How many radians is there in a full circle?

2**π**

Started By
Dubbelosix
, Nov 05 2019 09:48 AM

49 replies to this topic

Posted 22 November 2019 - 10:20 PM

How many radians is there in a full circle?

2**π**

Posted 23 November 2019 - 12:38 AM

Okay so I have a completed system to tackle these developments along with some more.

There's actually a remainder of 2 when you have 9 Planck spheres, because you have 10 vectors. 2 of 10 are inert, the rest=d=8.

Vectors # 3 & 7 are inert.

After 1 sphere, with 5 vectors, & we have a 5 charge evolution for one Planck sphere turning into a couple entangled strings

Then 9 spheres gives 10 vectors and 8 charges. Spherical coordinates along vectors 3&7 do not experience dislocation.

And then 73 spheres, 20 vectors, & 13 charges. The inert vectors go evenly or oddly every other vector if you can

..get it? THINK FOR ONE SECOND PEOPLE

**Edited by GAHD, 23 November 2019 - 07:13 AM.**

postmerge

Posted 23 November 2019 - 06:29 AM

Yes it is directly related in this case. We don't actually measure the energy density or the Friedmann Equation to sufficiently describe this universe. As for my new approach, there is no other way than just explain it quickly by taking an excerpt from the paper I am writing,

"The Ricci flow does what it says on the tin, it is a geometric evolution equation which describes how curvature can flow I the universe. For the universe to expand, the Ricci flow would have had to feed off positive curvature to then lead to negatively expanding space. The Ricci flow, less commonly understood, is the heat equation for a Riemannian manifold and also follows its own with diffusion laws. There is something behind this that requires no exotic need of dark energy or inflatons with cosmic application.

If the manifold is a sphere with positive curvature, then Ricci flow collapses the manifold to a point in some given finite time - for cosmic analogy, this would be the collapsing hypothesis. While This shows that the Ricci flow sometimes cannot be continued for all time, it is often indicated to run into mathematical singularities. In my own training, it is custom to think singularities are indication the physics has broken down so where, so I remain skeptical of the physical existence of these singular solutions. Under more technical babble, if the manifold is an Einstein manifold with negative curvature, then Ricci flow will expand it and it is here I will seek out the mechanism behind the cosmological thrust/impetus.

But there is a big crisis right now in cosmology and while both results from many different investigation s at first glance appear contradictory, a splendid and elegant set of explanations can be given to drive them away. On one hand, one group say the universe is flat, but when scientists say flat, they are usually meaning the curvature presently measurable in a directions, and since, expectedly there is very little curvature, it doesn't address the distribution of matter in which you could impose a shape in the universe. Instead of trying to compile arguments why one is favored over the other, it seems that maybe the universe is spherical and appears flat at the same time. The flatness of the universe could be part of a much larger system and is an illusion. A good analogy is how we the Earth possesses curvature, but someone sitting on the surface may think the land appears flat - Lest I unwillingly start debates on the flat-earthers, let's quickly move on.

How can a sphere be hyperdimensional but have no curvature?

No scientists says there is no curvature, only that there is so little it is expected to be negligible. Some prominent scientists even suspect we may even detect such a small curve. It is true, that a very small sphere has a very large curvature compared to a very large sphere - the closest thing we have in nature to a perfect sphere, is a black hole and such a system will suffice in the next statements.

A small black hole also had a very large curvature but they are also very hot. However,if we let the black hole to grow, its radius R tends to infinity (like all mathematical limits, tending towards something does it always meant should reach the absolute limit), and as a consequence, the Gaussian curvature tends to zero. Additionally, the lack hole becomes very cold with temperature approaching zero. Does this sound like anything familiar? It should... As cosmologist Arun noticed, this weak equivalence principle extends to a universe like ours - afterall, when it was yound, it too was very hot and had a large curvature (gravity). The universe today, has expanded long enough for most of that curvature to has vanished on large scales producing also a much cooler universe in the process. I further showed by extending his theoretically sound model, the mathematical consequences of the relative density measured by observers inside of black holes - while a well known discovery, its known that while a black hole may appear to contain a lot of mass, observers from the inside will measure if to be less dense, see the end for various mathematical details. The bizarre realization is that someone outside a black hole could easily measure some kind of density which determines the strength of the curvature present, while those inside disagree and measure less density."

You might be right, and you may even be able to solve the Cosmological Constant problem, using Ricci flow from a Riemann manifold and quantum non-linear sigma (Q-NLSM) model This guy from the peoples republic of China recently posted this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.05217.pdf Interesting, is it not ?. He thinks he has solved the Cosmological contant problem using some of the methods you propose.

- Dubbelosix likes this

Posted 23 November 2019 - 12:18 PM

Very interesting...

Posted 23 November 2019 - 12:20 PM

His approach is different to mine, the equation he uses is not for a geometric flow, but this is interesting someone else has the same inclination as I have not read this outside my own work.

Posted 23 November 2019 - 12:21 PM

By geometric flow, I mean volumetric.

Posted 24 November 2019 - 11:05 AM

Very interesting...

I thought you might like that link.

Ricci flow is an interesting approach. The visualizing of which is a Boiling (surface) geometry or volume? Superposing different theories this is not unlike quantum foam or virtual particles from a membrane is it not

What would you say the benefits of your volumetric approach are over the geometric approach?

Space expands because that is what it does. Zero point energy exists throughout all of space because that is what it does. Chicken and Egg springs to mind, which comes first or are they both interdependent, ie space does not exist without zero point energy. Furthermore at the quantum level, does space come into and outof existence continually at differing rates depending on absorption and emission levels of either a +ve or -ve Ricci flow or zero point energy effects.

Posted 26 November 2019 - 04:38 AM

By geometric flow, I mean volumetric.

You do know that Ricci flow and Riemann geometries are being used to support Verlindes Emergent gravity, a lot of new papers have been published recently on the subject.

Are we closer to understanding what space really is and what its properties are.

Going sailing again back in a couple of weeks, weather permitting.

- Dubbelosix likes this

Posted 26 November 2019 - 10:59 AM

It could have something to do with quantum foam, I still cannot rule it out...

I haven't extensively read Verlinde as you have so some direction on Ricci flow application would be appreciated. Also I have not abandoned my model for a mechanical explanation for cosmological constant as it leads to an intuitive reason why expansion increases over time dueto a weakening of, first on small scales then on larger.

I haven't extensively read Verlinde as you have so some direction on Ricci flow application would be appreciated. Also I have not abandoned my model for a mechanical explanation for cosmological constant as it leads to an intuitive reason why expansion increases over time dueto a weakening of, first on small scales then on larger.

Posted 10 December 2019 - 05:31 AM

It could have something to do with quantum foam, I still cannot rule it out...

I haven't extensively read Verlinde as you have so some direction on Ricci flow application would be appreciated. Also I have not abandoned my model for a mechanical explanation for cosmological constant as it leads to an intuitive reason why expansion increases over time dueto a weakening of, first on small scales then on larger.

The following paper is relevant ref Ricci flow, based on geometries not volumes. It might be related a little to your own work maybe

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.04920.pdf

The paper itself has many references to other papers, by other authors, ref 18 by E Verlinde is a recent paper by Verlinde (Link for my own reference)

https://scipost.org/...hys.2.3.016/pdf Abstract

Recent theoretical progress indicates that spacetime and gravity emerge together from the entanglement structure of an underlying microscopic theory. These ideas are best understood in Anti-de Sitter space, where they rely on the area law for entanglement entropy. The extension to de Sitter space requires taking into account the entropy and temperature associated with the cosmological horizon. Using insights from string theory, black hole physics and quantum information theory we argue that the positive dark energy leads to a thermal volume law contribution to the entropy that overtakes the area law precisely at the cosmological horizon. Due to the competition between area and volume law entanglement the microscopic de Sitter states do not thermalise at sub-Hubble scales: they exhibit memory effects in the form of an entropy displacement caused by matter. The emergent laws of gravity contain an additional 'dark' gravitational force describing the 'elastic' response due to the entropy displacement. We derive an estimate of the strength of this extra force in terms of the baryonic mass, Newton's constant and the Hubble acceleration scale a_0 =cH_0, and provide evidence for the fact that this additional `dark gravity~force' explains the observed phenomena in galaxies and clusters currently attributed to dark matter.

Verlinde first published his ideas in 2009, and he is still fleshing them out 10 years later. How long have you been working on yours?

**Edited by Flummoxed, 10 December 2019 - 05:32 AM.**

Posted 10 December 2019 - 06:28 AM

Guys stop circle jerking articles citations references and hyperlinks.

I have volumes, geometries, vectors, psymatics and polar mechanics. I have the correct remedy for any ailment, that resets the desired past. Those who know me know my price, I dont give a flying ef about a green piece of paper or a number in my bank account. Il straight, and I only want one thing. And I dont like taf.

I have volumes, geometries, vectors, psymatics and polar mechanics. I have the correct remedy for any ailment, that resets the desired past. Those who know me know my price, I dont give a flying ef about a green piece of paper or a number in my bank account. Il straight, and I only want one thing. And I dont like taf.

Posted 10 December 2019 - 07:06 AM

I'd go out truth saying and say I like athletic females then "gahd" would probably ban me on human trafficking as 5rade for a space force that can alter reality

Posted 10 December 2019 - 08:32 AM

Okay so I have a completed system to tackle these developments along with some more.

Vectors # 3 & 7 are inert.

After 1 sphere, with 5 vectors, & we have a 5 charge evolution for one Planck sphere turning into a couple entangled strings

Then 9 spheres gives 10 vectors and 8 charges. Spherical coordinates along vectors 3&7 do not experience dislocation.

And then 73 spheres, 20 vectors, & 13 charges. The inert vectors go evenly or oddly every other vector if you can

..get it? THINK FOR ONE SECOND PEOPLE

I have thought for one second, and one second was enough for me to ask why have we not yet banned this person?

Maybe someone can come up with a good reason. Then again, maybe not . . .

- exchemist, Dubbelosix, VictorMedvil and 1 other like this

Posted 10 December 2019 - 09:20 AM

I have thought for one second, and one second was enough for me to ask why have we not yet banned this person?

Maybe someone can come up with a good reason. Then again, maybe not . . .

This forum seems happy to let itself become the last refuge for the cranks and nutters banned everywhere else. But with this poster new depths are being plumbed. It's like descending the Mariana Trench.

Unless of course the whole thing is an act, parodying Dubblesocks, in which case one has to say it was a god joke at first but is wearing a little thin.

Posted 10 December 2019 - 12:17 PM

What you're going to ban me for creating my own universes?

Posted 10 December 2019 - 12:18 PM

As sphere based they encompass all other possible geometries ya know.

Including your own deranged pov

Including your own deranged pov

**Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP, 10 December 2019 - 12:19 PM.**