Mordred

oh great just great is that where QM got the term " state " lol particle/system state/property based on economics lol works for me

On further note you seem to be defining spin of a particle as a little ball. So ask yourself this question why does it take a 720 degree rotation for an electron to return to its original state ? While under a 360 degree rotation you get a change in phase sign ? ie a circle or ball only has 360 degrees... Explain that please...(according to your model, I already know how to do so under QM)

Correct, now if the OP wishes to explore fractals to approximate wavefunctions I would fully support him in doing so. However if he chooses to try to describe some corpuscular shape ie a ball or snowflake like structure then he is on the wrong track. There is work on there using fractals for light polarizations but they do not imply a photon is corpuscular. example https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Jacques/publication/263871671_Fractal_nature_of_light_scattering_in_tissues/links/547ca9470cf285ad5b08837d/Fractal-nature-of-light-scattering-in-tissues.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiKuJWCiJ3bAhXXFzQIHRS1Cc0QFjABegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0ryngdHO1xs0vD04tgMEPb researchgate article but downloadable with free membership

Do wavefunctions have internal structure ie for example field excitations. The pointlike properties is defined by a compton wavelength there is no corpuscular particle. The properties you mentioned are described by state vectors. One can describe the structure of the functions but that isn't the same as inner structure of a photon

Fair enough on the Mandelbrot or koch snowflake as to still working on it but what the blazes do you mean by inner workings of a photon ? A photon has no internal structure neither does an electron.

You do realize no one can make any sense out of your images. Nor can we make any sense out of anything you've posted. I haven't seen anything you have posted that conforms to any proper physics yet just a smattering of word salad. Rainbow gravity seriously ???? Have you ever considered picking up a few good textbooks and learning how the photon is modelled under physics or how gravity is ? Try Snells law of refraction for starters. About the most accurate descriptive I can give of your last several posts is ramblings. I can't read a single formula on any of your images but if your using Mandelbrot then you should have recursive functions. This includes the recursive functions of the Koch snowflake. ie [latex] D=\frac{log m}{log f}[/latex]

Well I for one don't see the OP ever employing the mathematics required lol particularly since he states it as a mistake to do so in his paper lmao. Good summary however quite accurate +1 @OP good luck with the advanced QM mathematics you will need. If you actually understood the required mathematics involved you would be well aware just how wrong your attempted hypothesis really is. A theory requires predictability and testability and thus requires not conjectures but the very mathematics you shun. Lol if you truly understood those mathematics and the pointlike and wavelike characteristics which involves the compton wavelength then you would have realized that waveparticle duality isn't a problem as mentioned above by Strange.

Ok so thank you for confirming this thread is a personal theory development. Yes it will probably be moved to speculations however as I am already a participant. I will let another member of the moderation staff do so. First question why do you have a question mark in your equation ? Is this where you believe this illusive constant should be ?

Several reasons for that, many are due to most ppl want removable legs for moving and storage purposes. The second being many ppl look for the easier and quick put together methods even to the point of sacrificing solidity. Still if you can do that joint the dovetail shouldn't present much more challenge and dado joints are always easy.

Ir would take a BH smaller than the mass of the moon to radiate. We haven't found any that match that criteria lol. At least not in the universe with todays age. The possibility exists for small BHs in the distant past ie primordial BH's when the CMB itself was much hotter but good luck detecting radiation at those extreme ranges.

Excellent work, very well crafted you don't often see those joints used today but they are solid joints that last years.

Correct in order for a BH to lose mass by Hawking radiation the Blackbody temp of the event horizon must be greater than that of the CMB. If the CMB is hotter then the BH will absorb the heat and gain mass.

Your welcome lol I cheated a bit and used the cosmocalc in my signature to get the scale factor for then. It uses the appropriate formulas taking the evolution of matter, radiation and lambda into account but has limits to how far back it will go. Earliest scale factor it allows is 0.00005

Roughly inverse to the scale factor [latex] T\propto\frac{1}{a}[/latex] keep in mind its an approximation its more accurate to use Bose and Fermi Dirac statistics but far more complex as one has to account for each particle species. However its considered readonably accurate scale factor is a dimensionless value comparing radius then to radius now [latex]a=\frac{r}{\dot{r}}[/latex]

2.73 kelvin today

A quick back of envelope calculation 250 million years scale factor 0.000724 gives a temperature by the inverse scale factor relation of 1,381.22 kelvin

Yes but more accurately the higher density past.

The more massive stars were incredibly hot compared to the stars today plus the blackbody temperature of the universe itself was far hotter as well.

Not a bad summary +1 though I would probably describe unsmoothness as anistropic.

I for one know every attempt I have ever seen to apply white holes for the source of the cosmological constant or DM has for one reason or another failed due to the sheer homogeneous and isotropic nature of the universe as well as the sheer constancy of the cosmological constant itself. I have already provided several of the reasons in this thread.

Strange asked a valid question I don't even recognize that calculation or value so was curious myself as to what it means or the source you got it from. Its not the standard form of the gravitational constant. Nor is it Einsteins constant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein's_constant Not stating it isn't valid simply due to not recognizing it, no one can be expected to recognize every formula lol. Though I recognize an extremely large number of them.

Here is a chart showing how the universe evolves from the surface of last scattering to today and into the future. Can your model perform all these calculations and match observational evidence? This chart uses the current Planck datasets then calculates distance now, distance when the signal first sends to Earth ie light, recessive velocity when the signal first arrives and recessive velocity today. The Hubble rate in the past compared to now and the proper distances. This is what proper modelling in cosmology should allow us to do. Provide predictions that are testable... [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline a=1/S&S&z&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&D_{par}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&V_{now}/c&V_{then}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 0.001&1090.000&1089.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&0.000856&21.023&3.148&66.182&22915.263\\ \hline 0.001&739.062&738.062&0.000713&0.001172&45.031283&0.060930&0.083238&0.001668&16.621&3.127&51.977&12283.974\\ \hline 0.002&501.112&500.112&0.001342&0.002163&44.653685&0.089109&0.122010&0.003214&13.287&3.101&41.203&6658.325\\ \hline 0.003&339.773&338.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&0.006124&10.712&3.068&32.869&3639.803\\ \hline 0.004&230.379&229.379&0.004601&0.007192&43.602350&0.189264&0.260828&0.011554&8.691&3.028&26.316&2002.235\\ \hline 0.006&156.206&155.206&0.008416&0.013015&42.887747&0.274559&0.380106&0.021616&7.083&2.978&21.095&1106.404\\ \hline 0.009&105.913&104.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&0.040144&5.791&2.918&16.895&613.344\\ \hline 0.014&71.813&70.813&0.027726&0.042257&40.943206&0.570134&0.799715&0.074095&4.745&2.843&13.492&340.773\\ \hline 0.021&48.692&47.692&0.050056&0.075939&39.639382&0.814081&1.152677&0.136056&3.894&2.753&10.720&189.626\\ \hline 0.030&33.015&32.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&0.248752&3.200&2.642&8.455&105.633\\ \hline 0.045&22.386&21.386&0.162117&0.244527&36.119894&1.613538&2.350040&0.453165&2.631&2.508&6.599&58.889\\ \hline 0.066&15.178&14.178&0.291145&0.438335&33.771262&2.224979&3.311204&0.823085&2.164&2.345&5.076&32.852\\ \hline 0.097&10.291&9.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.491191&1.782&2.147&3.827&18.342\\ \hline 0.143&6.978&5.978&0.936102&1.403692&27.454972&3.934517&6.297233&2.695518&1.470&1.907&2.803&10.259\\ \hline 0.211&4.731&3.731&1.674119&2.496871&23.266389&4.917511&8.402147&4.860753&1.219&1.616&1.969&5.767\\ \hline 0.312&3.208&2.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&8.733318&1.026&1.267&1.301&3.292\\ \hline 0.460&2.175&1.175&5.215425&7.334123&12.397762&5.699693&13.279345&15.569626&0.903&0.861&0.777&1.963\\ \hline 0.678&1.475&0.475&8.789420&11.115281&6.042158&4.096813&15.275613&27.272101&0.878&0.420&0.369&1.296\\ \hline 1.000&1.000&0.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&46.278944&1.000&0.000&0.000&1.000\\ \hline 1.468&0.681&-0.319&19.704190&16.201608&4.910267&7.207286&16.992292&75.113899&1.305&0.341&0.445&0.889\\ \hline 2.154&0.464&-0.536&26.084608&16.928765&8.515267&18.345587&17.174536&118.018864&1.833&0.591&1.084&0.851\\ \hline 3.162&0.316&-0.684&32.638034&17.180008&11.040250&34.912335&17.224075&181.212698&2.651&0.767&2.032&0.838\\ \hline 4.642&0.215&-0.785&39.249711&17.261713&12.776339&59.302512&17.261713&274.042078&3.872&0.887&3.435&0.834\\ \hline 6.813&0.147&-0.853&45.880114&17.287747&13.962589&95.126009&17.287747&410.320588&5.675&0.970&5.503&0.833\\ \hline 10.000&0.100&-0.900&52.516301&17.296130&14.771503&147.715032&17.296130&610.357404&8.326&1.026&8.540&0.833\\ \hline 14.678&0.068&-0.932&59.154549&17.298683&15.322788&224.907769&17.298683&903.973904&12.218&1.064&13.001&0.832\\ \hline 21.544&0.046&-0.954&65.793394&17.299445&15.698407&338.211934&17.299445&1334.944709&17.933&1.090&19.550&0.832\\ \hline 31.623&0.032&-0.968&72.432255&17.299812&15.954315&504.519738&17.299812&1967.523376&26.322&1.108&29.163&0.832\\ \hline 46.416&0.022&-0.978&79.071348&17.299828&16.128669&748.626510&17.299828&2896.022178&38.636&1.120&43.274&0.832\\ \hline 68.129&0.015&-0.985&85.710288&17.299959&16.247453&1106.926069&17.299959&4258.871858&56.709&1.128&63.984&0.832\\ \hline 100.000&0.010&-0.990&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&6259.261851&83.237&1.134&94.384&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex]

Hrrm My question would be " Are there any questions that don't matter ?" lol

Ok magnetism is primarily due to the net magnetic moment alignment of electrons, which involves spin. Every electron has a magnetic dipole moment. In most materials the alignment cancel each other out. However certain materials such as hematite the net alignment is imbalanced. Here is a rather lengthy 633 page article that has excellent coverage of magnetism. This will greatly help you in your physics course. It will detail several highly important details such as the Currie temperature etc. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dsf.unica.it/~fiore/libricorsoptr/coey-magnetism.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj7puu4-pTbAhUeHGMKHVdgBO0QFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw01a_57WGwNznR89qLB3zxW The article is essentially a one stop resource for pretty much anything you will need to know or want to know about magnetism and why certain materials have greater magnetic susceptibility and others don't. How this ties into spin orbitals etc. It also details Maxwells equations etc. Rather than give snippets of details which would be unavoidable via strictly questions and answers on a forum this will provide you a comprehensive and rather detailed understanding of magnetism.

As Studiot correctly pointed out asteroids would be a poor starting point. However that being said, asteroids are made of minerals and ice commonly found on Earth. So studying the different properties of those minerals here on Earth is sufficient. We would be happy to help guide you in learning how electromagnetism and gravity differ from one another but also as pointed out we need an understanding of what level of teaching to start at. Lets start with Studiots questions then work from there... By the way it is a great act of character to admit when one is wrong or doesn't fully understand something. I wish far more posters did the same so +1 for that. I have far greater respect for posters who honestly wish to learn than those making grandiose assertions. When thinking over the comments made by both Studiot and Swansont I would recommend you start thinking of iron in particular. Iron does not normally exhibit a magnetic field but if you apply a current can be made into a magnet. The questions Studiot asked relate to this phenomenon. (it also relates to why certain astronomical bodies has a magnetic field while others do not)