ImplicitDemands

I will admit that there is some truth to the fact that cosmological redshift may not be as much (or at all) connected to the three body problem, nor might it be a problem with the math. But the three body problem is certainly the result of a problem with the mathematics in the way that I have described. As a physicist, I know of other culprits for cosmological redshift that do not really require even calculus to define mathematically, as much as the physics concepts. Although you still need calculus to compare the simplistic math to, it is totally unrelated to the New Math I have been describing so far. It is not new math it is basic arithmetic, the table produced does describe that redshift will increase overtime (tired light). Is my answer related to the curvature of space and how this effects light? Yes and no. Does my solution involve a novel interpretation of quantum physics? Yes. Does my interpretation affirm that the universe is expanding? No. The outline I have for it needs revision as I was erroneously operating under the preconceived notion that the system is being guided by events that had occurred in the past instead of events that occur in the future. How egocentric to believe that, just because we have memory then causality itself must be bound by it.

The equation for redshift tells you how far away both Galaxy A (nearer) is and Galaxy B (further) is. It tells you how much they have redshifted, and this gives you S(t), which is the distance light would have to travel to redshift to those Hz numbers based on the inverse square law. The problem is that when you redshift by the distance light of Galaxy B has traveled to get to Galaxy A, you find the "redshift discrepancy" between galaxy B's cumulative redshift from galaxy A's position to the observer, and what it should be based on Hz for Galaxy B. So either the distance is changing (and the universe is expanding) or there's some problem with the mathematics being implemented. The same issue could be the culprit, specifically for adjusting the Gravitational Constant, of the three body problem. Unlike the calculus shown above my method only uses right triangles, this much I can tell you. When you deviate from a 45 degree angle, that's when problems tend to occur.

Here's a small extra tidbit, there are electroluminescent wires used in two phases, in the first phase they do get a charge from multiple photoconductive electrodes (that can be powered by the fusion itself after it begins). But other electroluminescent wires (this time underneath a fiber optic material) are going to get an additional charge of electrons in the second phase of the fusion cycle seemingly out of no where (on top of the same quantity of charge the first set of wires get hit with). How does it get extra charge from the first cycle without adding new energy into the system? And what is the extra light the wire releases used for? For the latter, well phase 3 of course! I'll leave the former to the imagination.

We can control fusion when employing 192 converging lasers but they lose energy that isn't regained. My solution involved requiring less energy to power the lasers of the same magnitude that can easily be sustained by the fusion events. The solution involves photovoltaic panels to reincorporate the energy released by the fusion events, while both prolonging the photoelectric effect and intensifying the energy it receives/produces over time.

It is the equation. a(t) = V(t)/s(t)^2 or miles/hours^2 aka mph^2 Position=S(t)->(distance over time) Velocity=v(t)->s(t)/time Acceleration=a(t)->v(t)/S(t)->distance/time^2 Time squared, yes it is covering the same distance over more time. Hence the outside world is experiencing a greater passage of time. Whether or not the observer is experiencing more time as well is a matter of debate. We really can't go fast enough to tell.

Acceleration is velocity over time. Velocity is distance over time. So, acceleration is distance over time^2

From what I understand they behave more like this:

Then Hz is the number in which to factor by the value my equations yield, to be concise about what I'm stating here. It has nothing to do with gravity bending light or even the curvature of space it has to do with the calculus not maximizing surface volume to a concise enough detail, which in turn effects the depth and therefore throws off the redshift measurements. So you really do have to measure it against the calculus if that is the case. Pixelate any 2 galaxies in the cosmos from the observatory.

Up to this date every single scientific development pertaining to R&D has been made widely accessible to the point that it has become very difficult for any one authority to maintain said authority without mutually assured destruction. Total global compromise is policy. This is why we can't have nice things. This one technology, if it exists, we would need to find out a way to use it without using calculators, every-single input made has a digital signature. We need to seriously discuss the security of our technological apparatus.

Technically, A/int(r)*int(A) would be how you get the 4 radius for 4/3pi*r^3. You get the 3 radius as the dividend because the radius was 3 before being moved forward by it's own radius along the z plane. Anyway later on it was thought you could fit 12 spheres around the center https://plus.maths.org/content/newton-and-kissing-problem But that doesn't work for the factoring of G based on the principle that one can fit only 8 spheres around the central sphere if they were all to be equidistant and all making surface contact. And only 4 of those 8 can be used to measure z.

If it is factored into integral of the area -> A/(integral of r * integral of A) ->9pi/((3/1+1)^(1+1) x (3/2+1)^(2+1)pi) -> 9pi/(3/2)^2 x (3/3)^3 pi -> 9pi/(9/4 x pi) = 4; where r=3 Then you get your 4G/r for:

His problem when you consider that a 9pi area over the integral of its radius is just 4 which is exactly what he's factoring in for the gravitational constant. And you should really use my optimization of the surface volume about an origin sphere instead because it isn't factoring in 4 it is factoring in 3.87553041018 that's only a 1.3% difference which adds up when you consider all of the angular momenta involved in the observation of gravitational bodies.

A=pi*3^2=9pi; A'=(2*3)^(2-1)pi the integral is (6pi/(1+1))^(1+1)=(6/2)^2 * pi=9pi If you have a radius of R around an inner circle with a radius of r and wanted to maximize the amount of space in that outer ring R and minimize what is in the center circle r you would say lim x->infinity f(R)=r+r/x ; x=r, meaning that R=r+1 I suppose Newton is some shadow program working on maths adjacent to me Also: Having to make some corrections here, the 5.121 number extruded another radius from the original radius of 3 inches. So let's so how close we are with 2.121 (I just went back in and realized I did my own math wrong it was 2.74 something that was the point). And yes I realized you can still fit 9 spheres inside the second iteration without all of their surfaces touching so it is like squaring the volume of a sphere to get a hypersphere. Shouldn't second guess myself.

You don't know whether the redshift is higher than it should be or not if the problem is a lack of some sinusoidal application to factor in the proximity values of galaxy A and B relative to the observer as I explained earlier. So you don't even know whether the cosmic event horizon or CMBR is the oldest light that's had time to reach the lens or whether it is just a blending that makes objects invisible as the tip of the cone becomes infinitesimal.

Because the gravitational constant appears smaller at a distance. This dynamic is literally missing dimensions when you use calculus, it is the difference between how the cylindrical portion of the cone constantly decreases from base to dip to how that same cylinder constantly curve from top to bottom on a half sphere. Look, if the universe has said volume, is that the volume of a cube or of a sphere?

Thank you for repeating that. Proteins are made out atoms which have electrons. So at the very most basic level what is happening is literally ionization from light in the dna composing the retina. Yes when you get to the cellular level things like photosynthesis seem more complex but it's all just light and electricity interacting with each other just like the computer.

You understand that this math is designed to be factored into change the gravitational variance along a scale that must be adjusted for f(n) each time (n)sin(any deg) changes the radius of a circle along the z plane. With both the degree angle changing and the radius changing so there can be no constant which is why it is variant. A forum I feel is as good a place as any. Accredited or not, if it works to predict the orbital behavior of planetary objects in relation to one another it works. However, it is getting late.

An LED is basically the reverse of photovoltaics, i.e. electroluminescence. As for it's own magnetic moment, whatever the culprit is that doesn't change the fact that magnetization is the point where the two opposing orbitals cross paths as those sides of the atom are adjacent. When I said spin I meant orbital magnetization. As in the port where the fiber optic cable connects to battery a, photoionization occurs and the conductor connecting battery a to battery b adopts one atomic orbital which attracts one end of the cylinder which has a magnet, then the orbitals reverse throughout the conductor as the positive ionized battery a takes back the additional electrons from the negatively ionized batter b, attracting the other end of the cylinder which has an anti-magnet. Your retina are like little photovoltaic batteries, their cells can experience photoinization which is not unlike the process of photosynthesis or why ionized gas in hydrothermal vents are the culprit for the creation of chemical bonds leading to the carbon based dna in our cells. If you have LEDs that are small enough, I'd wage the easiest was to program them to light up in just the right combination to produce a picture through our retina I'd wager the easiest way to program a touch screen interface is what I described here but I can use math to figure out exactly how that interface needs to be set up.

Photoelectric effect - As an electron returns to its normal state upon one photon entering and exiting a system, two photons are released. Electroluminescence - Electricity takes grazes through in an atomic orbital, and light is released continually Photovoltaics - A photon passes through an atomic medium and electrons are released Fiber optic cable - Is the photoelectric effects applied to the atoms along the cable Photoionization - A photon enters into a system and an electron is released from the atomic orbital and the atom is now a positive ion Magnetism - The electrons have opposite spin causing the bodies to be magnetized Notice I use the term "grazing through an atomic orbital continually" for electroluminescence now photoionization can also cause this to happen at one positive interval followed by a negative interval. Hence induction motor.

Where there's ionization, there's a change in charge, i.e. magnetism. The LEDs in a touchscreen are also examples of the photoelectric effect. If you were to ionize a neutrally charged material via the photoelectric effect, say porting a fiber optic cable to it and applying a ray of the right frequency to that cable would cause it to become positively charged and any other neutrally charged material adjacent to it, connected via a conductor, would acquire capacitance momentarily before the two neutralized.

Like the mouse on a laptop. Yes well, there are other ways that are easier to interface, more specifically controlling the EM motor rotations of PLFs and fiberoptics that can photoionize these motors.

I know I know. If you are curious what exactly it is I am doing to place a second circle atop the surface of a sphere with r=3 at the top right to get the r=5.121 value, or at what point the two given volumetric surfaces make contact, I assure you it is not a trigometric function that has been discovered yet or it would have been covered in my education which has been extensively mathematical oriented. Derivations were unknown until discovered. I'm sorry, I must correct something I said earlier about how many spheres can make contact about the surface volume of the first iteration. constant at any iteration at any 3-sided pyramidal angle gravitational interaction though I said 9 but but if you look at the values you will find that you can only wrap two in the front of the first sphere and one in the back. Much like the up and down quarks in a nucleus. It is the dimensions being used in the mathematics of motion other than calculus which also does this but it misses how relative perspective factors into the parameters governing change over time. One needs to know how to factor (not integrate as if we were doing calculus) in the gravitational variance. As all shapes have a triangle at their core, trigonometry is really the basis of all geometry, and therefore change over time. If I were speaking to Newton I would to stress the importance taking a second or a third look at trigonometry, considering it as the primary basis for the geometry of motion. Then, he might have had a more complete representation of the third dimension, so as to understand why things became so murky when orbital bodies exceeded two, using his process. As an engineer, it is easier when looking at gravity in this sense, to affect my thinking about how time may be why some atomic mediums can react to light passing through, and other do not. And by react I mean change energy state, for one. Maybe not a wave fluctuation but a velocity governing time in a relativistic sense. Note, this is not what is written here about observational variance in the gravitational interaction due to relative perspective, there is a distinction between perspective and the interactions. I'm trying to clarify that this math with no name IS the former.

Because the issue is that objects in proportion of space shaped like a half sphere are not constant, a cone facing upright has a perfect linear v, a half sphere facing upright is more of a u shape. Objects don't increase in scale by the same amount as they approach. If the sphere gets larger after repeating what I just did, the next time the amount in which it scales up changes. The third iteration is based off of the second iteration not the first iteration. For the redshift problem much like in the 3 body problem, Galaxy A's distance from Galaxy B depends heavily upon two different angles where this math deviates from calculus in the way I demonstrated before. On top of this, you need to know how to use that half sphere metric in order to factor in how the relative perspective of the gravitational constant is effected. Differences in the calculus versus observation, depending upon how space is actually shaped, could produce some affects associated with the wave function.

How to build a smart phone, and program every single task that it performs. You can do more than that, you can control lasers, which can help you make smaller parts.