olvin dsouza

1) We know in case of beta decay if there is excess of protons or neutrons in the nucleus, beta decay take place.
Force involved - weak interaction 
Reason involved - to stabilize, to obtain proton neuton 1:1 ratio in the nucleus.
E. g., Beta minus - Carbon 14 transforms into Nitrogen 14

2) Case of Lambda & Sigma - 

Force involved - weak  
Reason involved - ?

Does anyone know the reason why Lambda Λ0 (uds - quark composition) decays into,
p+ +  π−    
 or
n0  +  π0

Also why Sigma Σ+(uss - quark composition) decays into,     
p+  +  π0
 or
n0  +  π+

What mechanism make them go decay under either the set of proton or neutron? What is the reason involved ?

Introducing The Most Fastest Way to Find Perfect Square Roots.

Creating Successive Series Beforehand. 
0 -- 1  has zero difference.
1 --- 3    has only as difference of one.
3 ---- 6     has a difference of two.
6 ---- 10     has a difference of three.
10 ---- 15    has a difference of four.
.
.
.

This series is a form of infinite successive series where integers at the right hand side of the below series, that is 1, 3, 6, 10 15…. (highlighted below in yellow color) is the result of addition of positive integers in following sequence such as  2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8….(highlighted below in green color) 

0 -- 1  
         + 2
1 --- 3 
         + 3   
3 ---- 6  
           + 4  
6 ---- 10    
             + 5 
10 ---- 15    

This above successive series is essential on finding key integer c, those key integer c is then used for further calculation of finding square roots. 
While finding square root solutions, the use of this series is to simply avoid calculation timing by creating it beforehand.
Therefore, while solving the problems of finding any square, non square or any higher roots we require this series beforehand.
eg., when we are about to find the square root of 40000. 
40000/ 72 = 555
So, we need check where the 555 appears at the successive series Therefore, we need a ready successive series.
So, as shown above, one can continue go on creating same series by adding 15 + 6 = 21, 21 + 7 = 28 ….. keep record of it and use it whenever required to calculate key integer ‘c' of any other problems of finding square roots. 

Example Solution - ( this method works for all square and non square roots. For finding higher roots check the PDF paper attached).
To find perfect square root of √3249

1) Divide 3249 by 72 to get m.

3249 / 72 = 45.125 …..
Ignore the decimals, we get  45 as answer.

2) Using Successive Series For Finding the Key Integer c .
 0 -- 1  has zero difference. ( ignore this step).
1st Step    1 --- 3    as difference of one.
2nd Step    3 ---- 6     has a difference of two.
3rd Step      6 ---- 10     has a difference of three.
4th Step   10 ---- 15    has a difference of four.
5th Step   15 ---- 21   has a difference of five.
6th Step    21 ---- 28    has a difference of six.
7th Step    28 ---- 36    has a difference of seven.
8th Step    36 ---- 45     has a difference of eight.
9th Step  45  ----  55     has a difference of nine.

To Check, at Which Step 45 Appears.
Now, as per the above successive series,45 appears at ninth step i.e. at 45 to 55 and the series has a difference of nine  therfore, we can take c = 9 
(Note - though 45 appears at both 8th and 9th steps but we must always consider only the second step. So in this case we will consider 9th step).

3) Multiplying c by 6.
From above, we get c = 9
Therefore, 9 × 6 = 54
Now c = 54
Checking whether c is final answer by dividing 3249 by 54 . We found it is not divisible.
Therefore, we will proceed to below 4th step of checking rules.

4) Checking the Rules of Finding ‘c’ .
√X = 3249 is the integer divisible by 3. Therefore it follows the fourth rule of finding c.
Fourth Rule - If the √ X is any odd integer and is divisible by 3, then the final answer c will be adding c by 3 i.e. ‘c + 3'.
54 + 3 = 57
Since 3249 is divisible by 57
Therefore, √3249 = 57
 Note - Rules are available at the paper, check below attachment. Paper also contains explanation on finding higher roots, non square roots.
 

squareroot (1).pdf

On 4/15/2021 at 11:11 PM, John Cuthber said:

Given a product of two primes n, and n+2 the product is going to be very close to (n+1)^2

So you can take the nearest integer to the square root of the product, and the factors will be  that +/- 1

 

Eg.
 imagine I give you the product 19043

the square root of that is 137.996...

Very close to 138

And the integers 1 away from it are 137 and  139.

And those are the factors of 19043.

 

 

I agree, 

What if, 

n = 1661521

And condition is- use only simple calculator.

Try to find sqrt of n.

By the time you calculate or by guessing.

Using my explained method and formula. I can get the two factor of n in less then 1 minute.

No matter how big is  n in digits, calculation time is less than 1 minute.

On 4/15/2021 at 10:34 PM, Ghideon said:

What makes 72 special? Can you show how the method works in the general case n(n+2)=m  where n∈N,m∈N ? 

 

 

If you give me n by simply multiplying p×q 

Then the only way i can find p & q  is by sqrt method. It will take some time or lot of time for me to factor using sqrt method by simple calculator.

Addition 72 series is the only method to get the 'last sum of series'.

If i get the 'last sum of series'. - It is the magic number and input it in 0.83 constant. I can factor any small or even larger  1000 + digits n in less then 1 min. (As explained in my method formula)

Take this theorm as alternate to sqrt method.

Which can provide fast result using simple calculator, but with conditions such as following addition 73 series.

On 4/11/2021 at 2:46 PM, John Cuthber said:

I'm not sure i have understood this.

Does this only work with primes where the two factors differ by two- which is interesting but not much use (I think there's an easier way)?

 

If not, please show us how it works with 33,033,660,080,507

(which isn't a product of very big primes, just fairly big.)

Prime numbers differ by two is called twin prime numbers.

This method works only if you get 'n' by following repeated 72  additon series.

If you give me any n this method doesn't work.

Any how, i have found a new method where,
If you multiply any of the below following p & q and give me n.
 
Twin prime × Twin prime = n

Prime number × Composite number = n ( not divisible by 2 or 3, having a gap of 2).

Composite number × Composite number = n ( not divisible by 2 or 3, having a gap of 2).

Then i can factorise it in few minutes. Even if the n is 1000+ digit large.
Very soon i will publish paper on this another method.

2103.0181v2.pdf

There is a paper at vixra (dot) org 

Number theory, citation  2103.0181

Instantly Factorize Any Product Of
Two Small Or Large Twin Prime Numbers.

Simple Method -
72 is the constant integer used in the process to find repeated addition in the
series.
First Step –
Repeated Addition Series.
Following the steps ask your colleague to add 72 and 36 as show below.
 72 * 1 = 72 + 36 = 108
 72 * 2 = 144 + 36 = 180
 72 * 3 = 216 + 36 = 252
 72 * 4 = 288 + 36 = 324 ......... 'Last Sum Of Series'

Counting can be done as many times like 72 *5 , 72 * 6, 72 * 7 ........ and
one time adding 36 for each series.
Series can go up to infinity.
Last sum of series is 324.

Second Step -
Finding ‘r ‘ Total Sum Of Series -
Ask your colleague to add all the sums together with number 35 to get total
sum of series ' r ' as shown below.
108+ 180 + 252 + 324 + 35 = 899 ...... 35 is the constant to be
added at last in total sum of series each time you calculate this series.
Here we get r = 899
Now get this two information from your colleague .
1) Last sum of series ie 324.
2) Total sum of series ie 899 .
You should know this to calculate the formula.
Therefore,
Ask your colleague to show the last sum of series i.e 324 and the total sum of
series i.e 899.
Note - Total sum of series is also a product of some two twin prime numbers
or prime number and composite number or may be of two composite
numbers.
So 899 is the product of p*q = 899 which we don’t know yet and we are going
to factorize it to know p & q using formula explained below.

Third step -
Now, ask your colleague that, 'Can they immediately guess what is the
multiple factors of given total sum of series is, without factorizing ?'
Answer for your colleague must be 'no', since no one can easily guess or
reverse the p * q = n if the ''n ' is any large integer.
But wait, using my new researched method you can factor in few minutes, no
matter what large integer 'n' is.
So without showing your colleague, calculate the process explained below.
Calculation Process – Finding ‘s’.
There are two method to find ' s ’.
1) First method -
Notice the above 'repeated 72 series', those bold highlighted integers 72 * 1,
72 * 2, 72 * 3, 72 * 4 ........
Series of Integers in line i.e 1,2, 3, 4.....
Find the last integer i.e 4
Substitute 4 with 0 of 0.83 (constant).
We get 4.83
Therefore, s = 4.83.
Each time you calculate to find ' s’ always find the last integer in the line as
explained above.
2) Second Method -
You know that last sum of series is 324. ( you got the information from
your colleague)
Taking 324 / 72 = 4.5
Get the left hand side integer before the decimal point i.e 4.
Substitute 4 with 0 of 0.83 (constant).
As per second method, we get s = 4.83
Next,
Apply the ‘r’ and ‘s’ in the below formula.
r / s = m
m/ 6 = n
Where,
‘r’ is the total sum of series.
‘s’ in this case is the substitution of 4 with 0 of 0.83 constant to get as 4.83.
6 is the constant in the formula.
We got r = 899, s = 4.83
Finding ' m ' -
r / s = m
899 / 4.83 = 186.12836....
Notice integer on the left hand side before the decimal point i.e 186
So, consider only those integers as ' m ' and ignore integers on the right
hand side of decimal point.
Therefore, m = 186
Finding ' n ' -
m / 6 = n
186 / 6 = 31
n = 31 ....... is the answer.
Check it dividing 899 by 31.
899/ 31 = 29
So the factors of 899 is 31, 29.  

Immediately show the answer to your colleague.

One can surprise their colleague with this method.

This method works even for factorizing any larger product of multiplied twin primes. One can try checking.

twin prime.pdf

There has been some correction made.

As explained in the plane effect theory(attachment)

note that the force is created from all three dimension of space

but mass experience the force only from one dimension i.e up&down

forces from other two dimension is cancelled out due to gravity force.

Hi to every one,

No one knows how the virtual plane effect take place out in the astronomical space

where all the astro body orbits in the given virtual plane. there are many theory

that trying to explain the gravity at astronomical scale,about the atoms at subatomic scale

but there is no standard model that could explain the plane effect in perfect way.

reason, only that theory, the correct theory could xeplain this little wonder &phenomenal effect.

My theory(sphere theory) trys to explain such phenomenal effect in a purely machanical way.

see attachment.plane effect sphere theory.doc

Olvin,

 

Still see some geometrical issues with your model.

 

One, spheres aligned in the manner you describe are not close packed. You could take a whole layer, and shift it as one, into the "holes" provided by the layer beneath. THEN you would be close packed, but you would have the arrangement I took the pictures of, with each sphere surrounded by 12 others. You have to determine if such an arrangement can spin.

 

Two, the arrangement you show has all the spheres spinning so their equators are on the same plane, for each "layer", and the north and south poles touching the south poles of the layer above and the north poles of the layer below. Thus NO spin is imparted or felt up or down, only left and right and back and forth.

This would mean, if your model was true, that gravity would have the same directional components to it, and masses would slow down the spin of the constons to the left and right, and back and forth from it, but have little to no effect on the constons above and below it. We would observe a directionality (perpendicular to the described equatoral planes) to gravity, that we do not observe. Two dimensional layers, stacked to form three dimensional "space" would give themselves away to us. We would already realize that that was the way things worked. Since gravity does not appear to work that way, the model needs further modification.

 

Regards, TAR2

It is not necessary that all the spheres should be so closed packed that there would be no gap in between them, gap is required is so that mass sphere would be placed . it doesn't require that all each sphere should get attached by all the neighboring spheres from all the sides. if attachment is there even on one of the side then that will do.

We have to consider one thing that the mass should imediately put the disturbance on all the spheres to reduce their speed, this could happen only if the spheres are atttach to gether on any of the sides if the spheres are not attach say they are seperate from each other having a distance then there would be no disturbance in spheres since they are not touch to gether.

My diagram shows that all spheres are attach from each other from any of the side so that disturbance produce by the mass would effect on each other.in short if spheres are attach to gether,the disturbance produce by mass would flow on all the spheres scince they are attach. if no attach means no flow of disturbance.

so attachment is necessary

Even my dig shows they are dense pack,like a solid state.not like gas state.if they where like a gas state then all spheres would have been far away from each other just as the gas state shows how matter is far away from each other.

As per my dig arrangement of spheres is in from all three dimension of space and the mass puts disturbance to reduce the speed from all the sides. from up & down, back & forth, left & right.

I belive that modification is required but right now we have to look that is this theory is realy a truth. so i wish that you could study the theory in detail if possible you could approach your colleagues physicist and show them about the theory.

Not with one but with together it is possible.

What advantages does your hypothesis offer over current conventional theories?

How would you go about falsifying it?

There is nothing to falsify any of the theory. what is false will stay falsewhet is truth will stay truth

Show me any theory that has the full explanation about gravity?

There no theory only one theory would be correct out of all.

We have to find that

we don't have to sit back and try to find which is false

but we have to find which one is original.

i wish you could go through the sphere theory and help me to find whether my theory is true or not.together we can find but alone we cannot.

Seems different than Olvin's idea.

 

Where is Olvin?

 

Did he abandon the theory?

hi tar

here is the answer for your puzzle.

see the attachmentarrangment of constons 3.doc

It does seem as though he has. But there could be any number of reasons why he has not replied.

tar and daedalus both of you have got realy confused you are looking out for what is imposible.

the dig which you have seen before doesn't means three or four or five or six spheres attatch together

you already know three of the spheres won't be able to spin

but a set of four spheres can spin.set of four spheres if you make them adjust in two clock & two anticlockwise then they can spin.

take four pionpong balls attach two balls eachother mark them clock wise other one anti clock wise

now take other two, attach both in the same way.finally take both set attach in such a way that all should spin. (four sphere can spin)them together on side by side what you will get square.

now if you take more four ball and attach them in the above explain way and attach all of them to make set of eight sphere you will find a cubic shape all spinning togrther.

again if you take a set of more eight balls and arrangement them to form a cube shape you will find all spinning.

it is not nessary for the spheres to attach them all together to form a circle, octagonal or pentagonal shape and that is what you are doing.

what you have to do is when you attachclock &anti clockwise set the spheres in squares or cubic shape only.

the whole set of spheres(constons) in the universe space has a cubic shape, spinning in clock& anti clockwise.

arrangment of constons 3.doc

hi tar

here is the answer for your puzzle.

see the attachmentarrangment of constons 3.doc

 

 

 

tar and daedalus both of you have got realy confused you are looking out for what is imposible.

the dig which you have seen before doesn't means three or four or five or six spheres attatch together

you already know three of the spheres won't be able to spin

but a set of four spheres can spin.set of eight spheres if you make them adjust in two clock & two anticlockwise then they can spin.

take four pionpong balls attach two balls eachother mark them clock wise other one anti clock wise

now take other two, attach both in the same way.finally take both set attach in such a way that all should spin. (four sphere can spin)them together on side by side what you will get square.

now if you take more four ball and attach them in the above explain way and attach all of them to make set of eight sphere you will find a cubic shape all spinning togrther.

again if you take a set of more eight balls and arrangement them to form a cube shape you will find all spinning.

it is not nessary for the spheres to attach them all together to form a circle, octagonal or pentagonal shape and that is what you are doing. at this shapes arrangement sphere will not spin

what you have to do is when you attach clock &anti clockwise set the spheres in squares or cubic shape only.

the whole set of spheres(constons) in the universe space has a cubic shape, spinning in clock& anti clockwise.

arrangment of constons 3.doc

know that set of two,four ,eight, sixteen forms a cube and all set of spheres can spin in constant rate.if arranged in clock & anticlockwise spin.

olvine's sphere theory.docsphere theory mass proportion.dochi this olvin

look out at this theory that explains gravity a push force

it discribes an un seen particle out in space

Introduction

Space as we called it empty, is not empty, it’s full of conston( graviton particle).

Conston might could be a particle having spherical shape .but un seen

It could have diameter smaller than quarks.

It spins in its own axis.

They are un bond but are in touch with each other just like the solid states of matter are close to each other.

They all spins together

This theory gives

The challenge of this theory is to prove that gravity is a PUSH FORCE BY UN SEEN PARTICLE

sphere theory , two body attraction.doc

It does seem as though he has. But there could be any number of reasons why he has not replied.

hi, daedalus

this is olvin. i ll be back soon with full explanation about sphere arrangement.

Seems different than Olvin's idea.

 

Where is Olvin?

 

Did he abandon the theory?

hi,

this is olvin. i will be back soon with in two or three days . and explain the sphere arrangement

Olvin,

 

Except, if you make arrows showing the direction of spin of three gears arranged together in a triangle, you will find that if the first is clockwise, and the second counter clockwise, the third will be conflicted in terms of which direction it should spin. Gear 1 is telling gear three to spin counter-clockwise, and gear two is telling gear three to spin clockwise. In other words, none of the three will spin at all.

 

If you don't believe me, find three gears of the same diameter, with the same size and number of teeth and put them together in a triangle. Nail them each in their center hole with a nail, to a board to give them each and axis to spin on. Then try to spin any of the gears. Nothing will move.

 

Now try it with four gears in a square. They will spin,

 

Your diagram showed a hexagonal pattern. If you would extend your arrows all the way around, you would see they conflict with each other, not support each other. Your system, as drawn, would grind to a halt.

 

Find a geometrical arrangement, in three dimensions, of dense packed spheres, that will support each others spin. Otherwise, your model doesn't work. And if your model doesn't work, it cannot be a model of reality, because reality does work.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. Even 6 gears in a hexagonal pattern will spin, but not with a gear in the center, as a dense packed arrangement would have.

 

But I am thinking in two dimensions, and we have three to work with. I believe a dense pack situation with four intersecting hexagonal planes, will yield as well, three intersecting square planes. I don't remember, but maybe there is an arrangement that would work.

Olvin,

 

Except, if you make arrows showing the direction of spin of three gears arranged together in a triangle, you will find that if the first is clockwise, and the second counter clockwise, the third will be conflicted in terms of which direction it should spin. Gear 1 is telling gear three to spin counter-clockwise, and gear two is telling gear three to spin clockwise. In other words, none of the three will spin at all.

 

If you don't believe me, find three gears of the same diameter, with the same size and number of teeth and put them together in a triangle. Nail them each in their center hole with a nail, to a board to give them each and axis to spin on. Then try to spin any of the gears. Nothing will move.

 

Now try it with four gears in a square. They will spin,

 

Your diagram showed a hexagonal pattern. If you would extend your arrows all the way around, you would see they conflict with each other, not support each other. Your system, as drawn, would grind to a halt.

 

Find a geometrical arrangement, in three dimensions, of dense packed spheres, that will support each others spin. Otherwise, your model doesn't work. And if your model doesn't work, it cannot be a model of reality, because reality does work.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. Even 6 gears in a hexagonal pattern will spin, but not with a gear in the center, as a dense packed arrangement would have.

 

But I am thinking in two dimensions, and we have three to work with. I believe a dense pack situation with four intersecting hexagonal planes, will yield as well, three intersecting square planes. I don't remember, but maybe there is an arrangement that would work.

hi tar,

the spheres which i said is not spinning in same direction or the way you are trying to explain.you are right that six gears can spin but if we put one more gear in centre the whole set will not move. but the spheres out there in space spins in different pattern, the pattern that stricly follows the law of physics. this can be explain with the help of demonstration or with the help set of equations.i have the 100% proof that spheres can spin freely in clockwise and anticlockwise together but following a pattern.two way pattern theory

it is some thing like in one dimension two sphere spins in clock wise,anti clockwise and in third dimension third sphere spins.means the spinning that all the sphere gets is from two form of dimension. in short the sphere that spins at the speed of light gets its spinning through two dimension (two source that spins in two dimension).

hi tar,

thanks for taking intrest

great question ,it is assumed that if one conston(graviton) spins at clockwise then other one spins at counter clockwise.from the source(mass) first distance conston spins at clock wise,second distance conston spins at counter clockwise again the third distance conston spins at clockwise and so on.

each constons having sphere shape spins freely at constant rate. this happens due to the clock wise and anti clockwise imbalance process which i am not able to explain it in writting.

you are in the right point that three gear cannot spin in same direction at same time.so conston are not spinning in same direction but in a pattern of clock & anti clockwise

Olvin,

 

I can't get a dense packed collection of spheres all spinning in the same direction, due to the direction of force at their contact points.

 

If you line up a bunch of gears and turn the first one counter-clockwise, it will cause the second in line to turn clockwise, which will cause the third in line to turn counter-clockwise...

 

If you took two gears spinning at the speed of light, both in the same direction, and put them together, all the teeth would grind off, and there would be no friction left between the gears, to transfer any force, or if the teeth were mighty strong, both gears would grind to a halt.

 

So two gears touching will spin in opposite directions. Three gears touching in a triangle won't spin at all.

Take a dense pack sphere situation, with each sphere touching 12 others, with friction at their surface touch points, and tell me how you could get any of the spheres, spinning on any axis. Much less get them all spinning in the same direction.

 

Regards, TAR2

hi tar,

thanks for taking intrest

great question ,it is assumed that if one conston(graviton) spins at clockwise then other one spins at counter clockwise.from the source(mass) first distance conston spins at clock wise,second distance conston spins at counter clockwise again the third distance conston spins at clockwise and so on.

hi, to all scientist, physicist.

my name is olvine dsouza .I have founded a new theory on gravity that explains gravity in mechanical way. this theory has solved the elliptical effect that happens between stars & planets. so if any needs more explanation please contact me on email removed .