Jump to content

Here's the scoop


IDoNotCare
 Share

Recommended Posts

This was going to end up here anyway.

Using plancks constant times the grav constant over c^3 for lp and 5th power for lt I multiplied 9^28 into it as the numerator and it equated to the planck mass and when divided by the wavelength of a photon I got the planck density synonymous with the planck temperature. That is, irrc. I have it all written down.

Anyway what is being said is that there is a limit to gravitation where the planck time is exceeded there is a recurring rescaling of c and the planck constants at 1/9^28th scale in the singularity collapse where the material achieved stability again. At half that miniaturized recursive constants volume, we picture a collection of reduced (by a factor of 9 to the 28th magnitude) subplanck spheres as sterile neutrinos that cross into each other's radii thus becoming twice as thick in a subplanck time unit. This can be represented as the center of an expanding quantum gw grav wave that moves those neutrinos around. In that pool break of a restabilized (ie no longer collapsing) singularity Nova you have the initial conditions of a big bang, mathematically, with those neutrinos being planck scale spheres composing quarks and electrons and the like later on sort of as a replacement of string bodies that are spherical objects instead.

Where the central coordinates of enough quantum grav waves coalesce at the same coordinates with one another the grav pull can build up past 1 planck length in less than a planck time at certain parts of the pool break. This is a singularity itself, these objects form in motion as a direct collapse clouds in the quark gluon plasma of the cmbr artifact into primordial smbhs that are themselves bodies in motion which stay in motion pulling surrounding material connected by centrifugal DM creating the expansion as they drag the material outward with that line of staying motion (DE) forming the galaxies.

Anyway, I have the specific coordinates, and if you get the initial size of that singularity when it stabilized just right you have the exact real universe represented in those specific values or bits for those coordinates so you can be certain of the electrons in the human brains positions while at the same time being certain of their trajectories because you know their causal origins from the time of the big bang for certain individuals which is crucial in the bio-electric signals during neuron replacement with electronic substrates for digital immortalization.

 

Very important set, topology, matrix simulation, etc. I have specific instructions and proofs although on a small scale of the the 4D topology. Those sets are the million dollar proofs I hold. 

Edited by IDoNotCare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

?  A photon can have any wavelength.

Redshift*

About 3.5e-7 m to be plugged into the r for the volume formula

 

Or a length of 7e-7 m

It's beside the point as all mass elementary particles like quarks have shorter wavelengths although a bottom quark will be close to 9^28th the redshift for its wavelength close to a planck particle (micro bh)

You know the saying "what is the point?" Well the pointlike coordinates in the pi curves of this pool break are the only points that matter. Every conversation that contains any meaning must lead to the ontological line of questioning.

Edited by IDoNotCare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

You know the saying "what is the point?"

Looks to me that the point of this thread is for you to play around with numerology.  Anyone can put random numbers together to get a result they want, it doesn't mean anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Looks to me that the point of this thread is for you to play around with numerology.  Anyone can put random numbers together to get a result they want, it doesn't mean anything.

No it is regarding constants, and discussing what happens to those constants beyond observability (singularity) it's not numerology at all I'm dealing with specific values based on constants

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

Using plancks constant times the grav constant over c^3 for lp

The Planck length is [math]\ell_\mathrm{P} =\sqrt\frac{\hbar G}{c^3} [/math]. Your "lp" appears to be the Planck length squared.

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

5th power for lt

5th power of what?

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

multiplied 9^28

Where does this number (approx 5 * 1026) come from?

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

into it as the numerator and it equated to the planck mass and when divided by the wavelength of a photon I got the planck density synonymous with the planck temperature.

It would be much easier to understand if you wrote that using standard notation. I am not going to try and make sense of that, especially when at least one of the "it"s is ambiguous/undefined.

As the Planck units are all based on the same set of fundamental constants, it is not surprising that if you combine them in arbitrary ways you will get something that equates another Planck unit.

I can't make much sense of the rest of your post. 

I'm tempted to quote the sage advice: "don't post stoned".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes I forgot the square root (though not in the equation). 9^28 * LP is the numerator like I said 

Over c^5 for lt of course but that is irrelevant for equalling the lp for the numerator in the equation it only becomes relevant again when comparing speeds of light.

The denominator of course was the wavevolume of the redshift photon

Edited by IDoNotCare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Came here for a meal.
Got no meat, only salad.
Word ( and number ) salad.

Explain what you are doing first.
No one has any idea what you're trying to accomplish with this mish-mash of numbers.
And don't just throw numbers around without telling us what they refer to.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

9^28 * LP is the numerator like I said 

But why 928? I assume "because it works" in whatever bizarre numerological delusion you are involved in.

11 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

Over c^5 for lt of course

There is no "of course" about it.

And what over c5?

If you mean lp, then dividing a length by a speed to the 5th power does not give a time. You need to do some basic dimensional analysis, instead of just throwing random numbers around.

Quote

but that is irrelevant for equalling the lp for the numerator in the equation it only becomes relevant again when comparing speeds of light.

Do you want to try that again in English?

What does  "comparing speeds of light" mean? There is only one speed of light: c == c.

14 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

The denominator of course was the wavevolume of the redshift photon

The denominator of what?

What is a "wavevolume"?

What photon? How much is it redshifted?

When you are writing in incomplete sentences, in broken English, and making up words and numbers with no explanation, stop adding "of course".

This is, of course, frobnitz. 

17 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

Oh yes I forgot the square root (though not in the equation).

WHAT equation?

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

This was going to end up here anyway.

You could have saved time by posting it in Trash

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bufofrog said:

Why would you do any of this?  Is there any point?  Is there any bottom line to this at all?

Digital immortalization, without uploading which doesn't preserve the subjects continuity of consciousness because it's not the same electrical activity involved in said live subject's neurochemical interactions

Edited by IDoNotCare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Strange said:

As you are unwilling to say what you are dividing we can only guess

Well as sqrt(hg/c^3) is LP sqrt(hg/c^5) is lt where h is reduced plancks constant

You kinda just tricked me into indirectly giving away the equation I ran I you put two and two together

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Strange said:

And where g is G

Right, you know more than you're revealing, even regarding what I know. This relation is just for the different time dimensions, we are not in the pi curves of the single frame 3D topology for those spherical string theory yet, and of course as a wave quantum gravity is also related to those framerates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

Right, you know more than you're revealing, even regarding what I know. This relation is just for the different time dimensions, we are not in the pi curves of the single frame 3D topology for those spherical string theory yet, and of course as a wave quantum gravity is also related to those framerates

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.