**If I have two perfectly balanced boards. I shoot a pinball between the two boards at a perpendicular angle (90°), the pinball will bounce back and forth in the same position between the two boards. I think everyone will have no objection to this point, because this pinball is affected by inertia, and the rotation of the earth has no effect on it.**

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Now presume that light is not affected by inertia.**

**We set up two perfectly balanced mirrors. One faces south and the other faces north. I can set up a light source in them, keep the light being reflected back and forth at a fixed point in the two mirrors. Then the angle of the light source must not be perpendicular to the two mirrors, but slightly to the east. This is because the earth rotates from west to east. If the light is not affected by the earth’s rotation, the light source must be slightly east to catch up the two mirrors in motion.**

**My question is: If I rotate the mirrors and light source that have been set up above by 180°, the light source will be slightly offset to the west. Will the light be reflected back and forth at those two points?**

ΔE(Bh) Δt(ev) ~ h/4π

I'm too lazy to plug in the values, but let's say, it would exist for less than a fraction of a second for such reasons. Understand it another way, if the black holes evaporation time is well defined, the energy released is less certain, but if we measure it's energy released, the time it does so, becomes a bit more uncertain as a consequence of this quantum effect. We still don't know all the strange twists and turns that black holes may give us and there is still no true consensus as to what the semi classical equations mean for the quantum black hole in full. We can only guess right now! One thing that does interest me though, is whether the spin of a black holes increases proportional to its size. This is not a new thought or idea, as it's been around for a while, but scientists have wondered whether smaller black holes have a lesser magnitude of spin to their larger brothers and sisters. This was theorised, because it seems from observation, that only the most largest (the supermassive black holes with billions of solar masses) appear to rotate at near the speed of light. Let's say something about the mass of black holes first.

If you were asked, if a small black hole was denser than a larger black hole, does it sound intuitive? Well, you might make yourself a thought experiment first, if larger black holes have had more time to gobble up mass, you might think they would naturally be denser, but we are told, at least in theory that this is not true? Why, you might ask?

Often, we are told that the black hole is mostly "empty", and all the mass is concentrated within a tiny region (clasically a region where the mass appears concentrated to a point) in the center of the black hole much like how Newton derived the attraction of Earth's gravity as though all its mass was concentrated also to a point inside a sphere. the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole is proportional to its mass, from which you can obtain

ρ∝1/M^2

And so it is said, as a consequence of this, that the heavier a black hole the smaller its density. But, if we apply a thermal wave length and some quantum rules forbidding the creation of singularities, this model may no longer hold, for example, at least in principle, it should be impossible to squeeze any particle into a region smaller than its own wavelength, so while it may appear like it has all its mass concentrated to a single point, the true physical picture may have limitations based on stern quantum rules. The reason why I spoke about thermal wavelengths, was really grounded from the pre big bang model, where the all-matter liquid phase existed at near absolute zero temperatures. The thermal wavelengths where capable of being an object, originating not from a point, but from a highly condensed phase on the nano scales, which I did indeed invent before all the hype in academia about how the universe could have come from a single, "super particle" existing more in space than the standard big bang model likes to teach. From my model, my imagination ran wild about what it would mean for black holes where thermal wavelength, the concentration of the particles inside of them and how their temperature correlated with it could all be related. Was it just a curious fact that larger condensates had less free energy and with what we think we know, that large black holes where cooler than their smaller cousins? Or is there just coincidence accidently stumbled upon by modelling them wrong?

The fact remains, that the new age of thinking led to Susskind winning his own war against Hawking, saying information was never lost, and to me at least, this meant that at the literal core of black holes, the laws of quantum mechanics should also pervade and must not disappear. In short, it meant from my models perspective, the black holes in actually " mostly empty space at all" no more than our universe is mostly empty space, it is filled itself of quantum fluctuations. There was no such thing as empty space, even though this was a popular belief for quite some time. It meant that the interior of large black holes, could in fact be in principle, just as dense as their smaller cousins, just a greater amount of mass. It would mean larger black holes really are heavier than the small black holes as a consequence. Remember, though, density does not mean a thing has to fall faster, as in a vacuum, even Newton showed that Galileo was right, all bodies tend to fall at the same rate so long as friction was not present, so be wise not to mistake density and weight as somehow the same thing. It is curious to note, that from a cosmetically viewpoint, black holes after quite some time, tend to condense in greater numbers to the center of their host galaxy over time, but while this has analogy to how denser object sink in a fluid, it's not directly due to the density but a gravitational interaction.

If black holes are not really empty, and they are just as dense as small black holes (it only differs by quantum numbers of the particles beyond its horizon) we may have to abandon the old picture which says smaller black holes are denser in principle to their larger personifications. So, moving along nicely now, I've talked about the black holes as being theoretical condensates obeying quantum rules, how would the spin be effected by the size of a black hole? Again, I'd like to stress that we do not know this is really the case, but it's nice to theorise on the matter because the black holes angular momentum is related to its radius, mass and spin velocity in a very simple equation:

J(BH) = mvr

r - the black hole radius

m - black hole mass

v - spin velocity

From it we would need to say that the angular momentum J(BH) would linearly increase with its mass and radius. It's interesting, because while I attempted in the past to explain dark matter as the origin of a gravitational drag from black holes, we are told very similar physics to that effect when we are given reasons why supermassive black holes must spin near the speed of light. I quote Forbes now:

"The more you compress that mass down, the **faster** the fabric of space itself gets dragged. "

Forbes link:

Compressing mass, may still have an upper limit. Again, all you have to adopt is some simple quantum rules, assuring that the infalling matter cannot be stripped into components that cannot be squeezed into lengths smaller than their own wavelengths. By making the wavelengths thermal, larger condensates naturally are cooler than smaller ones. While I was not the first to assume that black holes are the real physical candidate for dark matter effects, I was one if the first to construct drag equations from fluid dynamics in the language of general relativity. While I do nit trust all the various approaches I used, I diddid one curious thing, that dark energy was basically the inverse if the drag. The inverse if the drag has a very simple terminology that even a child can understand, it's called a thrust. The thing we call dark matter, is like the opposite of dark matter in this theoretical model. It became a cosmological "impetus" that was driving the expansion of the universe in a mechanical way.

]]>A ⊆ B

2nd axiom: An element in A can be written as

a ∈ A

Such that two choices for a conscious decision, depends on

1 ∈ {1,2}

And

2 ∈ {1,2}

3rd axiom: Before either choice 1 or choice 2 and so on (1,2.... N) has been consciously made, both possibilities should exist in a superposition such that 1 + 2 is an undecided set S. In example, the choices we have is like a wave of possibilities found in quantum mechanics. The ability then to choose would be equivalent to a collapse in the wave function where either decision, 1 or 2 has been made.

4th axiom: It would follow then it is a linear function that would satisfy the ordinary definition of

f{x(1) + x(2)} = f{x(1)} + f{x(2)}

= f(ax) =a(fx)

From additivity with (a) as a scalar.

5th axiom: If choices are determined analogous to a probability wave, then it's theoretically plausible that both possible choices intefere with each other before it has been determined. So the choice we make, either by 1 can be affected by the decision making of 2 just as the decision 2 may affect our decision of choice 1. This invites an idea of constructive and destructive interference of choice making.

6th axiom: If choice can be approximated in a similar fashion to the linear superposition of two possible states contained in a wave function, a choice would exist in a choice of states may be roughly expressible as a ket with uppercase psi notation |**Ψ**> where the possible choices are denoted in the lowercase as , |**ψ**1>, |**ψ**2>... |**ψ**N> which are available in decision making. Because of this we would write under conventional notation

|**Ψ**> =**Σ **c_i|**ψ**_i>

such that choice, or the theory decide for another phrase is still given by the square of the moduli

<**Ψ**|**Ψ**> = **Σ** |c_i|² = 1

so that the decision has been decided to only one outcome, or unity of one choice.

Preliminary conclusions: I'm going to return to this later, but what I am suggesting is that consciousness exists as a subset of spacetime and decision making may be closely inspected by a superposition of possibilities that is no different largely in theory from the wave function of possible states we deal with in quantum mechanics. I do not mind any harsh criticism, as this is a bit speculative, I'll try and continue this hypothetical model when concerning choice theory later. I have modelled it like this thus far, because some scientists do take it seriously that perhaps consciousness itself may arise from a collapse in the wave function. Some evidence already appears to point to this when we discovered that microtubules appear to show quantum effects after Penrose and Hameroff suggested a model to explain how consciousness might arise inside a warm wet brain. It's quite rudimentary to start, but I intended it to be like this, knowing the proper model is probably more complex.

]]>

All

I finally found another Gravity Wave Measurement measured against the diameter of the proton. The first gravity wave found was (GW150914) measured at a 10,000th of the diameter of a proton. It had a spin of -.01 and so in my python code it would be a 1 spin. I should explain Luminosity Distance, it is an approximation in the linear direction because light bends around massive objects on its way from deep space to the measuring point. At some junctures light can bend greater than other junctures, because of mass differences and this is why its an approximation for very deep objects. Often times Luminosity will be printed like this:

5300+2400−2600.

So to find the total light years. You would multiply 1,000,000*3.26*(5300+(2400-2600))light years

QuoteFive years ago the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detected a ripple in spacetime that was just one ten-thousandth the width of a proton

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-gravitational-wave-detector-could-search-anywhere-in-the-sky/

As I desperately searched the net to see if my Gravity Geometric was correct; I finally stumbled on to an article regarding the gravity wave (GW190521) measured at a 1,000,000th of the diameter of a proton. I then looked at the spin for the GW190521 and it was an .08 and so in my python code it would be an 8 spin which also plays a role in the calculation.

QuoteThen, on 21 May 2019, those waves passed through our planet. Did you feel it? Probably not; the expansion and contraction of space would've stretched you less than a millionth of the diameter of a proton.

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-biggest-black-hole-merger-ever-detected-rocked-the-universe-and-left-behind-a-mystery

This was great that I found two measurements to test my Gravity Geometric to see how it faired against the approximate luminosity distance measuring stick. And just as I imagined at greater distances than smaller Luminosity as an approximation increases with time, because light bends around other massive objects on its way to where its being measured. On the other hand gravity takes a straight path to the target being measured unhindered by mass. So this is why I'm so excited to show the result. I'm not using Luminosity to show distance and perhaps as I just discussed light not being accurate, that I'm spot on for light years with my Geometric Result.

Here are the two Measurements and the Python Code

When using my python code you input:

Enter Number to divide Proton: 10000

Spin Number: 1

Enter number of Parsec's for Luminosity Distance: 410

Add Parsec's for Luminosity Distance: 160

Subtract Parsec's for Luminosity Distance: 180

0.00000000006674 Gravitational Constant

2.000000000000001 G as exponential growth

6.280000000000003 Gravities Geometry

1,271,400,000.0 Ligos distance approximation from luminosity in light years

1,262,599,571.4 Distance Gravity Wave traveled going by ONeils Gravity Geometric

8,800,428.55358386 difference from Ligo and Geometric source in light years

______________________________________________________________________________

Enter Number to divide Proton: 1000000

Spin Number: 8

Enter number of Parsec's for Luminosity Distance: 5300

Add Parsec's for Luminosity Distance: 2400

Subtract Parsec's for Luminosity Distance: 2600

0.00000000006674 Gravitational Constant

2.0 G as exponential growth

6.280000000000000 Gravities Geometry

16,626,000,000.0 Ligos distance approximation from luminosity in light years

15,782,494,643.1 Distance Gravity Wave traveled going by O'Neil's Gravity Geometric

843,505,356.919796 difference from Ligo and Geometric source in light years

import time print('''Two to the power of Exponential growth of Gravities Constant <G> multiplied by the fine structure contant multiplied by 12 hours divided by n. ________________________________________ ''') while True: n = int(input("Enter Number to divide Proton: ")) s = int(input("Spin Number: ")) Parsec = int(input("Enter number of Parsec's for Luminosity Distance: ")) Plus_Parsec = int(input("Add Parsec's for Luminosity Distance: ")) Minus_Parsec = int(input("Subtract Parsec's for Luminosity Distance: ")) start_time = time.time() G_constant = (.00000000006674) proton_width = (((0.00000000000001)*s)/(n)) gravity_wave = ((proton_width)) G = ((pow(2,((1 +(((.00000000006674*.0072973*(12/n))*((( 1 )))))))))) Gravities_Geometry = ((G*3.14)) Distance_to_Gravity_Waves_Source = ((((((G))/(gravity_wave))*86400*365)/((Gravities_Geometry)-((G/2))))/9461000000000000) Ligos_approximation_Black_hole_merger_from_luminosity = (1000000*3.26*(Parsec+(Plus_Parsec-Minus_Parsec))) difference = (Ligos_approximation_Black_hole_merger_from_luminosity-Distance_to_Gravity_Waves_Source) print('{0:.14f}'.format(G_constant),'Gravitational Constant') # print('{0:.99f}'.format(proton_width),'Proton Width') # print('{0:.110f}'.format(gravity_wave),'Gravity Wave') print(G,'G as exponential growth') print('{0:.15f}'.format(Gravities_Geometry),'Gravities_Geometry') print("{:,}".format(Ligos_approximation_Black_hole_merger_from_luminosity),'Ligos distance approximation from luminosity in light years') print('{0:,.1f}'.format(Distance_to_Gravity_Waves_Source),'Distance Gravity Wave traveled going by ONeils Gravity Geometric') print("{:,}".format(difference),'difference from Ligo and Geometric source in light years') e = int(time.time() - start_time) print('{:02d}:{:02d}:{:02d}'.format(e // 3600, (e % 3600 // 60), e % 60))

]]>

And it's not new at all! Before my own studies a few years back, it was already being considered seriously by a select few. My interpretation of dark matter was clearly illustrated from my online lectures on this very hot topic now. You can follow the previous written work online here:

In short:

The supermassive black hole in any typical spiral galaxy has roughly the same binding energy to hold a galaxy together, this was at least known in theory from work by Arun and Sivaram. I took the model pretty seriously.., so did an independent study for galaxies that had lost their host black holes to find, while the angular momentum did not disappear, the galaxies eventually spread further away without the binding gravitational force, meaning they had dynamic and direct influence to the recessional velocities of stars on the outerrim of the typical disk. I also modified the model to explain why it did not fall rapid off, because careful astronomical observations seemed to explain, that even when a supermassive black hole is ejected, there is still thousands of semi large black holes in the centre of these spiral galaxies that still provide a large amount of excess binding energy.

]]>

Unless there is some rational explanation that exists in some obscure location, but such information is not apparent in Stanford, Yale, Oxford or any other institution of higher learning.

Can anyone suggest such a document?

]]>The bet is each player puts in $5 dollars. There are 2 games being played. $3 dollars of the $5 goes to who has the most points and $2 of the $5 goes to the trash pot.

At he conclusion of the 9 holes my dad was the only winner of the points pot and Larry was the only winner of the trash pot. The points pot should have $12 dollars and the trash pot should have $8.

However my dad didn't have correct change nor did Larry so the pot was left with $10 dollars. Dad took $6 of the $10 and Larry took $4. The next time they played Larry said we did not distribute the money correctly. Larry said Dad should have gotten $7 and Larry $3. Larry's logic is if everyone contributed to the pot, the trash pot should have $8 dollars in it. After subtracting out his contribution of $5, he should have a net winnings of $3 dollars not $4 dollars, and dad $7 dollars instead of 6.

So which way is right???

]]>I don't use Luminosity at all to measure the distance to the Black Hole Merger from the Ligo Gravity Wave

With the calculations below I have found the exact distance for the “LIGO’s Gravity wave source of the Black hole merger on September 14, 2015” through gravities geometry. Ligo’s estimated the source distance of the Black Hole Merger through a method called luminosity which is known to be an approximation of 1,271,400,000 light years. My method to find the source distance to the black merger utilizes a gravitational geometric number (6.28000000000000314) to pinpoint it at 1,262,599,571.4 light years. Ligo over shot the distance to the Black Hole merger by 8,800,428.5 light years which shows luminosity is not exact. You can see in my python code the calculations are here:

Here Einstein showed that the Luminosity of Black Holes is an approximation of distance in its Linear use:

Quote

Very shortly after announcing the general theory of relativity in , Albert Einstein realized that a linearized version of his equations resembles the wave equation (Einstein 1916). The solution is interpreted as a short-wavelength, time-varying curvature deformation propagating with the speed of light on an otherwise slowly-varying, large-scale curvature background (a gravitational-wave \"ripple\" propagating through the four-dimensional spacetime); from the point of view of a metric tensor, it represents a small perturbation of a stationary background metric. Linear approximation corresponds to the waves propagating in the far-field limit. By exploiting the gauge freedom of the theory one may show that the solution has features similar to electromagnetic waves: it is a transverse wave which may be polarized (has two independent polarizations). Over the next 40 years, during which Einstein changed his mind to argue against their genuineness, a controversy persisted over the true nature of gravitational waves. Only in the late 50s and early 60s the works of Felix Pirani (1956), Herman Bondi (1957), Ivor Robertson and Andrzej Trautman (1960) convincingly showed that gravitational waves are indeed physical phenomena that carry and deposit energy.

with the use of Kepler's third law (GM = a3 ω2) in the second equation. The expression in brackets represents the strain tensor hij in the non-relativistic quadrupole approximation (Einstein 1918). Similarly, the luminosity L (the rate of energy loss in gravitational waves, integrated over a sphere at a distance r) should be proportional to h2 r2 and some power of ω. From dimensional analysis one has

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March18/Czerny/Czerny9.html

I think I follow that Einstein shows that Luminosity is a very close approximation for a distance measurement. The youtube will show that Geometry is why objects should be measured with my revolutionary equation. I believe this is just what Ligo looking for and read this concluding sentence.

QuoteIn addition to precisely measuring the Hubble constant, cosmological observations would help determine the distances to galaxies, thus contributing to building the standard 'distance ladder' (calibrating electromagnetic standard candles), establish the distribution of galaxies and voids, characterize the evolution of the dark energy and mass density of the Universe, mass distribution through the gravitational lensing, as well as the chemical evolution effects i.e., establishing the onset of star formation (Królak and Schutz 1987, Sathyaprakash and Schutz 2009). The truly multi-messenger era of astronomy is just beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwgIjBUYVc

Black Hole Merger Source Distance Approximation from Luminosity by Ligo

(1000000*3.26(410(180-160)))

=

1,271,400,000 light years

Black Hole Merger Source Distance from my Gravity’s Geometry

((((2.000000000000001/(.00000000000001/10000))*86400*365)/(6.28000000000000314-(2.000000000000001/2)))/ 9461000000000000)

=

1,262,599,571.4 light years

QuoteOn September 14, 2015, LIGO's interferometers in Livingston, LA and Hanford, WA made the world's first direct detection of gravitational waves, heralding a new era in astronomical exploration. The gravitational waves detected by LIGO on that day were generated by two black holes colliding and merging into one nearly 1.3 BILLION light years away!

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts

“This pdf gives the Black Hole Merger Luminosity distance of the Ligo Gravity Wave Source

https://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WWEiTT-qOIXYZgFwFwfuh61ug0GbqJcl/view?usp=sharing”

Here is the python code for the Black Hole merger distance from the Ligo Gravity Wave:

import time print('''Two to the power of Exponential growth of Gravities Constant <G> multiplied by the fine structure contant multiplied by 12 hours divided by ten thousand plus one. ________________________________________ ''') start_time = time.time() G_constant = (.00000000006674) proton_width = (.00000000000001) gravity_wave = (proton_width/10000) G = ((pow(2,((1 +(((.00000000006674*.0072973*.0012)*((( 1 )))))))))) Gravities_Geometry = (G*3.14) Distance_to_Gravity_Waves_Source = ((((2.000000000000001/(proton_width/10000))*86400*365)/(6.28000000000000314-(2.000000000000001/2)))/9461000000000000) Ligos_approximation_Black_hole_merger_from_luminosity = (1000000*3.26*(410-(180-160))) difference = (Ligos_approximation_Black_hole_merger_from_luminosity-Distance_to_Gravity_Waves_Source) print('{0:.14f}'.format(G_constant),'Gravitational Constant') print('{0:.99f}'.format(proton_width),'Proton Width') print('{0:.110f}'.format(gravity_wave),'Gravity Wave') print(G,'G as exponential growth') print('{0:.15f}'.format(Gravities_Geometry),'Gravities_Geometry') print(Ligos_approximation_Black_hole_merger_from_luminosity,'Ligos_approximation_Black_hole_merger_from_luminosity in light years') print('{0:.1f}'.format(Distance_to_Gravity_Waves_Source),'Distance_to_Gravity_Waves_Source in light years to black hole merger') print(difference,'difference from Ligo luminosity and Gravity wave source in light years') e = int(time.time() - start_time) print('{:02d}:{:02d}:{:02d}'.format(e // 3600, (e % 3600 // 60), e % 60))

]]>

Further, 256 is a 'composite number' in numerical analysis. All the prime numbers before 256 are the following 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251.

With this aside, what did I find? I decided from a general rule to find any obvious patterns in prime numbers, and started off by analysing the multiplication table. The one that stared obvious to me was the 9x multiplication table because it's order of numbers are symmetric, ie. 18, 27, 36, 54, 63, 72, 81, the order of these numbers when you take away their values, such as 1-8 = -7, for the next, we get 2-7 = -5 then 3-6 =-3 and finally 4-5 =-1, and continuing the process, the signs flip giving 3, 5 and 7 once again. This a prime rule, since 3, 5 and 7 are all prime numbers just above the prime number of 2. Equally, ignoring the signs, but only cautiously, 75311357 which is known as a palindrome in numerics, that which spells the same forward as it would backwards. There appears to be, if we take the 1 +1 as the factor of 2, a general rule for at least the first four prime numbers arising from the 9x table, which is extraordinarily simple!

]]>

My work,the semi classical Friedmann eq. And pre big bang phase

https://www.quora.com/q/vtikdwnzcqjjlems/The-Semi-Classical-Friedmann-Equation

The recently published" Independent" model

]]>

There are a lot of things said in science documentaries and scientifically mined people that upset me. And they always speak with absolute certainty. Like this thing is perfectly well known and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, like gravity.

I wanted to ask you weather or not they were really true but then I thought it would be easier to ask you about science and our certainty of it in general. I've heard that scientists are supposed to be open minded and never to be too certain of any thing. But in my experience, scientists are people who say "This is the way thing are and that's the end of it." That you could not be a scientist unless you took things as absolutes. It's particularly difficult for me to question these people because I can't help but assume they speak from a position of knowledge of which I am ignorant. When people talk like it's already proven, I can't help but assume it has been. When you're sitting in class or studying a book, you don't question what they're saying. If you did, how would you learn anything?

For example this one says that we will NEVER be able to leave our local group of galaxies because the rest of the universe is accelerating away from us faster then the speed of light.

This one and this one state that traveling faster then the speed of light is impossible. Not just that it's impossible with current technology but it's impossible no matter how advanced we get. I tried to tell myself that we are always discovering new things, things we could not imagine before. I looked in the comments to see if anyone had the same thought and some did. But then someone countered that bay saying if we did learn anything could go faster then light, it would undo the laws of physics going back to Newton, who's work has proven solid to this day.

And something that's always bothered me, the theory that the entire universe will inevitably end. So many time I've heard about how and when it will end. Once I went on one of those question posting websites and I asked "Will the universe end?" Not how will, not when will, just will? Is this something the scientists of the world know and agree on. The very first post I go simply said "Of course it will."

What I want to ask is, not so much about the above stuff but about our scientific knowledge in general. What is the reason for all this certainty and rejection of doubt? Is our grasp of science that good? When we know something do we really know it for sure?

Or is it something else? Are scientists today too sure of themselves? Is everyone taking their word as gospel? Do people talk as if things are facts because they want to sound convincing? Do documentary makers simply assume we will know they are not talking about absolutes even though they never said they were? Even though they implied everything they said was fact over and over again?

I read somewhere that we might be living in a new dark age, because we don't think to investigate what our "higher ups" tell us.

]]>

Dirac must have been disheartened by the lack of support on his large number hypothesis and I feel some of his pain. There is equally a small number hypothesis that requires attention. The charged ion of nitrogen has a mass approx to 5 * 10^(-26) kg and for oxygen it is the same roughly. Hence Avogadro's number is also approx to the same number for a 24 cubic meter of space for an ideal gas. Hydrogen being an electrically charged proton pulled vertically by an electric field is approx to 2*10^(-27)kg. An alpha particle from radium has a mass approx to 5*10^(-27) kg and a neutron with a mass only slightly bigger has a mass approx to 5*10^(-27) kg. With protons and neutrons in mind, the neutron is slightly bigger and the question of why seems to lye with charge itself contributing to the total mass observed Gm^2 ~ nhc. This was even known to Feymann who stated that while the neutron was electrically neutral it has a more complex configuration involving a charge distribution making it slightly heavier than a proton.

For electric charge to mass measurements, further study has shown remarkable numerical agreement with a small number hypothesis. For instance, the cathode ray for discharged electrons in gas reveals ~ 2*10^(11) while electrons from hot tungsten is the same including electrons from the more general case of the photoelectric effect. There are many more cases of this number obeying fundamental processes involving electrons. Here's another I found just now, the Weiss magnetic moment is approx to 2*10^-24 where we should note that the proton mass being 1,836 times larger than the electron approx at 2*10^-27, the triton magnetic moment is much closer to the " district" as it is approx to 2*10^-26.

At room temperature for air is 28.8kg for the 24 cubic meter of space. Further the measured density of liquid air is 1000kg/cu.m

The standard calculation for the lattice is

24/(28.8 ))/1000) = 833/1

From here I noticed that when it divided by 6 it is approximately equal to the fine structure constant

833/6 ~ 137

By noticing this, I further took

(1/833)/6 ~ 8*10^(-6)

Which is further the number relating to the wavelength in meters of red light. Since we where talking about the ideal gas in 24 cubic meters of space, the fact that 6 was used to fond the approximate value of the fine structure was a bit of a surprise but understandable as it conveys it self 3+3. In hypothesising this I decided to take the inverse function

3^√833 ~ 1

But stranger if not just a matter of curiosity, adding 833 directly with 137 was nearly the density of liquid air off by a factor of 30.

To note, while many numbers we have noticed approximations to, that fine structure 1/137 is much larger in comparison.

The biggest surprise was the following speculation

833/137*10^(-11) ~ G

The gravitational constant. Notice that we spoke about 10^(11) in electron dynamics. Maybe there's something in this, maybe there isn't, but I find some of these corresponding values curious at best.

]]>

How can I find out all the gravity wave measurements that only relate to the diameter of the proton?

For instance the very 1st Gravity Wave detection was found on September 14, 2015, with LIGO's interferometers in Livingston, at LA and Hanford. The detection was measured to be .000000000000000001 or 1e-18 or

which was 10,000 of a diameter of a proton.

I know LIGO has detected about a total of 50 gravity waves. Is it possible that you could send me all the measurements of all the gravity waves as a number like the first gravity in relation to the proton measurement? Or does LIGO have a math formula which arrives at?

If you do have a math formula which gives the measurement against the proton measurement; could you please send it along with the necessary information to make the calculation for like the first detection of

And it says that "energy is quantized" at 11:40. And to illustrate this point the image on the screen splits into lots of uniform cubes.

This led me to conclude that everything is made of indivisible, uniform pieces. Like any image on this pixelated screen. No only because of they way they showed it but because they said that quantum mechanics governs the things that everything is made of. Also they said energy is quantized and some other sources have said that everything is made of energy. From this I concluded that everything is quantized.

Is this the case?

I found some sources that explain that the energy of light is quantized. Is that what Nova ment or do they mean all energy?

Also, I found some articles that say while light only comes in discrete chunks (quanta), the chunks can have any value depending on the circumstances. The light can't come in values of 1, then 3.5 then 2, only in one number. But depending on the light sources it can come in a steam of 1s, 3.5s 2s or any continuous value etc.

]]>
What I find fun is that I had it in the back of my back a few days, never actually sat down to analyze, till I found the solution. Of course waaaay easier (and even straight forward once one properly thinks about it) than I ever thought at first 🙂

Not spoiling you the fun, but for dimension 2*200*80 answer is 15.96

i don't really understand why this is a fast test.firstly, you would need a number of terms about equal to the prime value.

that means a lot of multiplication

second you would need to divide by all those terms, also expensive.

i see no improvement to trail divide up to square root algorithm.

]]>

I don't like video tutorial sites like khan academy .

anything else other than that is cool .

For example , any pdf that teaches operations of signed numbers ?

Thanks

]]>

our atmosphere too. rocks can't really carry air.

]]>I have never heard anyone use this type of interpretation, so I presume it is somewhat novel approach - despite being so incredibly simple, and almost "too obvious to miss". And yes, I understand the gravity of the claim of solving Bell experiments with local realist model, but what can I say... There really doesn't seem to be any obstacles to that. Of course it is always possible that I'm overlooking something, but it's a bit hard to imagine what that might be, being that I'm basically just putting together concepts that already exist elsewhere in our physical models.

I typed my thoughts in Google Docs, and because I'm a bit lazy, here's just a link to a PDF export:

The Quantum Absorption interpretation:

---

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how all of Quantum Mechanics can be explained by the simple idea that electromagnetic energy propagates purely as waves, while matter can only absorb energy in discrete quantities. The limitation that matter can only absorb discrete quantities of energy is already assumed to be true in many models of modern physics. Thus the concept of “photons'' appears to be redundant. Assuming only absorption quanta instead of photon quanta can easily explain many otherwise mysterious aspects of Quantum theory. It explains the apparent probabilistic nature of Quantum mechanics. It explains the behavior of polarization filters. It explains the frequency dependence of electromagnetic energy. It explains “virtual particles” without any particles. It explains the seemingly implausible “photon“ detection correlations of Bell experiments without any photons, and thus it solves the original EPR paradox. It does all this within a deterministic local realist framework.

---

To summarize the argument in few key points:

Quantum of energy absorption from continuous wave energy would look identical to photon detections at low energy levels. Any unabsorbed excess energies would continue to exist as waves. That leads into constant low energy noise of wave energy across the universe, that is not directly observable but would still interfere with our experiments, making detection events appear probabilistic. Combining pure wave mechanics to the information transfer, and combining that with the probabilistic detection events, can trivially solve the entire mystery of wave-particle duality. For example, the expectation from Bell Experiments becomes purely cosine correlation between detection events - just as experiments show - even when the energy levels are low enough for detection events to occur sparsely.

Enjoy, discuss, let me know your thoughts.

-Anssi

]]>

The Harvard Manual on Na^{22 }Synthesis = http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954PhRv...93..280B

Now from Sodium 22 we can generate antimatter when it decays in the form of Positrons as Sodium 22 goes through Beta Positive Decay.

Next would be the construction of separator to separate the Antimatter from the Sodium 22 which would be a set of magnets since the sodium 22 is heavier than the positrons the positrons would be more quickly attracted to the magnets which would be the entry way for a trap to hold the antimatter particles which could be made of Superconductors in a coiled donut shape to hold the Antimatter like which is used to hold superheated plasma in a fusion reactor.

Antimatter trap Chamber

All of the parts dealing with Antimatter needing to be done in a vacuum chamber as otherwise the antimatter would annihilate with the electrons in the air.

]]>

1) Light bends when it passes a field of gravity, e.g. a planet. Hence light has a mass?

2) Light cannot escape from a black hole because the gravity field of a black hole is so strong.

Question:

Now, let us say there is a “light-black hole” from which light can escape just barely. Is the starting velocity of the escaping light slower than 300,000,000 m/s until it reaches open space and only after that it really starts to rock’n’roll?

]]>