metacogitans

The idea I had is that since waves are constantly accelerating a particle from multiple opposing directions, attraction would result as the direction of least repulsion. Conservation rules are one of the main reasons I think these concepts actually make sense. The reason I think charge and attraction have a geometrical basis is because it makes more sense to me than an ever-permeating attractive field 'because that's just what charged particles do'; a 'pull' entirely lacking a 'push' is almost tantamount to particles time traveling backwards. Clockwise/counterclockwise oriented electromagnetic fields and lines of forces from mass displacing a medium makes sense geometrically and mechanically. Anyways, I'll take another swing at something more mathematically technical for you guys, I'm going to end up trying to just improvise tensor calculus and I'll end up getting laughed at.

I know the thread is very amateurish, but after spending like 6 hours typing it I couldn't just delete it without getting some kind of feedback for it. whether good or bad. I never mind harsh criticism if I'm learning something too

There's a lot of things that would make more sense if point particles turned out to be the simplest constituents of matter; Such as why particles behave sometimes as though they lack mass or volume; and having a spherical surface and an infinitesimal radius simultaneously would explain how a particle is able to consistently permeate its own electromagnetic field.

If for some reason you end up with a bizarre number of infinitesimals when solving an equation, it is important to keep track of them until you can simplify them out. However, leftover infinitesimals, reduce to h anyways. What do you mean by 'for any value other than 0'? With h as a value of something in the physical world, it probably isn't as disregard-able as it is with a hypothetical math problem. If the radius of particles is actually infinitesimal, the broader implications could be never-ending. It's not clear to say one way or the other whether it is/isn't or could/couldn't be true, being how abstract of a concept it is. A lot of popular and accepted physics seems to suggest/imply point particles to some extent, like the fermi exclusion principle, or any of the interpretations of modern physics that don't involve extra dimensions or wormholes.

I'm still building on the idea that there are no attractive waves of force, only repulsive, and that there is a geometrical explanation for properties like electric charge.

Alright.. h is infinitesimal.. just a little refresher on infinitesimals quick: So a point particle has a radius of h Instead of saying h seconds, let's define an infinitesimal increment of time as the time it takes for light to travel h meters Since that length is infinitesimal, its the same length as a point particle's radius. Light can't accelerate, and the distance it travels in an infinitesimal increment of time is only h Particles can accelerate, so if a particle's velocity changes during an infinitesimal increment of time, its speed or direction had to change by an infinitesimal distance. Due to the inertia the point particle already had before, it was already going to travel a distance of h over an infinitesimal increment of time (moving at all means it already traveled h ); if it also accelerated during that increment of time however, it had to travel a distance of h again. A point particle can travel a distance many times its own radius in an infinitesimal increment of time by curving into waves of force which continually accelerate it. A point particle, in this manner, seemingly occupies volume, Matter can travel greater distances than light over an increment of time, it just can't travel faster than light in the same direction.

As long as these two conditions are true, a chain of mathematical certainties involving infinitesimals follows: 1. In their simplest form, the simplest fundamental particle constituents of matter have an infinitesimal radius. 2. All fundamental forces propagate as waves, which mediate all interactions between matter. Now, from that, we can start making deductions from applying the math of infinitesimals to time. Consider an infinitesimal increment of time, and the change in a particle's velocity during it. Over an infinitesimal increment of time, we still have to account for the the velocity of the particle in two given instants: - the velocity of the particle the instant the infinitesimal increment of time begins; - the velocity of the particle the instant the infinitesimal increment of time ends. - then we have to consider the increment of time itself - being the single instant between two given instants. A change in velocity means the particle was accelerating and must have traveled at least an infinitesimal distance during the increment of time, and this instantaneous acceleration can be given in terms of infinitesimals: Given that all force-carrying waves ultimately originate from a particle that has interacted with a force-carrying wave, the number of the waves' points of origin is finite. The number of wavefronts on the surface of an infinitesimal point particle would number all particles in the universe within a cosmological distance that can still be crossed at c , which no matter how minuscule in intensity, is still at least infinitesimal, making it equally as significant as everything else when over an infinitesimal increment of time. The center of intensity of each wave on the surface of the point particle moves across an infinitesimal degree of the point particle's circumference during the infinitesimal increment of time; the change in the wave's center of intensity on the particle's surface could be described as directional vectors across the surface of the particle each with only an infinitesimal scalar value. The sum of these vectors collectively determines the change in the particle's direction due to acceleration during the infinitesimal increment of time, reducing to a single direction, which the direction of the particle's starting velocity will deviate from. Due to the mathematical nature of infinitesimals, waves of force would also only be able to travel an infinitesimal distance during an infinitesimal increment of time, and would travel at the same speed as particles. As the particle not only travels an infinitesimal distance, but also changes direction, it would travel into more waves of force the instant it began moving, changing its direction yet again during the same infinitesimal increment of time, Since the radius of the point particle is infinitesimal, its radius is the same as the distance it travels during an infinitesimal increment of time. Since the particle is accelerated during the infinitesimal increment of time, if the particle's speed increased (rather than decreased) the value it increased by would also be infinitesimal -- so if the particle has to at least travel an infinitesimal distance during the increment of time anyways, but its speed also increases during that increment of time (by an infinitesimal amount), the particle would be traveling twice its radius, and therefore traveling faster than light during that increment of time. Every time the particle's path curves into waves of force making contact with the particle's surface, it is accelerated again, and must travel a distance equal to its own radius yet again in the same infinitesimal increment of time. The particle would continue accelerating, until traveling across a given volume of space where all waves of force had already been absorbed/reflected during the increment of time, and the particle would travel across it at a constant velocity for a distance equal to its radius, after which the infinitesimal increment of time will have passed. If the particle moves a distance less than its radius and is accelerated by waves force, it must move an infinitesimal distance again. The pocket of 'empty space' left by a point particle, where all waves of force have been absorbed/reflected, is what gives massive particles the property of mass-volume. This does not conflict with special relativity, as the speed of light is never exceeded in a single direction.

Oh yeah, well this guy seems to agree with me:

I was referring to the electromagnetic field of a particle, emitted from the particle in all directions at the speed of light. I agree that the particle can only move in one direction at a time. Actually, that's why I think the particle's trajectory would have to be coiling; considering the change in velocity of the particle over an increment of time. A particle's velocity can only change through acceleration, and since waves of force emitted from other particles have a travel time c, a change in velocity can never be abrupt.

Well, sinusoidal in 3+ dimensions

When I used the term 'trajectory' applied to waves of force, I didn't mean to imply a straight line. I've been of the impression for quite some time that 'photons' are not discrete particles, rather a convenient placeholder variable in equations. As for 'the charge of photons', I'm of the impression that the geometry of electromagnetic waves is what produces the effect of 'charge' in the first place; I do not think that EM waves themselves have an intrinsic charge, but over time, the geometry of the waves produces the phenomenon of 'charge'.

I'll agree with your post but are you sure about those two points you've made? How are particles not affected by forces in every direction, if the electromagnetic field of a particle is constantly present in 3 dimensions (at least 3 dimensions, 4 or possibly more if we're getting technical). Electromagnetic waves have a 'clockwise' or 'counter-clockwise' orientation, and this would seem to explain electric charge:

Okay. The total force affecting a particle at a given instant is the derivative of velocity. Since the particle is affected by force in every direction constantly, and the closer it moves to the source of those forces the stronger they affect the particle, the greater the intensity of that force affecting the particle, with intensity increasing/decreasing as a curve (never instantaneously. Because the derivative of total force is a vector (a single tangent line), the multiple frequencies of a particle across the spectrum, when plotted as the particles trajectory, would have to be coiling. Because it is coiling, it has an intrinsic clockwise/counter-clockwise orientation. If we conceptualize these waves of force as all being intrinsically repulsive, it would be predicted that oppositely-coiling waves of force would result in the phenomenon of attraction, out of geometric inclination. To translate this from classical to quantum, we could conceptualize particle's position in spacetime only existing as relations to each other; thus, the 'waves of force', at the smallest of scales, break down from a wave function into discrete 'locations' based on relative position. For example, something along the lines of 'particle A is closer to particle B than to particle C or D' transitioning to 'particle A is closer to particle C than particle B or D' would constitute 'wave-function collapse' when particle A is put through a bottleneck where it must be one or the other. Due to space-time being the sum of relations, it would then be expected to follow a manifold - perhaps the tensors described in the General Relativity field equations. Since spacetime does indeed follow a manifold due to the fact that it only exists as the sum of its contents, it seems plausible. Is there any part of that though that is definitely incorrect?

Zitterbewegung Con What are a few examples in particular of wave functions that are fully non-sinusoidal? Also, would they apply if I'm looking strictly at the waves of fundamental forces (where energy is being directly transferred through the wave) and the paths of particles as they are accelerated by those forces? As for circular paths, aren't circular curves technically sinusoidal from any fluctuating imperfections in the cosmic background making the circle slightly elliptical and sinusoidal? Also, even if circular relative to itself as a point of referece, won't it technically be coiled from other points of reference, as its source object is likely moving through the macroscopic cosmos, as most matter in the universe does, at a varying velocity?

1. Since the waves of all fundamental forces are sinusoidal, then acceleration of a particle by a fundamental force can only produce sinusoidal curvature in the particle's trajectory. 2. Since the direction a particle is traveling in can only change from being accelerated by a force, and forces only curve a particle's path sinusoidally, then particles' trajectories can only ever curve, without there ever being sharp angles; when there seems to be a sharp angle in trajectory, viewed at a small enough scale there would only be sinusoidal curvature. 3. Since trajectories of particles only consist of sinusoidal curves, and a particle is affected by forces from every direction constantly with their intensity diminishing over distance as a ratio of a sphere's radius to its surface area, the distribution of the intensity of surrounding waves of force in a section of spacetime would also fall off as a sinusoidal curve. Thus, the path of any particle when plotted out would be coiling in shape. 4. Due to the intrinsic geometry of a coil, the clockwise or counterclockwise orientation of a coil is unchanging, and is preserved no matter how the coil is flipped or rotated. As long as the coil only consists of curves, the clockwise/counterclockwise orientation stays the same, and can only change from sharp angles in the coil - at which point it technically ceases to be a coil. 5. Since waves of force are produced by a particle whenever it is accelerated, and since a coiling trajectory is constant acceleration, waves of force constantly propagate out from a particle as the trajectory of the particle curves. 6. The waves of force produced from the coiling trajectory of a particle would also maintain a coiling shape while propagating out from the particle, with the clockwise/counterclockwise orientation of the coiling preserved as well. 7. Particles affected by waves of force with opposite clockwise/counterclockwise orientations in the coiling of their trajectories, would, for geometrical reasons, be highly inclined to be 'stalled' in the oppositely-coiling waves of force produced by the other particle, the latter particle would also be inclined to become 'stalled' in the force waves coming from the former particle. The resulting effect would be predicted to appear similar to attractive 'pairing' between opposite charges. Is any part of all that definitely not correct or most probably wrong? If you have graphing software, you could put the 'sinusoidal coiling' preserving its clockwise/counterclockwise orientation to the test: try to curve the trajectory of a point particle with only sinusoidal curves, and the forces accelerating can't cheat the inverse square law. I think you'll find that the more you try to implement sharp curves, the more you will displace the particle, and that to have higher intensity waves of force requires more mass/energy considered over a larger volume, which will be lost to entropy of the system, or would affect all nearby particles to a similar extent, and the particle would still have a coiling trajectory relative to those particles. You'd probably need to consider extreme scenarios like supernovae, quasars, particle colliders, or black holes. If you tried using powerful equipment to knock a particle back and forth between alternating electromagnets to get a non-sinusoidal curve in the particle's trajectory, you could still only decrease the diameter of the coil to smaller and smaller scales so its hard to observe, or drown it out with other signals, but the frequency of the coiling would still be present no matter how tiny. Coiling trajectory is also true at the largest of scales; celestial bodies orbiting each other are moving through space in pseudo-unison while in orbit with each other, making their trajectory through space-time coiled. Another possible way to view the concept geometrically I was thinking of (it could be false though, I don't know); consider the distance between two particles with the distance between them growing/shrinking due to forces affecting the particles trajectory - the change in distance graphed on an XY coordinate grid would be indistinguishable from two points moving along the circumferences of two separate ellipses, with the dimensions of the ellipses changing randomly to match their real movements in spacetime, and graphing the change instead as the changing curvature proportional to the rate they're traveling the circumference. The graphed increase/decrease in both cases would also consist of sinusoidal curves. Relative to each other, the two particles could be thought of as coiling orthogonal to the plane of the two ellipses.

Capsaicin affects sensory neurons located in certain areas (mouth, nose, eyes, groin, digestive tract, etc) which detect high temperatures that would cause burning.The receptors which capsaicin bind to modulate the range of temperatures which these sensory neurons detect, with capsaicin effectively lowering the temperature threshold such that body heat is detected as burning. The idea would be that your body tries lowering its temperature in response to this. The body also responds with inflamation in affected areas, which could also lower body temperature. Though, at first, it would be expected for body temperature to raise due to increased heart rate from an adrenal response (panic due to the sensation of burning). The name of this receptor is TRPV1 or vanilla receptor subtype 1, though capsaicin may have affinity for other receptors as well

Thanks for the reply, I think I remembered to do most of those things but it sounds like I'm forgetting some important notation and also making up some of it, and that's not good if I want other people to be able to read it. I checked my math by toying around with a 3d graphing calculator, and whatever I'm doing geometrically is working correctly, but algebraically the equations I typed are wrong (especially in the first two posts) or not native to calculus. What do you think of this second version of the image I made though? Does it look correct more or less? Anything stick out like it needs correcting? Just some notes, the green function and the green segment beneath it on the x,y axis are supposed to represent any line integral for the paraboloid you want that can be defined in terms of x and y (I kept the variables the same name as the axis for simplicity, though I color coded them) and starts at a segment on the x,y plane going through (0,0) . With x and y defined, the line integral from (x,0) to (x,y) (the red segment in the image) to the paraboloid z(x,y) can be found as the integral given in the image: since value y and z(x) at value x form a rectangle, that is one piece of the line integral's area, while the second part would just be the function z(y) integrated, since leaving the x axis, it just begins to affect the dimensions of the paraboloid, and we just accounted for how z(x) affects the shape of the paraboloid along that line integral so we don't have to worry about it. Then, integrating that line integral, we get an anti-derivative for finding volume. I think all of that checks out unless I totally missed something.

Here we go, I think multivariable calculus finally just clicked for me:

I think I've figured out the notation for what I was looking for now, tell me what you think: Edit: Woops, those parameters aren't listed properly, those would be the colored geometrical segments. The vertices of the section are (0,0,0)(x,0,0)(x,y,0)(x,0,z(x))(x,y,(z(y)+z(x)) and coordinates of the section follow the parameters: f(z(x)+z(y)) ≥ z ≥ 0; y ≥ 0

okay, I think I might have put line integrals in the original post unnecessarily; I was trying to describe the boundaries of where I want to find the volume as where those line integrals 'are' on a graph. I'm thinking now I should have wrote it ( Volume[0,0][x+h,0] [x+h,y+m(x+h)]f(x,y) - Volume[0,0][x,0][x,y]f(x,y) ) / h = ∫x,0x,y f(x,y) with 'volume' implying a volume integral beneath f(x,y) within the two points in subscript right next to the word; and m being the slope of the hypotenuse in the xy plane where z=0 Still don't know if that's right Say there's a parabaloid z=2x2+3y2 and I want to know the volume underneath it to the xy plane where z=0, within the (x,y) boundaries (0,0) (3,0) (3,2)

For finding the volume between a multivariable line integral (x,y) and a single variable integral along the x axis, does this look right? ( Volume ∫0,0x+h,yf(x+h,y) ∫0,0x+h,0f(x+h) - Volume ∫0,0x,yf(x,y) ∫0,0x,0f(x) ) / h = ∫x,0x,y f(x,y) In particular I'm looking at f(x,y) parabaloids in the format z=axn+bym if that makes a difference; you can assume that f(x,y)-f(y)=f(x) I don't know if that's right or not, I was thinking of the volume as consisting of infinitesimal integral prisms, and following that the volume of a prism is its base multiplied by its height, the difference in volume from one of the infinitesimal integral prisms divided by h would equal the line integral between the first two line integrals. Also, if that is right, how would you go about finding the volume between line integrals if the base line integral as at equal angles to the other two and not perpendicular to an axis? Would you have to break it into halves and do a coordinate transformation?

Curvature tensors are used for electromagnetism as well; so a force.. involving curvature.. hmm . I guess it could be said that gravity is unique in that the curvature applies to all of spacetime, affecting even light.. but what if it didn't affect light? What would 'spacetime' even mean in that context then really? Just a force with curvature tensors, kind of like electromagnetism? Well, they are exempt from the paul exclusion principle. and can occupy the same location in spacetime, yet they interact with each other. Iff they can occupy the same location in spacetime and pass right through each other, what part of them interacted, and where?

ahem... anyways, If asked the question (in the context of black holes and gravity), Well... how can you?? How could you.. Blackholes are traditionally described as 'spacetime curvature so drastic not even light can escape it'; that's where the idea of black holes came from, before gravitons were even proposed Gravitons, as bosons, are violating some rules (don't worry, I'm confident new rules will be invented as placeholder 'exceptions' to previous rules) such as bosons passing through other bosons typically (I'm not an expert, but google told me gluons interact with each other by some mechanism, so maybe some bosons do interact with each other *shrug*). If gravity has a force carrier, light should be passing right through it, not getting stuck someplace because of it. So which is it, bosons or curvature? Even if its both, the contradictions remain. For example, if it were both bosons and curvature, wouldn't the trajectory of subsequent gravitational bosons be offset by the curvature? If photons are offset by it, gravitons should as well presumably.

Unfortunately, they are in a position where it is too easy to hoax what they are claiming. profit immensely from it, and have history forget forgive it before it can ever be disproven. I'd like to say scientists are immune to that kind of greed, but push a human being towards joblessness, admitting failure, and facing accusations of stealing from the public (in this case, it would be tax dollars), and they'll do an extravagant tapdance for everyone that is everything they want to hear; it happens in the affairs of corporations too, and well, pretty much everywhere. Instinct equates social rejection to death, and responds accordingly. Again, not saying that's the case, but they're certainly in the right position to do it.. Billions of dollars spent without results, everyone wanting to keep their jobs, before you know it everyone is playing ball. Again, just saying. It will make a cute artifact regardless though, like the pyramids, or CERN.. Pharoah's charting the stars again. Launching stuff up into orbit is cheap; Machines that can craft carbon instruments are expensive, but it will get cheaper in the future; Solar Sails are expensive, but NASA is making them anyways, so.. why not slap some on a centrifuge and launch that up and see what happens?

Skepticism sides against evidence by default as a method of problem solving using lateral thinking. Hey, we can break this down step for step with Kantian-esque philosophy - none of the evidence-knowledge concluding 'black holes' in this experiment is a priori or independent of experience, it is a posteriori; more specifically, the evidence-knowledge does not stand by itself through pure logic -- a mathematically described experiment which duplicates results, however, could be considered knowledge a priori if built from the bottom up. Anomalies from a source distant light years out of solar system have nothing for us to even compare them to at that scale which we have a well-established knowledge of. It is guesswork, and the people behind it are banking off the fact that we'll never in our lifetime be able to go check it. Let me propose just some possible alternatives: - another celestial body incidentally falling in the path of the anomalies source and our measuring devices, altering the signal in unanticipated ways. - considering they stated themselves it was similar to a neutron star collision, a variable here on Earth could have interfered with the reading while it was taking place Let me point out what their claims imply if true: - a blackhole would really just be a region in space where the gravitational force from particles exceeded the electromagnetic force, and therefore: - gravity can't be mediated by a boson and is instead solely the result of 'space-time' curvature - space-time in most interpretations of general relativity is not independent of all objects in the universe, but an object itself, and spacetime could therefore be most appropriately viewed as a sum of relations between particles (the distance between particle A and particle B is determined by their relation to other particles), and because of this: - spacetime curvature could not exceed the electromagnetic force, because any curvature ultimately consists of a shifting set of relations which the photons of the electromagnetic force are included amongst You might respond saying everything I just said is too philosophical to consider, but all I just did was point in the inconsistencies in the concepts which everyone else is using to suggest the existence of black holes in the first place. The lack of an educating response or explanation which a person would usually include when stating that someone is ignorant, a troll, etc. indicates to me that I'm wasting my thoughts, and if not, they're being given away while unappreciated for them. I'm trying to take on a role that builds knowledge for both sides but in order to do that, two people have to bounce ideas off of each other, and that isn't taking place if one of them only responds with insults. Also, yes, Kantian logic isn't the most efficient means of attaining truth, but the Schopenhauerian logic described in "the World as Will and Representation" building off of and refuting Kantian logic is usually what I'm getting at when I mention the Kantian logic from "Critique of Pure Reason", just thought I'd add a footnote about that. The concepts of the 'thing in itself' vs phenomenon were what I was trying to get across mostly-- or, as adapted by physicists, 'observer effect' and the well known Uncertainty Principle; the 'thing in itself' being independent and different from phenomenon is not limited to human observers or even living organisms, but anything with an intrinsic structure reactive to the phenomenon. I really hope someone doesn't try taking the route 'philosophy is inferior to physics' now; the philosophy from the time between the birth of Kant to around the start of the 20th century literally was the framework for early 20th century theoretical physics; physics didn't lead to the discovery of those concepts, but the other way around - those concepts provided the mentality leading to the development of physics.