SirHope 1 Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 (edited) To All The Universe's Primary Number 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. Quote In 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 Quote On 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)) Edited March 26 by SirHope Quote Link to post Share on other sites

SirHope 1 Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 (edited) I believe since luminosity is not an exactly accurate measuring stick this is just why the excitement is about gravity waves. After thinking about what Einstein wrote regarding luminosity as in light is not accurate to use exactly for distances, because of the linear constraint I thought how I could explain this to make it simple. Here I go: 1 ) Gravity Waves can extend out and their path is not effected by other masses, so the distance measurement is direct. 2) Where as [u]Light when it is emitted its path bends around stars so when using luminosity as a measuring tool for huge distances the lengths will stretch in the measurement with angles associated due to the curvature of the light wave created by other masses such as stars, black holes and planets. This extends the light distance measurement. Therefore, like the Ligo Luminosity Black Hole Merger Source Distance vs. My Geometric Gravity Wave Black Hole Merger Source Distance one would see a longer distance in Ligo's measurement, because it depended on purely light to approximate the distance to the Black Hole merger. This is why I feel Ligo really needs to look at my math & Astrophysicists as-well, because I believe I figured out an accurate way to measure distances using the gravity wave without luminosity. This method finally reveals not only that Einstein is 100% correct about Geometry for the mystery of Gravity, but it uncovers the Geometric Engine Constant for Gravities true Mystery Number that Warps Space Time. The Gravity Geometric is(6.28000000000000314). The video below does an excellent job at showing Gravity and its Geometric on display. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwgIjBUYVc&t=5s Edited March 26 by SirHope Quote Link to post Share on other sites

write4u 19 Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 (edited) IMO the universe does not contain any numbers. Numbers are arbitrary symbolic human representation of "values" . This suggests to me that a fundamental primary value is ; x + x = 2*x (as expressed with human symbolics)......? Edited April 2 by write4u Quote Link to post Share on other sites

SirHope 1 Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 5 hours ago, write4u said: IMO the universe does not contain any numbers. Numbers are arbitrary symbolic human representation of "values" . This suggests to me that a fundamental primary value is 2*x (as expressed with human symbolics)......? Well I come from the school of the thought of a Platonic Philosophy of Mathematics where math is inherent in nature and where our number system is merely a reflection of the order that was and is present. The ego is in your way suggesting that mankind is the only intelligent mathematical beings, I beg to differ. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

write4u 19 Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, SirHope said: Well I come from the school of the thought of a Platonic Philosophy of Mathematics where math is inherent in nature and where our number system is merely a reflection of the order that was and is present. The ego is in your way suggesting that mankind is the only intelligent mathematical beings, I beg to differ. No, you misunderstand. Perhaps my post was lacking in clarity. Quote IMO the universe does not contain any numbers. Numbers are arbitrary symbolic human representation of "relational values" I am very much in Max Tegmark's corner re his hypothesis of a "Our Mathematical Universe". I often quote his observation that where most scientists agree the universe has some mathematical properties, he submits that the universe has only mathematical properties (i.e. values and functions). You posited: "The ego is in your way suggesting that mankind is the only intelligent mathematical beings, I beg to differ". I agree completely and this presented a new paradigm to me. I would modify that to read: "the universe is a quasi-intelligent mathematical object. It avoids the problem of consciousness while retaining the logical interaction of relational algebraic values processed via mathematical functions. This is why I hesitate to discuss universal values and mathematical functions in human symbolic terms. My education in advanced mathematics is limited (bookkeeper) and I am restricted to discussing physics on a philosophical level. One of my favorite, albeit rudimentary Nova presentations is : The Great Math Mystery. Which is really informative and thought provoking for the average interested individual. p.s. I am an ex-bassplayer and can relate to Pythagoras as well as Plato....😊 Edited March 27 by write4u Quote Link to post Share on other sites

write4u 19 Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Before I forget. This maybe of interest . Physics & Mathematics https://www.worldsciencefestival.com/videos/the-invisible-reality-the-wonderful-weirdness-of-the-quantum-world Quote Link to post Share on other sites

write4u 19 Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 2 hours ago, TheProdigalProdigy said: PEDOPHILFE And what is that supposed to mean? Quote Link to post Share on other sites

write4u 19 Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 (edited) @ SirHope A further explanation of my preferred use of the term "values" is at the quantum level of string theory, where numbers can no longer be assigned but values do exist for each string. This is just intuitive on my part and I would appreciate a comment if that perspective has any merit. An additional area of great interest to me is Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT), which proposes a fractal nature to spacetime. Quote Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent. This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves. Quote There is evidence ^{[1]} that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation Edited March 27 by write4u Quote Link to post Share on other sites

write4u 19 Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, TheProdigalProdigy said: Shhhh!!! 🤬🤦♀️🤦😤 OK, you talk and I'll listen. I hate silence when there is so much to learn! Or are you beyond learning? There is no merit in asceticism, when it concerns science. Not very interesting, nor productive. p.s. can you assign a numerical value to strings? Edited March 27 by write4u Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 151 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 (edited) Yes, what you say is possible, the speed of light reference to post 1 we can postulate that light is spatially variable from the Einstein quotation. The fact light is spatially variable could hold important long ranging consequences to the things we call black holes, to whether light is capable of escaping from them. It has been shown that if permittivity and permeability defines the speed of light, then using it as a refraction index allowed us to speculate that light may approach zero speeds only as a limit. When I wrote about this distinction of model, I explained why light being suspended infinitely in a gravitational field had to violate certain quantum mechanical laws, and so the idea that gravity can infinitely trap light beyond its horizon had to be, in some way flawed, just as it is related to the trapping and loss of information. We now know today, Hawking was wrong about the information Paradox and thus something about the model of the black hole, or the laws we use to describe it, is most likely wrong fundamentally-speaking, somewhere. So long as light can escape black holes, it solves all these issues over night. Edited March 29 by Dubbelosix Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 151 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 (edited) There's some discussion two and fro between the Op, prodigy and write4you concerning whether the universe is assigned numbers. This as mentioned eludes to also Tegmarks mathematical hypothesis of the universe. Just to give my two cents, it does appear, so long as the laws of the universe abide to physical laws describable under mathematical numbers, that the the idea that the universe us assigned by numbers seems to be a solid factoid, the question is whether mathematics was invented to describe the laws or whether it just happened that the laws are independent of the invention of math. The destinction between the two ideas are quite important. Again, in short, for clarity, did the universe arise independent of math or is mathematics an invention to describe the laws of physics. Or is the universe inherently mathematical such that mathematics was discovered from the laws rather than it being a mere invention? Perhaps complicating it further, is mathematics both a discovery and an invention not related in a fundamental intuitive notion of the universe? Edited March 29 by Dubbelosix Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 151 Posted March 31 Report Share Posted March 31 On 3/29/2021 at 2:58 AM, Dubbelosix said: There's some discussion two and fro between the Op, prodigy and write4you concerning whether the universe is assigned numbers. This as mentioned eludes to also Tegmarks mathematical hypothesis of the universe. Just to give my two cents, it does appear, so long as the laws of the universe abide to physical laws describable under mathematical numbers, that the the idea that the universe us assigned by numbers seems to be a solid factoid, the question is whether mathematics was invented to describe the laws or whether it just happened that the laws are independent of the invention of math. The destinction between the two ideas are quite important. Again, in short, for clarity, did the universe arise independent of math or is mathematics an invention to describe the laws of physics. Or is the universe inherently mathematical such that mathematics was discovered from the laws rather than it being a mere invention? Perhaps complicating it further, is mathematics both a discovery and an invention not related in a fundamental intuitive notion of the universe? Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 151 Posted March 31 Report Share Posted March 31 So if can answer these question first, please do not be hesitating to ask please? Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Dubbelosix 151 Posted March 31 Report Share Posted March 31 By sorry hijack at least at say two now, I have been using a phone for dictations so waiting on tablet to get back soon. Thank you for your patience, regards 006 Quote Link to post Share on other sites

write4u 19 Posted March 31 Report Share Posted March 31 (edited) On 3/28/2021 at 6:58 PM, Dubbelosix said: Again, in short, for clarity, did the universe arise independent of math or is mathematics an invention to describe the laws of physics. Or is the universe inherently mathematical such that mathematics was discovered from the laws rather than it being a mere invention? Perhaps complicating it further, is mathematics both a discovery and an invention not related in a fundamental intuitive notion of the universe? Several cosmologist posit that when they make a prediction and then find confirmation, they get the feeling it was always there. They are discovering the mathematical nature of the universe and that human mathematics are the symbolic representation of these naturally occurring phenomena. Perhaps a good example was the mathematical prediction of the existence of the Higgs boson which was subsequently confirmed in the Cern collider. There was Einstein's mathematical prediction of gravitational lensing. The discovery of Neptune by mathematical calculations of a deviation in Uranus' orbit. IMO, it seems entirely logical that same actions between same things should produce same results, the fundamental structure of mathematical functions. Many animals have mathematical abilities adapted to the mathematics of their environment. Lemurs have the same intuitive cognitive sense of quantity (more or less) as humans. Frogs and other reptiles have abilities for triangulation, the exact calculation of the distance to prey. Whales and bats use the mathematics of sonar for orientation and communication. Only humans use symbolic language for describing the mathematics of nature. The Universe itself processes fixed or variable (algebraic) "values" via mathematical (constant) "functions" via regular and consistent processing patterns. If it weren't so, the initial Chaos after the BB would never have resulted in mathematical patterns in a dynamical environment, such as the Fibonacci sequence which can be found all throughout the universe from galactic spirals to petal count of daisies, because it is mathematically efficient and natural selection likes efficiency...😊 The mathematics of the universe were not created from human mathematics, human mathematics were created from universal mathematics. Edited March 31 by write4u Quote Link to post Share on other sites

write4u 19 Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 As to primary or fundamental mathematics, Tegmark proposes that only 32 numbers and + dozen equations are sufficient to unlock the mathematical mysteries of the universal values and functions. The mathematics are relatively simple, the amounts are staggering. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

write4u 19 Posted April 1 Report Share Posted April 1 2 minutes ago, Rc3D said: How many snoopers are in my device that dna tested my descendent from the Roswell body and reverse engineered her capsule (from hyperbolic temporal earth-2 I'd eat lvl multiverse!)? I don't think we have much t talk about......sorry 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.