Iwonderaboutthings

Yes pi ratio is doing some interesting things here.. Can you show me values for example: q1 and q2 and a distance r between them? I would love to calculate this " with my own methods" and return the results here again, for them to be analyzed, I think I am onto something Please specify what the values pertain to IE, point charges, light photons etc, so I can reference them.. This is what I have for k Coulomb's constant Ke = 8.987551787*10e9 = 89875517870 C N*m^2*C-2 I am assuming you multiply by this number? 89875517870 BUT WHERE IS THE TENTHS PLACE?????????? Anyway, I am confused on Coulomb's per second here "C" 6.24*10e18 = C = 6.24*10e18 = 62400000000000000000 C charges per second ???? It is not quite clear to me, books assume we "Just Know" What I think is this: Per second a whole bunch of q particles in the numbers of: 62400000000000000000 move in 1 second.. What I don't see is: How these are balanced as negative and positive or positive or negative or however that goes: I assume these particles in the numbers of 62400000000000000000 is really 1/2 their initial value????? It makes sense if r^2 in relation to Columbus law, as division is the same as multiplication?? Its best to ask then assume, I don't like mistakes it is really a waste of time and energy. Yes I have seen pi ratio extensively used in many formulas, Quantum Atom Theory also. I am sure it is not surprising that when you square pi ratio it is close to the value of 9.8/s due to constant acceleration. To add, plank " length" the value is very close to phi ratio, and to make matters more " cumbersome" QED Feyaman never did share his complex numbers to the general public... You can read about it here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics. Its worth investing time in "mathematical relationships." Great links, thanks.

You say: constant. That means it is the same everywhere and at all times - and, more importantly, for all observers regardless of their state of motion. Does your statement also include other fundamental constants such as h, G, g, and others? I was reading this on Wikipedia and somehow, am a believer about what constants " are. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant It is known that the Universe would be very different, if these constants took values significantly different from those we observe. For example, a few percent change in the value of the fine structure constant would be enough to eliminate stars like our Sun. This has prompted attempts at anthropic explanations of the values of some of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants. Whereas the physical quantity indicated by any physical constant does not depend on the unit system used to express the quantity, the numerical values of dimensional physical constants do depend on the unit used. Therefore, these numerical values (such as 299,792,458 for the constant speed of light c expressed in units of meters per second) are not values that a theory of physics can be expected to predict. Because their units cancel, ratios of like-dimensioned physical constants do not depend on unit systems in this way, so they are pure dimensionless numbers whose values a future theory of physics could conceivably hope to predict. AFTER I READ THIS, NOW I AM VERY CONFUSED For example: Coulomb's constant is given by 1/ 4*3.14*[electric constant]*[e relative permittivity of the material in which the charges are immersed, and is dimensionless] What defines 1, why 1???? 1 is a factor of everything yes???? The fine structure constant is another good example here: The fine structure constant has no dimension, is a combination of the electron charge, e, the speed of light, c, and Planck's constant, h. (currently measured at about 1/137.035999) = 1/137.035999 = 0.00729735257376 THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE HERE.... I thought h was the quantum of action = 1 I thought c was = 1 This is not fair!

Isn't the speed of light constant?? IE it is everywhere at all times? Doesn't QM theorize electrons as " not moving" and that waves travel through empty space?? If time does not exist in this dimension but it is used in physics, then something is wrong because derivatives are always = 0 Unless my perception is incorrect about the notion of zero, then I would assume the later that I mentioned as something that I consider... CAN ANYONE ELSE COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT MEANING THAT DESCRIBES WAVE PHENOMENA?? thanks Sensei I got all the information and the links...

Thanks Sensei But before we proceed question: IF LIGHT WAS NOT " WHITE" WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN IN REGARDS TO " PHYSICS AND THIS ENTIRE THREAD??? Yes, I am asking if the kind of light you " Shine" in a prism was not white, then what would this mean?? Yes, I know it sounds crazy I see the h constant??? Are you talking about quantized energy here?? Then the electron uses quantized energy for electrical flow??? This complicates things for me? This means that typical electrical engineering uses quantification? I just want to make sure because when I see photon energy I think of " photons" mass-less and the whole particle wave analogy... Are we now talking about particle waves as electrical flow? Now since the electron is the only source that carries the charge per say, how is it controlled then? Hence: particle waves?? Meaning that somewhere down the line I know the electron must have some random un-precise behavior.. It cant just line up correctly and do what it is designed to do,, right??? This is where I start mixing the Wave Function, then things get all messy... I would only assume that the medium would be used to control electron behavior then? So then ajb I will be very straight forward when I assume this: Due to singularities rather the speed of light as a barrier per say, that: All known objects that consist of matter, " remains " physically static" they do not move at all, and what we perceive as " flow" and or current is merely an invisible magnetic wave that transfers both energy and transmitted information much like a hyper dimensional reality IE, insulator in where " some" "resistant" electrons have a position value rather continuum out of this singularity domain of existence IE, electron magnetic information. I am talking about quantification here... Sine this is the case.... I BELIEVE WHITE LIGHT IS INFACT-------------------> BLACK! This then is a Dark Energy Issue, and Black Hole issue... This then means: All known constants are stationary and much work like portals for "paralleled" regions of this " dark empty space here." Because of this, A theory that predicts " things" is merely a point of view... The logic is based on " time and evolution" rather circles that loop and processes versus expand and grow like phi ratio..not pi ratio, who ever thought of such a thing.. Its been stated that the Planck length resembles phi ratio. 1.616*10e-33 = 1.616e-32 Phi in Atomic Structure http://www.sacred-geometry.es/en/content/phi-atomic-structure I just could not drive the basics into my head it did not make any sense "what so ever" I am almost feeling relieved for once! In regards of the electron magnetic forces information and " what we perceive as " reality" this would be logic to think. In other words here, what we are calculating is basically the exponential locations that pertain to algebraic expressions of nature, but unfortunately we derive zero all the time " because these constants" don't move like I am mentioning here.. Tiss the definition of zero.. it then is off like the light in your room.. Personally I find science a big mess because of QM and General Science Inquiries... Ohhhh dear we can see traces, but doesn't this base the experiment on the evolution of time??? is this time dependent?? is their a substance like example " water" used that traces the electron's motion? Even if its air its still a substance, but my intuition tells me empty space classical vacuums make it worse! and if you may please, what speed are they moving at? One thing that bothers me on the whole of physics is that they use the same elements to test the same elements. Meaning time is used, distance is used and matter is used, and yet they are all made of the same single atom that basically is the blue print of all known "things." Would this make the electron special??? I THINK SO!

WAIT! are you saying the electron and proton share the same charge??? I've read this before and could have just forgot... I just want to make this clear. I don't mean to get deep here, what about strong nuclear forces then??? If this is correct then I am right... I typed the following earlier.... It's kinda like quantity of particles??? When you say charge, do you mean this: A charge consist of "ALL KNOWN" constituents of an Atom??? Does this entire atom flow with electrical current in conductors? You say: after multiplication negative by negative, we will receive positive value. However, isn't there something missing here " a dimensionless quantity that pertains to zero empty space in order to do this?? You just don't multiply numbers together and some how " lace them with the forces of nature, or can you??? can you show me a numerical value of this negative times a negative = a positive value?? Or a link would work to... Either I am not getting it, or this " equation" is not completed.. B is the flux density?? Where on earth did an inverse square law of flux come in??? Flux is a measure of particles as they grow in magnitude right?? On another note, can my confusion be simply on the magnetic constant, being a man made chosen value?? Copied and pasted from Wikipedia: The overall history of the unit of electric current, and of the related question of how to define a set of equations for describing electromagnetic phenomena, is very complicated. Briefly, the basic reason why μ0 has the value it does is as follows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability Yes, interaction is spherically which imposes issues on distance because r^2, not to mention that Coulomb's Law look very much familiar with the Gravitational Force of Celestial Bodies, Am I the only one noticing this??? What I would really looooooooooooove to know, or even see is the actual stream or " What Ever It Is" that is refereed to "Current" From what I gather a charge has both - and + "I am going to say " qualities" because I still don't know what charge is. However, the inversions of these comes from the math and geometry that describes these.. Oddly numbers are virtually used for many similar forms of creations... I feel frustrated at this point because its been years and I still do not " understand the deductive logic of " current, distance, and velocity. It appears that each of them: velocity, distance " r^2" and current "ALL HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER..... From what I gather everything is practically empty space as per Quantum Theory or is it Quantum Atom Theory, you see with all the Theories, its hard to see them all as one meaning regarding the same thing, and that is nature... It just " reads that way." OHHHHHHHHH MY! LOL! I totally forget about the electron and proton having - and + charge, now that darn r^2 makes sense, all of a sudden things are becoming much more clearer...But still a little confused on electrical engineering technicals. I keep thinking that " freed electrons" out of their orbits can exist ""outside"" of the domain of the Atom??? yes? no???

whats Gns? is Q a particle? In your model, the drawing " The Perspective Is Out Of Range" You model is Z buffered in the Z direction. Even computer graphics have issues with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-buffering You should adopt a new method that allows for all degrees of freedom within Cartesian Space. This photos and the link will help..However! Bare in mind that any described model at least visually does so within a limit or boundary of "perspective viewing" Think about it... http://www.imanishi.com/mayablog_en/2008/08/maya-tutorialthe-camera-work-w.html Your model drawing reminds me much of 3d graphics in where " this exact perspective" remains "fixed." I am not sure if it is because many CGI " Computer Graphics" Artist prefer it this way, or are first introduced to this standard way of mesh and 3d creation. Have in mind though, electrical engineering is much similar in process, it uses a type of 3d creation in vector space..

Hymm I see, then this is a distance derivative way of thinking much like special relativity.. So the only way for excitation of an electron is through discrete amounts of quantized energy. Then the electrons become responsive to chemical bonding and other useful methods for creating " new " elements? If I understood correctly, where does this " photon quantized energy come from"? I am familiar with photon energy and the maths, but unsure if the quantized energy is made of the same elements of charge??? This may be a strange way of thinking about it

Question about Coulumb's Law, in relation to electrical engineering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law Coulomb’s law gives an expression to evaluate the electric force in newtons (N) exerted on a one point charge by the other: Forces are experienced by Q1 and Q2, due to the presence of Q2 and Q1, respectively. They are equal in magnitude and opposite of each other in direction. Now, I ask: Where did the inverses of Q2 and Q1 " pop up"?? Are these the anti of Q2 and Q1? Have these ever been seen? What I am thinking is this: Supersymetry, Superposition and Quantum Gravity, Quantum Electro Dynamics??? If what I am intuitively " thinking" there appears to be a "reflection map or a displacement map going on here maybe even a manifold due to the limits in the vector units involved...I'M NOT SURE! BUT! I may just be thinking out of the context " of regular" electrical engineering I think. However I assume that the phenomena of " forces" IE " magnetic waves" somewhere down the line would get acknowledged in electrical engineering study but I have not really seen too much of it so far... In relation to electrical engineering pertaining to: "charge distributions" IE: coupled with , point charges , surface charge distributions ,volume charge distributions, Should a student think of this distribution as the distribution law in algebra??? If so, how?? We have the famous x^2 = -1 to deal with... Is this the reasoning of imaginary units???? if so would't this "not agree" with Coulomb's law?? Like I said: I may just be thinking out of the context " of regular" electrical engineering I think, but it is always best to ask then assume.. On the notion of only surface charge distributions ,volume charge distributions coupled with dimensional analysis again would this make Coulomb's law one half missing?? Or does this only apply to surface charge distributions ,volume charge distributions pertaining to y=x^2? In either case they seem to describe " empty space with or without a medium. When I read force per unit charge as time dependent on some " rate" I am seeing that DC, and AC current flow appear to be " the same application" no matter how math nor geometry describe them due to " the domain in time not space." Is this wrong?

You say: The probability of absorption drops sharply as the energy differs from that value. You say "differs" Is that in any relation to " distance"? Exponential decay? Magnitude? I am talking intrigal calculus here, or maybe even the algebraic generalization " i think" , or better yet the inverse square law? What I am pondering on is " infinity" within the electro magnetic forces applied. If I am correctly describing this, " i hope" how do they control this: the "magnetic force's" value that causes the excited states of the electron? I think I may not be asking this correctly... I am confusing " resonance x " with " resonance y" if this makes any sense at all.. The reason why is because of the light quanta photon energy you mention, and from what I gather... I would assume somewhere that resonance would create a problem with these excited states, or is this an issue more leaning on electrical engineering?

Resonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance Issue with Resonance and Electron Excited States. From what I gather systems resonate at their natural frequency but when an " external force" out of balance and or in phase with the natural oscillation is applied " in this case a magnetic field" , the effects can either have negative implications and or positive implications , depending on the " purpose" for the applied force in general, of the experiment, the design and etc.. Having in mind an applied magnetic field, I would like to know if Resonance creates issues with electron excited states? I assume it but rather ask.. And if so, then does the electron charge remain the same? Meaning that, is this the reason for QM, in where the electron receives discrete amounts of energy.. On another note here: Why apply a magnetic field, when positive electrons and negative electron attract??? Or is this "static electricity"???? Wait! Does this applied magnetic force turn the negative electron to a positive electron? Sorry its hard to visualize the generalization of the term : Resonance

I think you are seeing something totally different than " the atomic" structure. My guess is that your formulating " boundaries" within the domains of Infinity with a mixture of dimensional analysis. BUT I AM NOT SURE HERE...ALL I HAVE ARE BITS OF PEACES... Check out: Tetrahedral number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedral_number Here is another link, the math is simpler! http://milan.milanovic.org/math/english/tetrahedral/tetrahedral.html Your model from what I see can be an incredible advantage if you " continue" the venture in mathematics and follow the "path" of your skills. In my opinion, you definitely have intuition dealing with " dimensionless "units" what I mean by units is that again " from what I am seeing, those numbers " appear" linked to squared boundaries of " Space and time, this is a good thing! Please take time to understand the mathematical concept of limits and boundaries.. The reason why you need to understand these is because your models appear to describe boundaries of empty space, thus you will need to include some form of mathematical " concepts.. Have in mind here that since these models are your personal theoretical concepts, you will be required to "show" some pretty sophisticate math.. I promise you, it will take you several years before you even begin linking the math concepts that show the mathematical relationship of your models. Also, you will find it very hard to find people on the internet whom understand these profound concepts! This is not your regular typical science queries, rather they describe " Parallels Dimensions." Of what?? I still don't know this is your model, but what I do know is that space is linked to frequencies, which solves for any distance in that system of domain, I speak of our concept of " TIME " Tracing back to the origin of the source in this case time " the speed of light", takes us to your model! What you have is VERY EXTREME... But again, I am having trouble trying to understand the math involved because all you show are numbers, like I said: In my opinion, you definitely have intuition dealing with " dimensionless "units" what I mean by units is that again " from what I am seeing, those numbers " appear" linked to squared boundaries of " Space and time, this is a good thing! Also, I can already notice that your numbers share relation to exponentiation.. Think in terms of the inverse square law, that is a big hint here! An exponent is something like this: 10^12 means: 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10=1000000000 Think that 10 = 1 and all the zeros are the distance. Your are going to need to learn the following, these will point you in the right directions, BUT! You will need to " Slowly know the math involved... Here is a GREAT LEARNING VIDEO! I EVEN WATCH IT! It is a guide to understand simple math, to sophisticated concepts.. https://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy In the link above try finding the video for the following terms: frequency domain time domain inhomogeneous magnetic field AND homogeneous wave impedance Parameterizing wave impedance electrical engineering... Hope this helps, keep me posted..

thanks for the link , " I tried clicking it but it does not work" Yes, I had noooooo idea how much I underestimated "detail" studying things over and over again has helped me notice those "small areas" that had me confused for years! No joking, there is this incredible structure of the " Magnetron" bottom photo of a microwave oven, in it I had the chance to see in-detail the mechanisms that create the waves inside of the casing device. I find that " VISUALIZATION" may be one of the most difficult things to master in science. So why didn't I ever see this years ago??? I think like so many, I just wanted to get the " technical" stuff out of the way and not have a visual guide that describes the generalization... Patience is still hard to learn though. It can be awkward studying math without a visualization and a intuitive feel. However at my level of " extreme" detail and technicals, the visualizations are making things "now" so clear that it can be overwhelming, I am glad I am taking the time to " refresh" my knowledge, and really encourage others to do so...

thanks This question may sound dumb to ask, but does exponentiation have anything to do with length contraction in regards to speed at 1 second? When I see 42 000000 and all the zeros I see " distance" in units dependent on time of which I assume is 0 Do you see the correlation?? I assume its the distance the naked eye cannot see as length contraction similar to what is visible within the visible color spectrum. because if this " IE Visible Color Spectrum Has A Limit" could there be an unknown barrier that causes the illusion of length contraction?...Hence, electro magnetism " must " have a medium in which to travel through..and like all mediums I assume they all have barriers of some form...either man made or from nature IE like water, I think I am talking about total internal reflection for water here it gives a good example on barriers.. About electro magnetism In this case I speak of how information travels through empty space via electromagnetism. But I don't this this regards time dilation, or would it?

The link you provided says error... Thanks for the other I will check them out..

Gravity as an Emergent Phenomenon http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2012/Files/damasco.pdf Great link, thanks!

I will check them out, but one quick question.. Do these test use mechanical devices? If so, would you say Special Relativity And Lorentz Transforms, could be thought of as: Looking from the Outside In??

Not as of yet, but I do have the generalization of Minkoswki Space, Special Relativity and the Lorentz Transformations very understood. And I would rather keep it like this until I understand the meaning of 1.. It would be pointless to move forward with calculations.. From what I gather, Minkoswki Space is a light cone to light cone hyper plane reference in two separate dimensions? Special Relativity deals mostly with geometrical positions from persons relative to each other traveling near or close to the speed of light. "Still don't know how this is possible by the way, I never met anyone whom traveled at this speed and came back and told me about their journey.. Lorentz transformations I assume deal with the " factors" of the speed of light in relation to Space and Time.. The reason I have never done the math on this is because: What bothers me about this whole " theory" is that it appears incomplete, and looks like a big mess of things... Minkoswki Space Special Relativity Lorentz Transformations Its a bit much, one theory denotes the other, the other theory supports the other, and yet from what I know, Hendric Lorentz, left science in a mess after his discovery of his Lorentz Transformations.. I spend much time reading and hours on mathematics, so perhaps maybe too much in-put from what I read online has clouded my perception on the whole of science, I still don't get the point of science integrating math at least in the traditional sense for these Relative Calculations.. In regards to: Minkoswki Space Special Relativity Lorentz Transformations What I don't understand is " how" do they all depend on " time" which is " time" dependent on each other.. In other words, how can time, be relative to time, and space be relative to space in the whole of the animating universe.. 1 = time, 1 is used as dx---->0, 1 is a factor of everything, and yet doesn't the speed of light deal in one half's for special relativity as well? Derivatives as y = x^2, " a very simple calculation" appears yet attached to this very theory, in where all your derived answers are either missing 1 or have 1 extra and yet 1 again is a factor of everything... In this 1 and -1 appear to be entangled, and everything linked to it in the forms of causality. Yes I know I am sounding philosophical in my expressions, but given the current conditions of this topic can anyone blame me>>? Has anyone here, ever traveled at the speed of light and like to share their " Revelation"? From what I also understand, exponentiation appears to mean several things: It can either make a number bigger, or smaller, it can also represent multiplication of that same number, and yet they are all copies of 1, this does not register correctly... However, I have heard that some particles have been accelerated to speeds close to c, and have proved Special Relativity,, HOWEVER, Given the current situation on " forces" at the atomic scale" IE not the same as in the real physical world... Can this be a valid case of Special Relativity " as a physical fact" between organic humans at larger scales? Meaning humans are bigger than particles right??? Or is that just a relative point of view?? What kind of instruments?? Can you be specific? If length contraction has not been directly observed then this " really complicates things" Reason: What is the natural human eye's capability of "standard" motion? For example, in computer animation for motions films, they use 30 frames per second, which gives the illusion of natural movement, of coarse in these frames you can use variable speeds.. So long as those variable speeds remain in the " time frame of 30 frames per second,..." Variable speeds give the animation, charector, it allows for variations of movement and please the senses.. It creates a motion film's highs and lows and keeps people interested from start to end... Having good timing either makes a film or breaks a film.. What does this have to do with my OP.. It has to do with much, when you think in terms of vision and how objects that reach the speed of light physically contract but have never been seeing with the naked eye, --------->would then appear inconclusive with our day to day notion of " animation." Unless of coarse, what we perceive as reality is far different than traveling at the speed of light.. Is that why contraction cant be seen with the naked eye?? Refraction and other light ' basics" appear to fit quite well with this analogy... Sorry I need to mention just this little thing To add in the Twin Paradox, if one of them was DRUNK all the way, would special relativity still hold true????

Can a person be able to see "with their naked eye" length contraction in units of 3mm contract to about .5 mm?" If the answer is yes, then their is no need to further add comments, however, if the answer is no, can you " please tell me" how this could be possible' perhaps even in detail... Please no joking around about booze nor hallucinates, this is a serious question, thanks

Not sure if this link is of any help, BUT! reading it now places the things that confused me on a better path of perspective. http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ At-least as a start for me, I read this on Wikipedia: Goldstone bosons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_boson In fluids, the phonon is longitudinal and it is the Goldstone boson of the spontaneously broken Galilean symmetry. Insolids, the situation is more complicated; the Goldstone bosons are the longitudinal and transverse phonons and they happen to be the Goldstone bosons of spontaneously broken Galilean, translational, and rotational symmetry with no simple one-to-one correspondence between the Goldstone modes and the broken symmetries. I find this " Galilean symmetry" very interesting, would anyone know " why " this is mentioned? Does this have anything to do with Cartesian Space??? Basically Is time the issue?? energy dependant?? Is this the same as dependant on " time" as in cycles much like wave phenomena? As in frequencies and cycles, periods and etc?

aYyyyySssee. WOW! this now makes me understand the things that don't make much sense in mathematics and maybe life in general...WOW! thanks! Question: IF THE sub-millimeter and atomic scales WERE TO BE CALCULATED WITH PURE DIMENSIONAL NUMERICAL VALUES TO THEIR EXACT "PRECESSION" HOW WOULD THESE SOUND VALUES BE TESTED?? AND OF COARSE WHAT COPY RIGHTS, INSURES THE " FINDER" CREDIT IN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE?? IS THEIR A NUMERICAL EXAMPLE YOU CAN GIVE ME OF THE ISSUES OF sub-millimeter and atomic scales?? BOUNDARY A AND BOUNDARY B ??? I ASSUME THEM TO BE SIMILAR TO INTRIGALS, ! Sorry I am too lazy to remove the caps and retype, its been a long night for me no jocking Thanks for the reply...

ajb, g is not a fundamental perimeter of the universe??? All known science functions uses the evolution of time from this planet.. NOTE: It may then appear that Physics and QM are then two totally complete different subjects??? So, then you are saying "no" not all forces are the same including those found at the atomic scale then??? I hope you understand what I am asking... I Want to know if: Gravity G, is the same at the atomic scale..... This includes all the constituents of the atom, it would not hurt to know where G plays a role in this if it does at all.. The reasoning behind this is because it appears " maths " does not really allow solutions to infinities nor equilibrium, however given the phenomenon of "Forces" what would science be able to do with boundaries of controlled limits of infinity?? Isn't pi ratio an infinity??? I see it all the time in equations... Would it be wrong to think that "if forces are not the same at the atomic scale" then: Physics and QM are two " ENTIRELY" separate subjects?? We live in a Quantum world and a Physical world??

Something interesting! If g is the force due to acceleration and G is the outer limit force "IE" In Empty Space, then shouldn't these 2 be the subjects of unification?? But then wouldn't this mean that earth would be the supposed Gravitron? Earth does have an = + and - amount of electrical charges making earth an incredible reference frame in the universe right? Or am I incorrect? Re-normalization ---> equilibrium? On a different note here. There is an issue I am having on my "beliefs" of the electron orbitals though , I keep reading that electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus and the whole of the interior atom appears to be obscured with a cloud of some form restricting its actual appearance under an electron microscope.. How can science move to the plank scale and hyper gravity if this is was true? I think this gives me 95% clarity, so its heat interaction? the charges have thermal energy.. I don't know why I never figured this out, but you explaining it makes sense! I have always heard that thermodynamics had issues with equilibrium and balances, I can see why things can get " extremely difficult" considering all the constituents at hand... YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I Don't even see how calculus nor maths can even be of use with something so complex here.. But I am excited about this new information and will read it over and over again. thanks!

Hymm I see now, great link, thanks!

Yes infact I did some examples online and their p r e t t y good!!!!!!!!! I was " quite impressed I must say."

In small words, can you say the "normalization" not the---> group is: A vector? A Magnitude? or equilibrium of an entire system relative to another symmetrical system? Like a polynomial? Hymmm, how can math explain or unify such a thing?