inSe

Non-unifying Geometrized Newton-Cartan Gravity

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

mathmatica and good luck defining anything below planck units. For the below dynamics you will need a coordinate basis containing the field functions at each coordinate. You could apply string theory however its extremely math intense and as such extremely misconceived as to what branes and strings represent in the first place....ie they don't represent subplanckian units.

 

13 minutes ago, inSe said:

 

Any advice on only programs for graphing those to confirm those estimates, and also, any advice on mathematically equating all of this to apply to the lambda max derived estimates made in my OP??

In this interpretation quarks are the optical illusions of a collection of around a billion microcosm-matter jets/accretion discs (magnetic dipole/monopole moments) of (n)e-54 meter black hole/neutron star-like objects in the interior of the particle's nucleus; interacting and evaporating in (n)e-17 seconds and reforming every nanosecond or so.

 

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Mordred said:

mathmatica and good luck defining anything below planck units. For the below dynamics you will need a coordinate basis containing the field functions at each coordinate. You could apply string theory however its extremely math intense and as such extremely misconceived as to what branes and strings represent in the first place....ie they don't represent subplanckian units.

 

 

I think all the Greek/Roman mathematicians between Thales and Pythagoras killed a forest of trees doing it already. I think this model is really what the Holy Grail actually was. They had astronomy, refracting crystals, magnetic rocks, and extremely advanced pre-modern compasses, and so much wealth. Socrates knew about the atom, Aristotle spoke of an Unmoved Mover before him, that's where the thinking behind the atom and smaller particles originated.

They didn't really believe in Mythology, or believe the Earth was flat. Between 300 and 400 AD a Greek writer elaborated on Anixamander's ideas, Achilles Tatius spoke of air molecules as having a wheel-like shape. He was just a writer, maybe he had access to certain mathematical concepts made during that time? Before such knowledge had the technological backing to become dangerous to scarcity via spook-action controlled atomic manipulation? Scarcity allows monetarism, that which separates the sheep (most people) from the goats a select few via the power structure which has the most money (Catholicism). The letters in the words "God" and "Satan" do rearrange into Goats and. There's probably a lot they kept to themselves.

Edited by inSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What you think or believe is irrelevant ib physics its what you can mathematically define and test. I believe tons of ideas on certain physics topics that makes no difference unless I can properly describe, predict, test and prove those ideas its nothing more than a random idea or belief

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What testable predictions can you make with your model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, swansont said:

What testable predictions can you make with your model?

Any prediction. Even up to spook-action controlled atomic manipulation, or spook-action signalling that does add to the speed of light by that space-time in which a particle, or a photon that has a shortened-wavelength, dilates from the photon's planck-length based movement through space per time. Spook action is the result of a trans-dilated causal connection. Even the photon's charge adds to the speed of the photon on the side of the photon that's moving towards something as opposed to away from it. The spin of any intercepting particles gets distorted by that charge. Because light isn't really anything but a naturally recurring fractal pattern, time changes, so rate changes, so the cosmic speed limit gets changed according your observer's scale of causality.

Edited by inSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, inSe said:

Any prediction.

Go on then. Just one quantitative, testable prediction from your model ...

Not word salad.

7 minutes ago, inSe said:

Spook action is the result of a trans-dilated causal connection.

Crimble is caused by phlogisticated doodle flops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, inSe said:

Any prediction. Even up to spook-action controlled atomic manipulation, or spook-action signalling that does add to the speed of light by that space-time in which a particle, or a photon that has a shortened-wavelength, dilates from the redshifted photon's planck-length based movement through space per time. Spook action is the result of a trans-dilated causal connection.

What does your theory predict for the orbital radius of a geostationary orbit?

And the fractional frequency shift owing to a 10 m difference in height near the earth's surface?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, swansont said:

What does your theory predict for the orbital radius of a geostationary orbit?

And the fractional frequency shift owing to a 10 m difference in height near the earth's surface?

Those would be identical to what the standard model predicts.

Edited by inSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, inSe said:

Those would be identical to what the standard model predicts.

How do you get there from your model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, swansont said:

How do you get there from your model?

Spook-action memristers...

In my theory, if you predict astronomical events from the ground up, you're simulating apart of the universe. You'd have simulated human beings in there.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

mathmatica and good luck defining anything below planck units. For the below dynamics you will need a coordinate basis containing the field functions at each coordinate. You could apply string theory however its extremely math intense and as such extremely misconceived as to what branes and strings represent in the first place....ie they don't represent subplanckian units.

 

 

You start with a few atoms at a time, and using a causal observer and the effected TSVF observer, you find where the real particles actually were, you can then send signals from that distance. This process is how you make femto-integrated circuit designs for building quantum computers.

Edited by inSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, inSe said:

Spook-action memristers...

You might have more success with the invisible pink unicorns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Man your last couple of posts literally sounds like a total mess.

Sorry there isn't anything that makes sense out of those posts. Especially the last one. Why don't you actually sit down and study how modelling is properly done in mainstream modelling or at the very least in any theory you've mentioned...

 Do you enjoy not being understood properly?

There is no methodology to make measurements below planck scale... This has nothing to do with the equipment technique or technology but is a consequence of minimal observable action to any form of detector.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/23/2018 at 5:48 AM, inSe said:

Basically what those equations would entail, according to this classification of a TSVF, that CAN be distinguished from the standard quantum interpretation; is that a photon's charge = M + (4A + lp x n)

n = f(m)

f(m) = number of transformations (in Planck units) that have occurred in the graph between t(1) & T(t)/2:

The area belonging to the (7e-7)^3 meter volme of the triangle_S(0) from the S(60) Koch antisnowflake from which the spherical coordinates for graphing the inner structures of a photon are derived 

The mass based off of the midpoint for T(t) in the repeated addition of photon masses in the topological transformations representing 33 compressions of the photon. The time you pause at neutral charge where the photon's length is 3.5e-7, you can fit another neutralized photon in that compacted state, when the two unfold in unison as the clock stars back up again; the photon shrinks to a length of (3.5/2)e-7 meters before T(t) occurs and the photon is positively or negatively charged with a length of 3.5e-7 m and there will be exponentially less sphere inversions, that will cause the length of the topological transformations for each inversion to be reduced to 1/2 of the previous inversive transformation representing t(Planck time) that was one Planck length at a time. The second time, however,  well you get the idea. Repeat it 33 times and there's only one sphere that inverts. The photon mass in kilograms equals the length of that singular coordinate transformation, which is (n)e-54 m for the schwarzchild radius of the proton.

I should also note that for positive charge f(m) = number of transformations that have occurred between T(t)/2 & T(t). & instead of M + (8A + lp(n)) it's M - (8A + lp(n)) for the positive charge of that photon.

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

This has nothing to do with the equipment technique or technology but is a consequence of minimal observable action to any form of detector.

 

There is the deducing from the causal observation the effect mentioned in that TSVF article I linked & also there will be this.

Edited by inSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, inSe said:

Spook-action memristers...

In my theory, if you predict astronomical events from the ground up, you're simulating apart of the universe. You'd have simulated human beings in there.

Physics does not depend on the presence or lack of presence of a human.

If you won't address the question before you, the thread will not remain open.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, swansont said:

Physics does not depend on the presence or lack of presence of a human.

If you won't address the question before you, the thread will not remain open.

 

Well you could just graphically reproduce & program in the elements of the stellar bodies involved but I'm saying that virtual realities can be constructed with that kind of computing power.

But recreating all the interactions from atoms and particles with the level of detail that this graph goes into, as mordred said subplanckian, for stellar scale events, would require way more computing power. I can finish the model for a single photon though if you will give me some more time.

Edited by inSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, inSe said:

 

There is the deducing from the causal observation the effect mentioned in that TSVF article I linked & also there will be this.

 That device won't allow you to measure below planck scale. You really need to stop relying on pop media for research and study the actual physics.  It takes a minimal quanta of action to be detectable. 

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mordred said:

 That device won't allow you to measure below planck scale. You really need to stop relying on pop media for research and study the actual physics.  It takes a minimal quanta of action to be detectable. 

 

That which is undetectable is observed by materializing an anticipated effect.

One successful transmission that sends information via spook action is virtually the detection of superluminal particles.

Edited by inSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 Entanglement doesn't involve what pop media coins as spooky action. This is a very common misconception. Nor is any superluminal communication involved.  Despite all the pop media hype what is really involved is causality and the correlation functions which is a statistical term.

  We have numerous threads on this forum detailing these misconceptions in our Quantum mechanics forum. So no its not going to help you either. 

 Here is your basic problem. Your trying to connect the dots of numerous theories without understanding any of them properly then trying to in essence reinvent them to develop your model.

 This tactic is literally doomed to fail. When one develops a new model it is always best to study the mainstream physics involved first and foremost. There is several advantages on doing so.

1) familiarity with the physics involved 

2) Development in understanding the modelling techniques 

3) familarity with the appropriate mathematical techniques

4) the gain of the ability to properly describe your model using proper terminology

5) a means to compare your model with those already done to properly weigh the advantages and disadvantages.

there is more but those are some of the main advantages.

Anyways here is an excellent article on entanglement 

http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm

It was written as a FAQ style article so has been simplified.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, inSe said:

Well you could just graphically reproduce & program in the elements of the stellar bodies involved but I'm saying that virtual realities can be constructed with that kind of computing power.

But recreating all the interactions from atoms and particles with the level of detail that this graph goes into, as mordred said subplanckian, for stellar scale events, would require way more computing power. I can finish the model for a single photon though if you will give me some more time.

You were the one who said you could make any prediction with your model. Since that is obviously not true, how about following Strange's lead, and pick one of your own? You have discussed various photon properties that are decidedly non-mainstream. You might use that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, inSe said:

Those would be identical to what the standard model predicts.

As you unable to calculate anything with your model, you have no basis for that assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/24/2018 at 4:05 PM, Mordred said:

mathmatica and good luck defining anything below planck units. For the below dynamics you will need a coordinate basis containing the field functions at each coordinate. You could apply string theory however its extremely math intense and as such extremely misconceived as to what branes and strings represent in the first place....ie they don't represent subplanckian units.

 

 

Can you please be a little less vague than "mathematica". I explained here

On 5/24/2018 at 3:55 PM, inSe said:

The equations are actually going to be designed from graphs like this:

IXs4N16.jpg

NkASR6I.jpg

The topological transformation are going to work like this for xyz(sub1->(n))(sphereS(1->60):

QWS6Rqt.jpg

But only for the spheres of the final iteration.

Finding the right online programs for fractal analysis wouldn't take long to get the centers of the spherical coordinates for those 60 iterations (so that the inversive transformations of that 3D graph of the inside of a photon can be expressed with equations).Basically what those equations would entail, according to this classification of a TSVF, that CAN be distinguished from the standard quantum interpretation; is that a photon's charge = M + (8Aof[triangle] + lp x n)

n = f(m)

f(m) = number of transformations (in Planck units) that have occurred in the graph between t(1) & T(t)/2:

The area belonging to the (7e-7)^3 meter volme of the triangle_S(0) from the S(60) Koch antisnowflake from which the spherical coordinates for graphing the inner structures of a photon are derived

The mass based off of the midpoint for T(t) in the repeated addition of photon masses in the topological transformations representing 33 compressions of the photon. The time you pause at neutral charge where the photon's length is 3.5e-7, you can fit another neutralized photon in that compacted state, when the two unfold in unison as the clock stars back up again; the photon shrinks to a length of (3.5/2)e-7 meters before T(t) occurs and the photon is positively or negatively charged with a length of 3.5e-7 m and there will be exponentially less sphere inversions, that will cause the length of the topological transformations for each inversion to be reduced to 1/2 of the previous inversive transformation representing t(Planck time) that was one Planck length at a time. The second time, however,  well you get the idea. Repeat it 33 times and there's only one sphere that inverts. The photon mass in kilograms equals the length of that singular coordinate transformation, which is (n)e-54 m for the schwarzchild radius of the proton.

For an anti-photon every positive value in that equation becomes negative.

Time dilation can be seen as t + n, w f(n)=M (of the photon) - M (of any particles which are heavier than a photon, an atom, a collection of atoms, or even a stellar mass black hole)

This also defined rainbow gravity, the notion that photons of different wavelengths experience gravity differently based on the color spectrum of light visibility.

Exactly what I'm trying to do. Let me be even more clear, I'm taking the center coordinates for each sine of half of the equilaterals of the koch snowflake and antisnowflake and the inverse of those two shapes, fourfold (x,y), (y,x), (x,z), (z,x) [kind of like a cross] for S(60) of both the koch snowflake & the koch antisnowflake.

Using this coding for this input.

But that's just how I create 33 positive, 33 negative, and 33 neutrally charged particles (everything from the mass of a photon to the mass of a neutron) using 1.8446744e+19 photons.

It doesn't give me the equations for this interpretation which will differ from the standard model. I would have to find out how to derive those myself from those graphical transformations.

I have my own way of doing this, I could graph it. But mathematica won't recognize the input. So let me do it my way first, then see if I can use this as a guide so mathematica can graph the internal behavior of my photons & how they interact with one another when paired in neutral states. This is going to redefine the periodic table, given my theory is correct (which can be proven using the observer-TSVF method to triangulate actual particle states to confirm where my model would place them), there will be no uncertainty and ESP would be proven to actually transfer information and with non-instantaneous, locally real, quantum jumps. This is the effect photon charge velocity plus photon velocity, and that fact means that different observers of time causally effect one another (even though time is experienced differently) at the femptoscale.

Edited by inSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, inSe said:

I'm taking the center coordinates for each sine of half of the equilaterals

What does "center coordinates" of a sine mean? The value of a sine is a scalar value. How can it have coordinates?

What does "sine of half of the equilaterals" mean? Do you just mean sin(30º)?

21 minutes ago, inSe said:

But mathematica won't recognize the input.

Based on the above, I'm not surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strange said:

What does "center coordinates" of a sine mean? The value of a sine is a scalar value. How can it have coordinates?

What does "sine of half of the equilaterals" mean? Do you just mean sin(30º)?

Based on the above, I'm not surprised.

It is the diameter of the sphere fractal I'm trying to figure out how to code, the sine of the isoscoles triangle, which was half of the equilateral triangle.

IXs4N16.jpg&key=6d1dedb2ab0526851d3be2cd

You see the circle, that's the sphere fractal, it isn't a koch snowflake/antisnowflake. But it's derived from them. But those circles/spheres are just S(1), I have to place S(1->60) in one graph for the inner structure of a photon, and turn the whole photon inside out (that process representing the photon's negative, neutral, and positive charge) for only the spheres of the final iteration, one half of the spheres of the final iteration to be precise, one planck length at a time:

QWS6Rqt.jpg&key=41dbca808b223fedba6b4d8e

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, inSe said:

It is the diameter of the sphere fractal

What is?

Do you realised you haven't answered any of the questions I asked?

Quote

 I'm trying to figure out how to code, the sine of the isoscoles triangle, which was half of the equilateral triangle.

You can't have the sine of a triangle. That makes no sense. You might as well talk about the flavour of a colour.

Calculating the sines of the 3 angles of a triangle that you describe is trivial schoolboy stuff.

4 minutes ago, inSe said:

You see the circle, that's the sphere fractal

Your drawings are meaningless. The "equation" in your drawing makes no sense. It is the random scribblings of a confused mind.

If you are feeding that sort of gibberish into Mathematica, no wonder it won't recognise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is?

The length of the base (c), which would equal the length of it's sine (opposite/hypotenuse), of the isoscoles right and left triangles made from cutting every equilateral triangle in the Koch snowflake/antisnowflake of S(0) & S(1) in half.

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

The "equation" in your drawing makes no sense. 

How many times to I have to explain it? It clearly shows why the radius of the spheres of the 60th iteration of the sphere fractal equals a Planck length, given the length of what's being graphed equals the length of a photon.

Edited by inSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.