Science Forums

Explaining The Electromagnetic Fields Of The Earth

Recommended Posts

I think I may have solved the proton from 3 electrons using logarithmic strain, this supports my theory and is accurate to 8 places:

mpc^2 = 3mec^2 * ln(4/3 * π) * ln^3(re/rp) * 1/a = 1.503 277 778E-10 Joules

Where mp is the mass of the proton, c is the speed of light, me is the mass of the electron, re is the wavelength of the electron, rp is the wavelength of the proton, a is a relativistic correction to the logarithmic strain which is:

a = (1 - 3/5 * (2πKe^2)/(hc))^3/2

Where K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, h is the Planck constant.

Edited by devin553344
• Replies 52
• Created

Popular Posts

The Internet is like 90% porn just look at the internet, we don't need girls. That being said are you saying that you know how to make a girl summoning device?

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory   "Einstein believed that there might be an asymmetry between the charges of the electron and proton so that the Earth's magnetic field would be produ

How intriguing. I had no idea he thought that.   Thanks.

Idk wtf is going through your head when type these meaningless latex ciphers but I see what you write and you say proton from 3 electrons.

First of all a quark or electron or positron or +/- photon (aka phonon cymatic vacuum gw wave) are all the same, only difference is inertia causing a quark to spin/fly slower than a photon, or electron, or that a quark is length contracted from a phonon portion of spacetime. Spacetime is just math.

Share on other sites

A positive charge is when those convexed 2d diced circles at the end of elongating Planck cylinders as per my variant of string theory are phasing by the first half of their interception, negative charge is the second half of their intersections.

The cylinders are the 3d entanglement in higher dimensions, the 2d circular instersections are in lower dimensions.

The illuminati control the masses by controlling what they see and feel through animation and drugs, which all comes from mathematics.

I have more mathematic tricks and a deeper understanding of God and nature than anyone who has lived. Or will ever live. That gives me power l, it puts me in charge. "Do you feel in charge?" Bane

Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP
Share on other sites

How can a proton be from 3 electrons when electrons have a higherfrequency, are prodiminately of negative charge in the preonics/planck string makeup, whereas protons are predominantly of + charge and of lower frequency quarks?

Share on other sites

You people dont understand, I'm a mathemagician such that I should be an admin here by merit of my expertise alone.

Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP
Share on other sites

How can a proton be from 3 electrons when electrons have a higherfrequency, are prodiminately of negative charge in the preonics/planck string makeup, whereas protons are predominantly of + charge and of lower frequency quarks?

Maybe you could stop burying my posts. Yeah that would be nice. Use the edit button for your post and keep it to one response.

I think in order to understand how three electrons could look like 3 quarks in a proton you should study quark decay. Which quarks turn into electrons and positrons. So the presumption I'm using is that quarks are electrons and positrons. Keeping in mind there are really only three real (stable) particles (electron, proton and neutron, and the neutron is sketchy at best), the rest came from smasher anomalies and are presumed to exist, yeah exist for only billionths of billionths of a second or less. I don't consider a particle exists unless it can be observed in a stable environment.

Edited by devin553344
Share on other sites

You people dont understand, I'm a mathemagician such that I should be an admin here by merit of my expertise alone.

Don't delude yourself what you are is spelled "D E L A Y E D"!

My guess of your mental capacity is "Moderate Retardation".

Edited by VictorMedvil
Share on other sites

Dude is saying quarks are electrons and you immediately a salt me when I'm the only one here who knows how to graph in higher than dimensions and an administrator that talks about vectors neither him nor mordred know how to actually work like I do.

Share on other sites

You sound salty about something else and I know exactly what it is

Share on other sites

You sound salty about something else and I know exactly what it is

I am not mad about anything I just want your spamming and moronic comments off this forum, the admins would probably have to do a forum wipe just to remove any trace of your stupidity. I would literally trade you for polymath any day.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Share on other sites

I am not mad about anything I just want your spamming and moronic comments off this forum, the admins would probably have to do a forum wipe just to remove any trace of your stupidity. I would literally trade you for polymath any day.

You want those names off this form.

I dont care whether or not you know or care but people are willing to do anything for what I know so those names stay up

Share on other sites

Exchemist was speaking to me in cipher regarding a specific comment I wrote regarding what I've learned so, there ya go

Share on other sites

Exchemist was speaking to me in cipher regarding a specific comment I wrote regarding what I've learned so, there ya go

I am just going to petition to ban you, I am sick of dealing with your spam and annoying the users in their threads.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Share on other sites

I am just going to petition to ban you, I am sick of dealing with your spam and annoying the users in their threads.

"Victormedvil" is an open account I know you're really bitching about and it has nothing to do with most of my comments in those threads
Share on other sites

OK I'm trying to nail down the logarithmic strain, and may have found the electron relationship. The energy of the elementary charge should relate to the energy of the electron since both are considered quantum values. Well that's what I'm considering: that the electron is a quantum value of mass. I don't consider Planck a quantum value since its never really used without the speed of light to represent energy (ie: hc/r). So then Planck's constant represents a bend energy of a wavelength and not a quantum value.

Anyways, what I find is a two dimensional logarithmic strain equation that relates to the fine structure as that strain value:

rK = (8πGKe^2/c^4)^1/2

re = (hc)/(4πmec^2)

(ln(2)hc)/(2πKe^2) = ln(2π) * ln(re/rK)

Where rK is the energy radius of the elementary charge, re is the reduced electron-positron wavelength. The other constants are standard physics constants for gravity, electromagnetic and quantum expressions.

It's about 6 digits accurate on the log value for the fine structure. And it is what I was expecting to find, that the fine structure is a log strain and therefore represents the factor of charge to matter curvature.

This equation re-enforces the wave-particle equation that is used to calculate the charge of the earth from the proton charge. It does that since it re-enforces the elementary charge energy as basically 1.18E+08 Joules.

Edited by devin553344
Share on other sites

OK I'm trying to nail down the logarithmic strain, and may have found the electron relationship. The energy of the elementary charge should relate to the energy of the electron since both are considered quantum values. Well that's what I'm considering: that the electron is a quantum value of mass. I don't consider Planck a quantum value since its never really used without the speed of light to represent energy (ie: hc/r). So then Planck's constant represents a bend energy of a wavelength and not a quantum value.

Anyways, what I find is a two dimensional logarithmic strain equation that relates to the fine structure as that strain value:

rK = (8πGKe^2/c^4)^1/2

re = (hc)/(4πmec^2)

(ln(2)hc)/(2πKe^2) = ln(2π) * ln(re/rK)

Where rK is the energy radius of the elementary charge, re is the reduced electron-positron wavelength. The other constants are standard physics constants for gravity, electromagnetic and quantum expressions.

It's about 6 digits accurate on the log value for the fine structure. And it is what I was expecting to find, that the fine structure is a log strain and therefore represents the factor of charge to matter curvature.

This equation re-enforces the wave-particle equation that is used to calculate the charge of the earth from the proton charge. It does that since it re-enforces the elementary charge energy as basically 1.18E+08 Joules.

I read some of what you write, and notice you've developed quite a number of erroneous preconceived notions in your head regarding the quantum.

If you want to improve upon the chemical makeup of a drug, or the integrated circuit design of a computer chip, come to me in person with a proposition I'm your guy because I understand the minimal unit operating system in which nature works on a purely mathematical basis.

Y'all are wasting time trying to learn this material in the first place. You should be pimping, if you knew my mental health needs or my harsh history.

Share on other sites

I read some of what you write, and notice you've developed quite a number of erroneous preconceived notions in your head regarding the quantum.

If you want to improve upon the chemical makeup of a drug, or the integrated circuit design of a computer chip, come to me in person with a proposition I'm your guy because I understand the minimal unit operating system in which nature works on a purely mathematical basis.

Y'all are wasting time trying to learn this material in the first place. You should be pimping, if you knew my mental health needs or my harsh history.

Yeah that sounds like spamming.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.