Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

[Vmedvil]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That makes absolutely no sense every dynamic under physics involves differental geometry. Why do you think that is part of the prerequisites including vector calculus which also applies geometry?

How do you model a vector without it?

How do you think Wolframalpha works magic?

Let me put it this way if it were truly of Zero there, there would not be an equation defining being null.

[Mordred]

No you obviously don't understand how null geodesics work either. Quite frankly I'm not about to give you a course on it but the  frame of reference is not a valid inertia frame under GR for that specific reason.  (its outside the limits of the function )

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

No you obviously don't understand how null geodesics work either. Quite frankly I'm not about to give you a course on it but the  frame of reference is not a valid inertia frame under GR for that specific reason.  

aleph Null ∅

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

quit posting nonsense. Do you not understand the limits of exponential curves? 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

quit posting nonsense. Do you not understand the limits of exponential curves? 

0 is still a state, still exists just compressed to a extremely small size, aleph null would be not there, which is why they exist infinitely until you hit another universe where some can become aleph null while new ones will go to a state or zero from aleph null.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

So what does does that have to do with range of force? or calculating Pauli ?

I know your tactic is trying to distract me but its not going to work. 

You want to build  master equation without undetstanding the rudimentary physics nor mathematics. 

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

So what does does that have to do with range of force? or calculating Pauli ?

I know your tactic is trying to distract me but its not going to work. 

Like I said they are infinite still there, there is no range until you hit outside this Universe.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Oh BS there is absolutely no need to invoke that cough out excuse because you don't understand how infinity arises due to Fourier analysis of an exponential curve ie spacetime diagram.

Take a simple number problem example how many times can you divide 1 metre in half?

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Oh BS there is absolutely no need to invoke that cough out excuse because you don't understand how infinity arises due to Fourier analysis of an exponential curve ie spacetime diagram.

No seriously, they never go to zero truly just below measurements of acceptable error as long as your inside this universe.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Precisely thats Planck length that is your cutoff.

Where does extra universes come into it?Is that what you think the higher dimensions are under string theory?

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

12 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

No seriously, they never go to zero truly just below measurements of acceptable error as long as your inside this universe.

ya, you were talking about this.

Z = the 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, it tells all the orbitals.

A  tells the nucleons and SNF.

(A,Z) tells neutrons.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Previously now define dimension under mathematics. You claim to understand algebra define it under algebra 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

27 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Precisely thats Planck length that is your cutoff.

Where does extra universes come into it?Is that what you think the higher dimensions are under string theory?

If it were ever below a Planck length it would be aleph null, the fields lowest size is a Planck length, they never go below that inside this universe, zero is what you define when as being a Planck length with a magnitude of one Planck action, well below measurements for another couple hundred years. 

6.626070040(81)×10−34

J⋅s

 

4.135667662(25)×10−15

eV⋅s

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

No No No.

Define a mathematical dimension.

If you don't understand that term you will never understand any of the groups for String theory etc.

And you most definitely will not understand the cardinality of infinite sets via aleph alpha if you don't even understand the proper mathematical terminology. ie where do you get extra universes from?

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Previously now define dimension under mathematics. You claim to understand algebra define it under algebra 

a dimension is a planck action in a direction(i,j,k)

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

NO yeesh I specified algabra remember?

Dimension is an independent variable. Prime example is plane has two independent variables x and y either can change without affecting the other. For volume 3 x,y,z either can change without affecting the other. 4d add time under a coordinate basis of length via ct.

ijk are unit vectors

String theory adds independent variables and this equates to your groups ie

SU(2) two independent variables

SU(3) 3 independent variables

SU(n) where n is number of independent variables

And you want to understand Cardinality of number sets?

ie the axiom of extensionality? ie the following

The natural number system can be extended to the system of ordinal numbers. An ordinal is a transitive set of transitive sets

How can you possibly understand set theory to even comprehend aleph alpha

Please do yourself a favor before trying to solve the mysteries of physics. Study every terminology you see under mathematics definition.

Example mass, bijector, ordinality, dimension, projection, holomorphism, diffeomorphism etc etc all these terms are based upon mathematics.

When you pick up an article study every technical sounding word... you will be amazed just how indepth those articles truly are.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

12 hours ago, Mordred said:

NO yeesh I specified algabra remember?

Dimension is an independent variable. Prime example is plane has two independent variables x and y either can change without affecting the other. For volume 3 x,y,z either can change without affecting the other. 4d add time under a coordinate basis of length via ct.

ijk are unit vectors

String theory adds independent variables and this equates to your groups ie

SU(2) two independent variables

SU(3) 3 independent variables

SU(n) where n is number of independent variables

And you want to understand Cardinality of number sets?

ie the axiom of extensionality? ie the following

The natural number system can be extended to the system of ordinal numbers. An ordinal is a transitive set of transitive sets

How can you possibly understand set theory to even comprehend aleph alpha

Please do yourself a favor before trying to solve the mysteries of physics. Study every terminology you see under mathematics definition.

Example mass, bijector, ordinality, dimension, projection, holomorphism, diffeomorphism etc etc all these terms are based upon mathematics.

When you pick up an article study every technical sounding word... you will be amazed just how indepth those articles truly are.

Ya, I had gone to sleep before you posted this otherwise I would have had something to say about this Mordred, I defined them like Maxwell's equations just without them all being apart but a single equation.

So, whatever that is called, look familiar. 

In reality I can just write it like this, if I don't define every little part.

∇'(Y,G,F,c,X,Z,Δt',ΔKiloparsec) = (((ħ²  /(2E_rest/C²)) ∑³_{a =1} (d²/d((C²/E_rest)∑^N_{i = 1} M_iR_i)²) + (1/2)∑³_{a,β = 1}  μ_aβ(P_a - Π_a)(P_β - Π_β) + U - (ħ²/2)∑^3N-6_s=1(d²/dq²) + V)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}(((2ħGC²))R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μ(((L_{ghost QE}  - gf^abc(δ^μ (c-bar)^a)A_μ^bc^c) / (c-bar)^aδ^μc^a) _{+ ig(1/2)}τW_μ + ig'(1/2)YB_μ)ψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - (μ²((φ-Dagger)φ) + λ((φ-Dagger)φ)²)/-(((L_ghost QE   - gf^abc(δ^μ (c-bar)^a)A_μ^bc^c) / (c-bar)^aδ^μc^a) _{+ ig(1/2)}τW_μ + ig'(1/2)YB_μ)²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)) - ((E_rest/C²)ω_s(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^1/2 + (S/ (((3G(E_rest/C²))/2C²R_s³)(R_pV_p) + (GI_s/C²R_s³)((3R_p/R_s²)(ω_p R_p) -ω_p ))))R_s²/2))) / (ħ²/2(E_rest/C²))))^1/2(((1-(((2(E_rest/C²)G / R_s) - (I_sω_s(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^1/2 + (S/(((3G(E_rest/C²))/2C²R_s³)(R_pV_p) + (GI_s/C²R_s³)((3R_p/R_s²)(ω_p R_p) -ω_p )))))/2(E_rest/C²))+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)³)∫(((E_relativistic² - E_rest² / C²) + ((A_r(X) + (E_{Nucleon binding SNF} ε₀ μ₀ /m_u) - A_r(X^Z±)/Z) / m_u)²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((ERelativistic  - μchemical)/TMatter)}±1)(ħω_s  + ħω_s) - ((k_sC²)/ R_s²) + (G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(C²)))^1/2)

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

So are you converting those equations from Natural units ?  Specifically the Maxwell and GR tensors

Secondly are you applying range of force per your nucleon binding terms? 

What about range of force for the weak force?

Are you aware that the electro magnetic and gravity terms lose strength at different ratios over radius? 1 is 1/r^3 while the other is 1/r^2.

Why do you still have Kiloparsecs when not every force has that range?

How do you define locality of a force to a particle interaction?

I am pointing out errors I see in that equation and supplied the material so you can see for yourself so why aren't those corrections being made?

Another one why do you have E_rest and E_relativistic if you are using the Einstien field equations correctly under GR?

How are you handling rotations in different directions as per the right hand rule without applying correctly the covariant and contravariant terms of those tensors?

I don't see any trigonometry being applied to angles between interactions. You don't have any of the boost and rotation matrixes in the above nor do I see any details to replace them with trig.

So how did You handle your inner, outer, cross product terms in all the tensors in that equation. Did you simply treat every term as an Algebraic scalar quantity even after I told you several days ago that was wrong?

You have [math] G^{\mu\nu}/R^{\mu\nu}[/math] you cannot divide tensors...

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

29 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So are you converting those equations from Natural units ?  Specifically the Maxwell and GR tensors

Secondly are you applying range of force per your nucleon binding terms? 

What about range of force for the weak force?

Are you aware that the electro magnetic and gravity terms lose strength at different ratios over radius? 1 is 1/r^3 while the other is 1/r^2.

Why do you still have Kiloparsecs when not every force has that range?

How do you define locality of a force to a particle interaction?

I am pointing out errors I see in that equation and supplied the material so you can see for yourself so why aren't those corrections being made?

Another one why do you have E_rest and E_relativistic if you are using the Einstien field equations correctly under GR?

How are you handling rotations in different directions as per the right hand rule without applying correctly the covariant and contravariant terms of those tensors?

I don't see any trigonometry being applied to angles between interactions. You don't have any of the boost and rotation matrixes in the above nor do I see any details to replace them with trig.

So how did You handle your inner, outer, cross product terms in all the tensors in that equation. Did you simply treat every term as an Algebraic scalar quantity even after I told you several days ago that was wrong?

You have Gμν/Rμν you cannot divide tensors...

None of that matters for how this was written besides that tensor part but division is just 1/(x) multiplication take all the terms within the tensor 1/(term)

and about this.

why do you still have Kiloparsecs when not every force has that range?

They do have that range.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

4 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

None of that matters for how this was written besides that tensor part but division is just 1/(x) multiplication take all the terms within the tensor 1/(term)

What a load of crock you don't the first thing about it. Of course those factors matters. I wouldn't be pointing them out with backup literature if they didn't.

You haven't applied a single vector did you?

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What a load of crock you don't the first thing about it. Of course those factors matters. I wouldn't be pointing them out with backup literature if they didn't

If the zero go undefined in g_uv, they are supposed to.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Absolutely BS. Don't try to fool me with your utter lack of math skill.

Do you even know the first thing about number set theory with regards to Aleph?

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Absolutely BS. Don't try to fool me with your utter lack of math skill.

what is the undefined symbol aleph null. 

[Mordred]

Why don't you pick up a book. You haven't followed any math rules yet so why should I expect you to follow the rules and axioms under number set theory

For that matter do even know whatva number set is?

Edited December 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Why don't you pick up a book. You haven't followed any math rules yet so why should I expect you to follow the rules and axioms under number set theory

For that matter do even know whatva number set is?

the metric tensor in that state if it were multipled would be where the 0's are -∅ while the 1's -1/1 which is -1 Meaning non existent in this universe, lack of dimension or -1 does exist as a dimension.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Vmedvil