current 6 Posted September 6 Report Share Posted September 6 (edited) Quasars are QCG, singularities have all those spheres I told you about (planck strings, branes, and then spheres) all have the same central coordinate in a singularity but in the up quark of an atomic nucleus, or a down quark in the QCG, do not share the same central coordinate like as in the case of a singularity. A singularity is a imagined mathematical concept only . A singularity would , could never happen , exist , in a physical based Universe . Edited September 7 by current Quote Link to post Share on other sites

current 6 Posted September 6 Report Share Posted September 6 current, on 06 Sept 2020 - 2:17 PM, said: A singularity is a imagined mathematical concept only . A singularity would , could never happen in a physical based Universe . It can in a certain mathematical language, it's quite doable. What is ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites

current 6 Posted September 6 Report Share Posted September 6 (edited) And then transforming the planck length and filling the resulting volume, where the pull of gravity is faster than light, with fractal planck spheres. Then it's also possible to tug on those fractal planck spheres from every direction with infalling planck spheres until they merge with the singularity. That's a second and potentially a third topological protocol, which is 3+3 dimensions. Have you found this in reality ? Edited September 6 by current Quote Link to post Share on other sites

current 6 Posted September 6 Report Share Posted September 6 The proof is ongoing, the dark energy and QE DM were an educated guess at the results of the proofs. There's a difference between a proof (the simulation) and reality, but reality can only be truly observed in totality with the proof. True To your last statement ; if the proof explains the physical . Quote Link to post Share on other sites

devin553344 8 Posted September 10 Author Report Share Posted September 10 I've updated the PDF in the OP with additional supporting equations, more accurate gravity, magnetic moments, Deuteron orbit velocity, energy definitions for the basic particles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

devin553344 8 Posted September 12 Author Report Share Posted September 12 If matter has an acceleration equivalent and is a super vacuum curvature of space-time, then perhaps charge is a super pressure curvature of space-time and relates to temperature as a pressure equivalent. I added a new Shockley diode relationship that describes the relationship of charge to temperature thru the proton vibration peak wavelength which is contained in the Wien's displacement constant and the Boltzmann constant, this uses the same value for the proton gravitation: 12/2 * kb = Ke^2 * exp(εђc/e^2 * rC/rp) Where k is the Boltzmann constant, b is Wien's displacement constant, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, exp is the natural exponent, ε is the permittivity of free space, ђ is the Planck's reduced constant, c is the speed of light, rC is the proton charge radius and rp is the proton wavelength. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

devin553344 8 Posted September 14 Author Report Share Posted September 14 I've updated the pressure-vacuum balance equations for the electron particle and proton particle. The correction is in the pdf file in the OP in post #1. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

devin553344 8 Posted September 15 Author Report Share Posted September 15 (edited) I'm adjusting the electron to be basically a 5 dimensional n-sphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere): hc/(8/3 * π^2 * (re + re)^5) = Ke^2/re^5 Where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, re is the electron wavelength, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge. It's close but slightly off, and it allows the two times the wavelength to be compressed down to the wavelength, created a charge pressure of the wavelength size and a vacuum of mass of the wavelength. The amount it is off appears to relate to an angular kinetic energy similar to the slight off of the proton. This is a 5 dimensional native nature to electromagnetic radiation perhaps. It might not have a strong force since the wavelengths of mass and charge are the same. The proton is still a 4 dimensional n-sphere: hc/(2 * π^2 * (rC + rp)^4) = Ke^2/rC^4 You might consider that since the charge radius rC is 2π/4 less than the wavelength of rp that it is a dimensional shift and therefore requires one less dimension than the electron. The remaining energy that is not balanced works out to the following for either particle (which may relate to the fine structure): mc^2a^2/(gs*r^n) Where m is the mass of the particle (either electron or proton), a is the fine structure constant, gs is the g-factor of the particle, r is the wavelength, and n is either 3 or 4 depending on whether it's 4 dimensional or 5 dimensional. The idea here is that any valley (mass) that exists in space must therefore have an equal and opposite hill (charge). Therefore an equation must exist to describe that equality. Edited September 15 by devin553344 Quote Link to post Share on other sites

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

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