Hi, again

Since not being a pro physicist, we maybe shall wait for the one's here schooled in astrophysics. The reasonable breakthrough with understanding how and for what these "tools" are best suited to, is rather near in time for me to fully understand. My concern mainly is to comprehend and verify universal conditions. Specially on the latest BB negative confirmations. The recent found minor "errors" at the BB "idea" spurs me. So generally these two "tools" are most suitable for correlating early universal observations with ideas of universe's dynamics and geometry. -Primary through vacuum related evolution. According to every time stances possible. -Then, now and in future times. The UBD formula initially concerned universal "matter", time" and "gravity" behavior.

The UBD tool is not possible for to use with strict QM, particle or field physics, and so on. Although it is "weighted" or "calibrated" from a universal action scale, in the standardized (zeroized) h-bar form. -It's an overall "instrument" for universe's vacuum condition, in its regulation method, its identity character, and its geometry, at any time chosen for to "investigate". An astonishing hack of universe for short.

/chron44

Edited Wednesday at 09:42 PM3 days by chron44
updating text

5 minutes ago, chron44 said:

Hi, again

Since not being a pro physicist, we maybe shall wait for the one's here schooled in astrophysics. The reasonable breakthrough with understanding how and for what these "tools" are best suited to, is rather near in time for me to fully understand. My concern mainly is to comprehend and verify universal conditions. Specially on the latest BB negative confirmations. The recent found minor "errors" at the BB "idea" spurs me. So generally these two "tools" are most suitable for correlating early universal observations with ideas of universe's dynamics and geometry. -Primary through vacuum related evolution. According to every time stances possible. -Then, now and in future times. The UBD formula initially concerned universal regulation.

The UBD tool is not possible for to use with strict QM, particle or field physics, and so on. Although it is "weighted" or "calibrated" from a universal action scale, in the standardized (zeroized) h-bar form. -It's an overall "instrument" for universe's vacuum condition, in its regulation method, its identity character, and its geometry, at any time chosen for to "investigate". An astonishing hack of universe for short.

/chron44

So, just more waffly bullshit instead of answering the questions raised.

You really are wasting our time, aren't you?

You haven’t explained your equations or use them in examples. Why shouldn’t this thread be permanently closed?

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

Since not being a pro physicist, we maybe shall wait for the one's here schooled in astrophysics.

I don't know if this post was in response to me, but I am not a physicist.

I am a (retired) mathematician and I have been looking at the mathematics you posted.

Being also a careful mathematician I told you what I could pretty definitely identify and what I could not.

So is asking what the letter t stands for in a mathematical expression posted by you offensive or why are you having so much difficulty simply saying

"t is ......" ?

8 hours ago, swansont said:

You haven’t explained your equations or use them in examples. Why shouldn’t this thread be permanently closed?

Well, I'm neither a mathematician nor a schooled physicist, I'm a system oriented engineer. I legally, "the nice sort", "hack" systems including universe. In this case by the three physics main conditions for its vacuum. By the vacuum's geometry (from the GR (G) view) , its identity (by wich central aspect it's seen at) and its dynamics (by which physics entities the vacuum remain stable enough for in our case "sustain" with galaxies, SMBH's, EM "void", and so on).

These two ideas, postulates, expressions or even being sort of formulas, of the QEB and the UBD, are breakthroughs in universal all over idea crafting. To close any such discussion and effort in a major meta discipline discussions forum - is in my view a most puzzling stand relative everyone who are concerned in reasonable science.

Of course, I will give examples of how it does these "things" mentioned here. But if being what I claim these two "tools" to be (mainly the fully functioning and seriously physics stress tested UBD formula). -Anyone - capable to - reason - about universe in astrophysics and - calculate - with success relative universal observations, empirical facts, must be able to do the same. Still, as said I'm a fair and concerned average schooled computer engineer. My professional strength is not to calculate - it's to understand and depict systems. I therefore ask any mathematician who understand astrophysics to validate my system "hack" of such a system. Why shall a pro computer engineer become and behave like a pro mathematician. I have done my job, in a most concerned manner. And I think ppl understand my objection expressed - especially when talking about to "close" a good job.

Well, just give me time to find a fair math subject in this case. And, during the mean time, I seriously invite any mathematician in physics, or vice versa, to calculate on any of these here expressed entities this tool handles. Observe that the UBD formula basically "only" is used in calculations of vacuum properties, mainly these mentioned here. I'll return.

/chron44

9 hours ago, studiot said:

So is asking what the letter t stands for in a mathematical expression posted by you offensive or why are you having so much difficulty simply saying

"t is ......" ?

t is time.

15 minutes ago, chron44 said:

Well, I'm neither a mathematician nor a schooled physicist, I'm a system oriented engineer. I legally, "the nice sort", "hack" systems including universe. In this case by the three physics main conditions for its vacuum. By the vacuum's geometry (from the GR (G) view) , its identity (by wich central aspect it's seen at) and its dynamics (by which physics entities the vacuum remain stable enough for in our case "sustain" with galaxies, SMBH's, EM "void", and so on).

These two ideas, postulates, expressions or even being sort of formulas, of the QEB and the UBD, are breakthroughs in universal all over idea crafting. To close any such discussion and effort in a major meta discipline discussions forum - is in my view a most puzzling stand relative everyone who are concerned in reasonable science.

Of course, I will give examples of how it does these "things" mentioned here. But if being what I claim these two "tools" to be (mainly the fully functioning and seriously physics stress tested UBD formula). -Anyone - capable to - reason - about universe in astrophysics and - calculate - with success relative universal observations, empirical facts, must be able to do the same. Still, as said I'm a fair and concerned average schooled computer engineer. My professional strength is not to calculate - it's to understand and depict systems. I therefore ask any mathematician who understand astrophysics to validate my system "hack" of such a system. Why shall a pro computer engineer become and behave like a pro mathematician. I have done my job, in a most concerned manner. And I think ppl understand my objection expressed - especially when talking about to "close" a good job.

Well, just give me time to find a fair math subject in this case. And, during the mean time, I seriously invite any mathematician in physics, or vice versa, to calculate on any of these here expressed entities this tool handles. Observe that the UBD formula basically "only" is used in calculations of vacuum properties, mainly these mentioned here. I'll return.

/chron44

More waffly evasion. You owe us answers to a number of specific questions. I'm not a mathematician either but I can read what a formula says. If you post a mathematical formula you need to be able to explain what it is and how it is to be used.

It is idiotic to claim you have defined a mathematical operator, yet be unable to say how one would use it, i.e. what it operates on.

Edited Thursday at 08:43 AM2 days by exchemist

43 minutes ago, chron44 said:

t is time.

Thank you.

You might like to know that the equations you are struggling with concern the Principle of Action and the Calculus of Variations and some formidable Mathematics.

The three quantities connected in your equations all have the same physical dimensions - that of Action, or ML²T^-1

This is why I asked about angular momentum (also called moment of momentum) which has the same dimensions as Action, as does Planck's Constant.

Calculations are done in what is known as Phase Space.

19 hours ago, studiot said:

I would be most interested to learn how angular momentum connects relativity and quantum mechanics.

So your answer to my question is incorrect, as the above equations do connect through dimensional analysis.
As above they also connect Relativity and QM

In the strict UBD version the angular momentum is absent and "only" the vacuum's pixelizing tendency (QM), the zeroized h-bar, "hint" a link to G (AKA GR). This should answer on your question.

Instead of wallowing around why not try asking us some questions ?

Also have a look at this Dutch website - the author does a good job with little or no mathematics but some rather good animations to discuss this subject.

https://cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/stationary_action.php

Moderator Note

An engineer should know how to do math and use equations

This is closed. Don’t bring the topic up again.