. Thus, even with incredible velocity, the velocity can only decrease, eventually causing the object to gravitate back towards the rest of the universe. Even though the nearest massive object may be light years away, the distance of gravitational pull's influence is infinite with dwindling intensity - and since an object subject to gravity is accelerating, there is no such thing as a true escape velocity. Because of this, the farthest out superclusters will curve in their trajectory back towards the rest of the universe. This also implies that, regarding the changing shape of the universe, the accelerating expansion of the universe is only temporary and will eventually start to slow down. With the trajectory of far out superclusters being curved, the universe will eventually start to develop a spin/rotation, with the rivers of galactic superclusters flowing spherically around the universe in a prevailing direction. The superclusters in the inner region of the universe will all eventually join the outer sphere of superclusters, and the shape of the universe will resemble an interweaving web of supercluster rivers forming a hollow rotating sphere. During this stage, expansion of the universe's contents will peak off -- the due to the inner region of the universe becoming vacant, the effect of gravity will be lessened in the direction of the approximate center of the universe, resulting in profound expansion. With distances from galaxy to galaxy and supercluster to supercluster at their greatest, the gravitational influence of galaxies and superclusters on each other is at its minimal. Superclusters's galactic rivers start slowing down. The stage of the universe at this point is a plateau of mildness with not much going on. Eventually, however, the calmness starts to come to an end; due to the rotation of the universe, superclusters near the center on both sides of the hollow sphere which weren't experiencing much rotation began to gravitate out to other parts, flattening the shape of the universe slightly. With the added mass from those superclusters, gravity starts pulling together superclusters and merging them together -- the universe now consists of giant rings of superclusters that have merged together; the mass of these superclusters is not evenly distributed, causing the rings to start to twist and fluctuate - the twisting causes sections of the supercluster rings to stall in their rotation; the resulting offset distribution of mass and momentum causes sections of the rings of superclusters to build up an enormous amount of mass, which is then followed by sides of other nearby rings getting pulled in by the immense gravity and crashing into it. A high number of super-massive black holes are formed, which start to merge together and begin assimilating entire galaxies - eventually they are so massive that they are able to pull in super-clusters and start sucking up the contents of the entire universe and end up triggering another big bang, starting the universe anew.

If the math is actually approached right that is. That post was titled something like "Observed Accelerated Expansion the Result of Gravitational Entropy with Superclusters"; this fantastic topic of mine was removed by a moderator for having dared share an idea I had come up with myself. Well, I just found a physics article from 2006 where some physicsists it turns were saying the exact same thing (link here: http://phys.org/news77190620.html). Therefore, the concept can no longer be considered to be a wild and reckless idea of my own, as others proposed it first - rendering the reason for the thread's deletion as invalid (in case you are wondering, yes, that was literally the reason for the threads deletion, posting new hypotheses of your own is not allowed, and it was deleted before it had any replies). In light of this, I will now repost my topic uhindered so that the concept may be discussed intelligibly by other members of the forum. Or, I will also accept simply undeleting my original topic and deleting this one. Thanks in advance for not impulsively deleting my posts in the future for having newly encountered concepts to you in them, however foreign and complex those concepts may be for you. __________ Hypothesis: The Observed 'Accelerating Expansion' of the Universe is Actually the Gravitational Entropy in the Developing Shape of Superclusters Assuming that galaxies were more or less evenly dispersed after the early aggressive expansion of the universe following the 'big bang', small variations in their dispersion eventually caused galaxies to begin gravitating towards each other, starting the formation of superclusters. Vacuoles in space between super-clusters where galaxies are absent kept growing. As the spaces between superclusters become larger, the escape velocity required for a galaxy to leave a supercluster and cross the vacuole to a neighboring supercluster becomes greater and greater until its impossible. We can deduce how the shape of the universe would continue changing next simply by following General Relativity: the lessening gravitational influence between superclusters across the vacuoles between them would cause the vacuoles to accelerate in their growth; the galaxies in superclusters would begin to gravitate into larger galactic rivers, and superclusters would start becoming less branched out in shape. This likely would be the point in the process that our universe is currently at if correct. As the branches of superclusters continue to merge into central rivers with a uniform momentum, they become less restricted by other sources of gravity besides their own, allowing the superclusters' galactic rivers to flow deeper out into space. Due to the uniform momentum of the rivers in the superclusters, vacuoles between superclusters accelerate exponentially in growth, causing the overall shape of the universe to expand. The shape of the universe changing in the described way fits with all recorded observations consistently, without anything left out still needing an explanation. The observed "expansion" of the universe is then simply a result of entropy in its shape due to gravity - without inventing or assuming the existence of new concepts like "dark energy" to explain-away things that aren't understood. -- That's not all though; we can keep going in our explanation and roughly predict how the shape of the universe would continue to change from gravitational entropy. The galactic rivers of superclusters that are farthest out, would flow out deeper into empty space, and although the shape of the universe would still be generally expanding, the galactic rivers of the superclusters wouldn't keep going off out into empty space but would arch back in towards the rest of the universe due to gravity -- this restriction for any object to permanently maintain a trajectory away from the rest of the universe's contents out into empty space is simply a mathematical limitation involved with the physics: no matter how great the velocity of the object might be, the velocity is only constant, while gravity's influence exhibited on the object, no matter how weak it may be, accelerates. Thus, even with incredible velocity, the velocity can only decrease, eventually causing the object to gravitate back towards the rest of the universe. Even though the nearest massive object may be light years away, the distance of gravitational pull's influence is infinite with dwindling intensity - and since an object subject to gravity is accelerating, there is no such thing as a true escape velocity. Because of this, the farthest out superclusters will curve in their trajectory back towards the rest of the universe. This also implies that, regarding the changing shape of the universe, the accelerating expansion of the universe is only temporary and will eventually start to slow down. With the trajectory of far out superclusters being curved, the universe will eventually start to develop a spin/rotation, with the rivers of galactic superclusters flowing spherically around the universe in a prevailing direction. The superclusters in the inner region of the universe will all eventually join the outer sphere of superclusters, and the shape of the universe will resemble an interweaving web of supercluster rivers forming a hollow rotating sphere. During this stage, expansion of the universe's contents will peak off -- the due to the inner region of the universe becoming vacant, the effect of gravity will be lessened in the direction of the approximate center of the universe, resulting in profound expansion. With distances from galaxy to galaxy and supercluster to supercluster at their greatest, the gravitational influence of galaxies and superclusters on each other is at its minimal. Superclusters's galactic rivers start slowing down. The stage of the universe at this point is a plateau of mildness with not much going on. Eventually, however, the calmness starts to come to an end; due to the rotation of the universe, superclusters near the center on both sides of the hollow sphere which weren't experiencing much rotation began to gravitate out to other parts, flattening the shape of the universe slightly. With the added mass from those superclusters, gravity starts pulling together superclusters and merging them together -- the universe now consists of giant rings of superclusters that have merged together; the mass of these superclusters is not evenly distributed, causing the rings to start to twist and fluctuate - the twisting causes sections of the supercluster rings to stall in their rotation; the resulting offset distribution of mass and momentum causes sections of the rings of superclusters to build up an enormous amount of mass, which is then followed by sides of other nearby rings getting pulled in by the immense gravity and crashing into it. A high number of super-massive black holes are formed, which start to merge together and begin assimilating entire galaxies - eventually they are so massive that they are able to pull in super-clusters and start sucking up the contents of the entire universe and end up triggering another big bang, starting the universe anew. The second part of this post giving some ideas for predictions on the future shape of the universe are simply speculation; I do not have the equipment or a computer with the computational capacity required to make any accurate prediction on how the universe's shape will continue to change as a result of gravity, but the predictions I proposed should still serve to give a rough outline of what gravity could change our universe's shape into in the distant future.

The race to build a quantum computer is on brother; but apparently I'm one of the only ones who knows the components & micro-architecture by intuition. So I'm going to do what any American does in this situation: patent it. And protect it from the people who would misuse it.

lol

I just broke new ground tonight with writings and drawings in a physical notebook of mine. The drawings are on the topic of quantum computers - new designs and changes in microarchitecture. I am not sure that I should even show them to anyone. Anyone they might be of interest to or a concern of, please reply to this thread or private message my inbox at this forum. I do not know whether they should be sold, hidden, or discarded, or where I would even go to voice those concerns. If anyone else already has what I think they have, they may even already know that I wrote them - but I do not know whether or not they have knowledge of the exact technology or design. In which case, I would be willing to be a consultant possibly. I need to know who would be interested so I am able to address concerns of mine. Please contact me at this forum. I am trying to write ambiguously because I don't wish to imply that I would like to sell them, but I do not think they should be shared openly either. This is stuff I would consider 'new-physics'.. It's a complete reworking of the meta-design of quantum processors. If I still feel it's a concern in a few days, I think I'm going to take concerns of mine up the proper channels with gestures of good faith.. I realize now that I do not want part of their construction unless it were for some reason necessary.

When we think of a tangent line of a point on a curve as only touching that curve at one point, while still having a fixed slope, we have already shed light on the nature of lines and the Euclidean grid: if you were to begin rotating the tangent line, at what point would it cease to be a tangent line and become a secant line? It would become a secant line the instant it began rotating, as lines are infinitely thin. This notion of infinitely thin lines, and infinitely small increments of time, is at the heart of calculus. Why is this ever counter-intuitive to us? It has been argued that, hundreds of years ago, "math-denial" was a means for rejecting the idea of change by those in power. That may be true, but that strays more into the subject of history, really. I think the real reason is that, in a strict psychological sense, the notion of 'infinitely small' things like points and lines registers as an impossibility; there can not be 'something' without substance; mass and volume. Intuitively, we think that in order for a line to exist, it must consist of 'something', and already have properties like length, width, mass, etc.. Because of this, 'points' are actually visualized/conceptualized as tiny circles/spheres - but a line overlapping a point can rotate and still be touching the point; which I think people then try to apply to spheres and curves, but in doing so find that it's incorrect. We are not born with the concept of 'hypothetical', it is learned. Let's arrive at a technical conclusion concerning 'change' and frequency; the 'change' of 'change' in the real world. When you tighten the strings of a guitar or any stringed instrument to tune it, you do not have to tune the strings to a specific man-made 'note' of frequency to make the instrument playable, you merely have to make sure the strings of the instrument are 'in tune' with each other. Yet, based on frequency, we can use devices to find what frequency and 'note' a string is tuned to, and the frequency of a note does not change (allegedly). Using the example of strings, the string can be tuned/tightened to range in frequency from 0 (being loose against the fretboard of a guitar) to infinity (although the string will obviously snap). Therefore, frequency does not change linearly, but exponentially. Let us then explain 'octave' notes in music (although the prefix oct-, meaning 8, is only correct with the 'chromatic' scale, which I'll get into momentarily): Imagine that as we tune the string to a higher pitch/frequency, as the number of wave crests increases, the pitch of the instrument is in the process of cycling through 'notes' of music. When the top of the next crest comes to the same position in space (relative to the entire segment) which the top of the previous wave crest was at, the pitch reaches an 'octave note' (the pitch produced is recognizable as similar to the lower/higher octave note). 'Scales' in music divide the difference between a note and lower/higher octaves into notes - typically (and almost always), due to a system agreed upon hundreds of years ago called 'equal temperament', the frequency between octaves is divided into 12 notes, with the 1st and 12th notes being 'octave' notes. An example of such a scale is the 'chromatic' scale (which is what uses the word 'octave' to refer to the note of recurring recognizability in frequency), which divides the frequency into a pattern of notes that anyone who has ever seen or played with a piano will be familiar with. The reason the recurring note is called an 'octave' note, is because in the chromatic scale, the 12 notes have 5 sharps/flats (one group of 2 and one group of 3), and otherwise consists of 7 distinguishable notes standard to the scale, with the 8th note repeating: Going to jump ahead a bit here in the technical complexity of the topic, hope you guys don't mind: Frequency and Entanglement All particles that ever interact become 'entangled' to each other to a certain degree. In interacting, the frequency of their Zitterbewegung (trembling motion) has been synchronized with each other to a certain extent. The stronger the interaction, the greater the extent of synchronicity. The intensity of the synchronicity fades with time (if someone wants me to go back and give a more in depth explanation to this connection between frequency, 'interaction', and the entanglement of particles, I will). Entanglement also extends to any particles the entangled particle interacts with; so any tunneling of electromagnetic radiation (such as down a wire, or in a computer processor) preserves this entanglement. This sort of 'stored analog data' in a particle is due to a kind of entropy in the particle's relativistic frequency: there are an infinite number of points on the surface of a sphere, and the directional point-contact of one particle and another particle will be unique to those particles. All of this is similar to the frequency of a wave traveling through a guitar string. If you watch the string itself after you pluck the string, it vibrates and moves around in a certain pattern; if you pluck the string again from a different direction with a different intensity, it will begin vibrating in that direction, but the pattern from when you plucked it intially is slightly preserved, although dampened. Using this same phenomenon is how vinyl records used to be made. If you were to drag a toothpick with a paper cone taped to it along the grooves of a vinyl and put your ear up to it, you might be able to faintly hear music playing. How protons (and other hadrons) preserve relativistic entropy: The current model describes protons as being made of 2 up quarks with a +2/3 charge and 1 down quark with a -1/3 charge, leading to a total charge of +1 for the entire proton. We could perhaps imagine these 3 constituents as making the proton dipolar like a water molecule. When imagining these 3 quarks, we could imagine their magnetic fields as being an elastic tether holding the 3 together; when one moves, it will stretch away from the other 2, but will pull back to them (pulling them slightly as well). Since the proton is dipolar, when another positive or negative charged particle enters its magnetic proximity, the magnetic wave from the particle causes the 2 up quarks to be attracted or repulsed (depending on the charge of the wave) while the down quark does the opposite. Momentum is preserved in the magnetic 'elastic tether' holding the 3 quarks together, which stores relativistic frequency.

The exit please, butler Nice broken BBcode for a forum by the way; dealing with quotes as an image without brackets is like pulling teeth

Oh boy, a reputation function on a science forum.. I like that idea too, but in this case the 'drawing board' cost about $6.4 billion USD You understand of course that you're defending a 17th century alchemist who wrote essays on such topics as "symbolism of Biblical prophecy" and "concerning Solomon's Temple and the sacred cubit"?

This is what Newton's 'good job presenting results' looked like .. just saying The act of citing someone itself couldn't be a logical fallacy. A defendant could go before a courtroom and begin reciting cookie recipes and it would not be a logical fallacy. In declaring I committed a logical fallacy, you would be assuming intentions of mine in the absence of verbal evidence, and would be committing a fallacy of your own. Anyways, I think you've all missed a point - that the concepts of an idea supercede the terminology used to express that idea.

I'm burnt out on this for today, but I have a few things I thought you guys might find interesting; This was Einstein's General Relativity before it became Einstein's General Relativity: http://aefind.huji.ac.il/vufind1/Digital/EAR000034432#page/21/mode/2up Most people would look at that and think of it as the scribblings of a madman. Here is Newton's Laws of Motion as written by Newton: He keeps going: I linked the full text above. It's worth noting that Newton wrote about as many papers on esoteric subjects such as alchemy, religion, and sacred geometry as he did on math and physics. Also most of his papers were lost in a fire started by his dog knocking over a candle. I guess one point I'm making is that the thinkers who have advanced math, physics, and science throughout history often did so in their own terms, in a way fitting with their own style of thinking. Most were just as great of philosophers as they were mathematicians and physicists.

I don't have the equipment to go out in my yard and measure background radiation and approximate lambda for you, sorry. Hence, I put a disclaimer before and after it stating that I don't know. When you take the roughest, most conflicting interpretation on the text in my post that comes to mind, it can't be meaningful. I need you to collaborate with me: I didn't come here to be the 'teacher'. What I meant is that your estimate of Lambda is going to be as precise as you make it. Unless you have a shuttle that can take us to regions beyond the observable universe or a time machine to take us back to the universe's origin, we're probably not going to figure it out right here tonight

are the units the cosmological constant has. And since you've talked about in this thread, and the cosmological constant is usually written as a capital lambda, I just assumed that that was what your capital lambda was. I could be wrong, but this is on you because of your failure to communicate anything about your equation, and based on the question in your quote above, even understand what you wrote/ Here's the thing: you can make lambda whatever you want! It will always be an average/estimate. And that is true with all equations and solutions of equations which attempt to use it!. Some even just consider it dark energy. I don't know what else you'd like me to do. The sense I'm using it for R requires it to be an average of energy from background radiation in a given spherical volume of space. Lambda(mitigated) is the level of background radiation coming from a certain direction that was mitigated by a massive object -- again, it's going to be as accurate as you make it, but needs to at least consider the main points I mentioned in the post introducing it.

Here: "the Hamiltonian is the operator corresponding to the total energy of the system. It is usually denoted by H, also Ȟ or Ĥ. Its spectrum is the set of possible outcomes when one measures the total energy of a system" There doesn't need to be an H in the equation; you could deduce what it was from my description of it.. To what extent do I need to explain each variable? To what extent do I need to include variables from other equations? You could keep deconstructing variables in any equation to the point they no longer make sense. Lambda is the radiation in the universal background; whether certain radiation would be considered part of the universal background is open to interpretation - hence, I stated it was an average or estimate.

R(lambda), I think, is the Hamiltonian of a free particle in the absence of any influence on the particle apart from background radiation. For 0 dimensions: and for 3 dimensions: At least I think so anyways. Where are you getting "1/length^2"? Isn't background radiation going to have units of energy?

Map the radiation on many devices in a ring around the planet; synch their measurements together later on a computer. And, no friction in space; the increase in acceleration is exponential; and fluidic space is still a contributing factor for gravity as well.. What sort of explanation could you give for how "attraction" arises mechanically? Giving the answer "it just does" is unscientific. Warped spacetime only curves the path of an object; the object has to be experiencing acceleration from another source to initiate free fall. Yes. If objects did not experience constant acceleration, free fall would take time to get up to speed; when they dropped those two objects on the moon during the moon landing, if they were not experiencing constant acceleration, they would just sit there levitating in space for a while after being let go, and would gradually start free falling. Yeah Faraday was junk too.