Vmedvil

On second look yes, it does still error out at, I think I doing something wrong at this point or coulomb's law and Newton's Law Both Error at the same point. Δx = (K*q1*q2*I*M*Δt4) = (M*K*q1*q2*I*Δt2) and Δx = (G * M1 * M2 * I * Δt4) = (M1 * G * M2 * I * Δt)

The Picture on this broke, whatever just as long as everyone knows what this geometrically describes. Now lets see if Coulomb's law breaks at the same spot. Linear Electric Velocity to displacement still the Coulomb-greeks? Δx = (((K*q1*q2) / r2) * Δt2) Linear Coulomb-Newton Electric acceleration to Displacement Δx = (((K*q1*q2) / r2) * Δt2) Linear Coulomb-Newton Electric Force to Displacement Δx = (((K*q1*q2* M) /r2) * Δt2) Linear Coulomb-Joule Electric Energy to Displacement Δx = (((K*q1*q2*M) /r) * Δt2)1/2 Linear Coulomb-Galileo Electric Power to Displacement Δx = (((K*q1*q2*M) /r) * Δt4)1/2 Linear Coulomb-Willem 's Gravesande-Émilie du Châtelet Electric Momentum to displacement. Δx = (((K*q1*q2) / r2) * Δt2) Linear Coulomb-Galileo Electric Impulse to displacement. Δx = (((K*q1*q2* M2) / r2) * Δt4) Electric Angular Velocity change to displacement still the Coulomb-greeks? Δx = (((K0*q1*q2) / r2)Δt2 + ((K2*q12*q22) / r3)Δt3) Coulomb-Newton Electric angular velocity to Displacement Δx = (((K*q12*q22) / r3) * Δt2) Coulomb-Newton Electric Moment of Inertial Force to Displacement Δx = (K*q1*q2*I*Δt2) Coulomb-Joule Electric Moment of Interial Energy to Displacement Δx = (K*q1*q2*I*r*Δt2)1/2 Coulomb-Galileo Electric Moment of Interial Power to Displacement Δx = (K*q1*q2*I*r*Δt2)1/2 Coulomb-Willem 's Gravesande and Émilie du Châtelet Electric moment of Inertial Momentum to displacement. Δx = (M*K*q1*q2*I*Δt2) Coulomb-Galileo Electric Moment of Interial Impulse to displacement. Δx = (K*q1*q2*I*M*Δt4) Actually Coulomb's law doesn't error out in any situation, I think it is because of how we define force as "Mass * Acceleration = Force" that errors out newton's gravitational law.

Linear Newton Gravitational acceleration to Displacement Δx = ((G * M2 / r2) * Δt2) Linear Newton Gravitational Force to Displacement Δx = ((G * M12 * M2) / r2 ) * Δt2) Linear Joule Gravitational Energy to Displacement Δx = (((G * M12 * M2) / r )* Δt2)1/2 Linear Galileo Power to Displacement Δx = (((G * M12 * M2) / r) * Δt4)1/2 Linear Willem 's Gravesande and Émilie du Châtelet gravitational Momentum to displacement. Δx = ((G * M2 / r2) * Δt2) Linear Galileo Gravitational Impulse to displacement. Δx = (((G * M12 * M2) / r2 ) * Δt4) Gravitational Angular Velocity change to displacement still the greeks? Δx = ((G0 * M2 / r2)Δt + ((G2 * M22/r3)Δt2) Newton Gravitational angular velocity to Displacement Δx = ((G2 * M22/r3) * Δt2) Newton Gravitational Moment of Inertial Force to Displacement Δx = (G * M1 * M2 * I * Δt2) Joule Gravitational Moment of Interial Energy to Displacement Δx = (G * M1 * M2 * I * r * Δt2)1/2 Galileo Gravitational Moment of Interial Power to Displacement Δx = (G * M1 * M2 * I * r * Δt4)1/2 Willem 's Gravesande and Émilie du Châtelet Gravitational moment of Inertial Momentum to displacement. Δx = (M1 * G * M2 * I * Δt) Galileo Gravitational Moment of Interial Impulse to displacement. Δx = (G * M1 * M2 * I * Δt4) This is where Newton's Gravity shatters into pieces, how again can that be correct, its not. Δx = (G * M1 * M2 * I * Δt4) = (M1 * G * M2 * I * Δt) and Δx = (G * M1 * M2 * I * r * Δt4)1/2 = (G * M1 * M2 * I * r * Δt2)1/2 I bet coulomb's law shatters at the same point, so does this mean our laws of charge and gravity bases are broken?

H2FSbF6 has a acidity 1016 stronger than 100% concentrated H2SO4 , how does Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) survive the acidity of this level chemically, it says on the wiki that it is used to contain this super-acid and secondly, what are the strength of the bonds in PTFE?

Angular Velocity change to displacement still the greeks? Δx = (V0Δt + (V2/r)Δt2) Newton angular velocity to Displacement Δx = ((V2/r) * Δt2) Newton Moment of Inertial Force to Displacement Δx = ((F/I)* r2 * Δt2) Joule Moment of Interial Energy to Displacement Δx = ((E/I)* r2 * Δt2)1/2 Galileo Moment of Interial Power to Displacement Δx = ((P/I)* r2 * Δt3)1/2 Willem 's Gravesande and Émilie du Châtelet moment of Inertial Momentum to displacement. Δx = ((p/I)* r2 * Δt) Galileo Moment of Interial Impulse to displacement. Δx = ((J/I)* r2 * Δt3)

Well, since no one has taken the initiative, I will begin. Displacement from two positions, Some greeks Δx = (x1-x2) Velocity to displacement still the greeks? Δx = (V* Δt) Newton acceleration to Displacement Δx = (a * Δt2) Newton Force to Displacement Δx = ((F/M) * Δt2) Joule Energy to Displacement Δx = ((E/M) * Δt2)1/2 Galileo Power to Displacement Δx = ((P/M) * Δt3)1/2 Willem 's Gravesande and Émilie du Châtelet Momentum to displacement. Δx = ((p/M) * Δt) Galileo Impulse to displacement. Δx = ((J/M) * Δt3) Just the beginning, chime in if you want to add to this.

Ya, This is not really a question but more of a request, I would like a list of every equation or summation with Δx = F(anything) that is confirmed to be correct in physics please list who made them originally and what they describe thanks if you would like to post on this thread doesn't matter what just who wrote them and what they apply to.

Still at it I see, Dubbelosix you never stop do you? When you solve it just make sure that I get a copy, it is going to be something good.

Ya, you would need to know what the Universe uses as its limit would that be C or h otherwise you are making it more accurate than the universe does, lets say that E=hf then h would be the limit right or in the case of Δx = Δt * C then C would does that make any sense, why are we going to infinity on this summation? wait, I am retarded, is that why the uncertainty principal says.

So, it is just specific to the fourier summation? My summations never have that problem then again I never apply them to QM directly. I blame that ak and bk next to a cosine and sine, that would definitely cause uncertainty, it would cause the most strange looking picture ever and no you would never be able to solve for ak and bk without uncertainty in that summation.

So, then it is because of it being a multi-variable calculus equation then?

Refresh that post, you will get it, on the edit I added a more detailed explanation so that people would know I was joking but do explain the physics if you would like, it is because of virtual particles right?

I still say it is a quantum cop out for not having exact answers, measure more certainly damn you, *pulls out a plankscope* Maybe not....... *looks at the structure of quantum foam*

Ya, the Universe is many more dimensional then just a 4-D sphere us being the 3-D surface of that sphere, but it does make sense in a cosmological sense, that calculation is way oversimplified. The Universe is not a hyper-sphere that being definitely too simple considering the 4 forces it as at least a 7-D object with space expansion 8-D at least. I guess they were assuming just time and space exist being 4-D, that would also make the universe cubic and not a sphere, that cannot be correct thinking about it. Curvature adds another dimension so what are we up to 9-D at least. Superstring says 32-D, so way too simple to be a correct calculation. Hyper-sphere

That is also true, there are many things wrong with that calculation originally posted, I do not know the exact time lag between photon release and Gravitational wave release maybe our Resident "SuperNerd" can shed some insight, but yes but I do know know a function that does that, would it be a ratio of the difference between energy of G waves and the Photons because it has to reach a certain energy density or temperature to make gamma ray photons where as gravitational waves not so much.

This does not seem like it includes Universe Expansion by the Hubble constant, the speeds of some particles would actually exceed the speed of light due to Universe expansion. you cannot just say, Δt * C = Δr you would be completely assuming no expansion of this 4D sphere's manifold, this would work for a static universe but not a expanding one. Δr = Δt * C + (H * Δt)/1000 would be non static, the divided by 1000 is due to hubble's constant being in kilometers per second per megaparsec.

From what I understand the most plausible cause of Dark Matter is Sterile neutrinos, There is 3 types of neutrinos being Electron, Muon, and Tau neutrinos, This could correspond to the 3 types of Dark matter being Cold, Warm, and Hot dark matter being the levels along the flavor levels of particles each type being generated from a different density of energy or flavor chosen when the neutrino becomes sterile, just as we see higher energy levels of normal quarks and leptons going into higher flavors with higher energy densities. Neutrinos are the most likely cause of dark matter due to the lack of interaction with charge as Dark matter has a lack of charge too. Most of Normal matter is in the lowest flavor state just as most of the dark matter is in a cold state, but unlike normal matter there would seem to be a complete lack of interaction with electromagnetism as photons pass directly through dark matter, So the Interaction would be Strong and Weak only or just Weak which makes this a interesting problem in how the energy of this Dark Matter system is being stored stable possibly like a Z boson, which still decay but that is where the list ends, otherwise it must have Strong Interaction as quarks. Now, this is not mainstream but within the laws by elimination we can say that Dark Matter must be a combination of the Strong Force and Weak Force only in the case of Sterile Neutrinos or Z-boson like interactions, Otherwise they would fall apart since decay does not really hold things together, another possibility is that the Weak Nuclear Force changes how it interacts with matter in the case of Dark Matter in the case of only having weak interaction. In any case, whatever makes this shape possible. It seems to look as if it is being held together by something maybe the Strong Force who knows, I cannot imagine that all just being held together by the Weak Nuclear Force. still not mainstream but Semi-mainstream, I have clues about the origin and nature of Dark Energy was created during the time when all the forces were still joined, I am sure there are tons of now disappeared interactions that caused that probably only active during the Gravity and Strong-Electroweak since right after the Gravity-Strong-Electroweak decouple did large amounts of expansion happen during the inflationary epoch, so whatever created that Dark Energy probably now does not exist only allowed during the Strong-Electroweak before its decouple into Strong and Electroweak, possibly the Boson of that period, that is my guess. The universe is accelerating which in a previous post does not necessarily mean a increase in Dark Energy, which is mainstream, all of the Dark Energy that will be generated very likely could have already been generated due to energy conservation laws and a lack of a way to explain its generation currently. It is one of the many causes of the universe's expansion another known fact. The Non mainstream parts are a Medvil guess under logic not scientific method, the rest is mainstream unless labeled otherwise, but we can say with certainty that Dark Energy has nothing to do with Dark Matter besides both being Strange forms of Energy-Mass sharing the name Dark! Debate me your distrust of my methods only make me stronger but seriously little is known about Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

I am going to say this again, Dark Matter does not have electromagnetic interaction, this cannot possibly explain Dark Matter's mass, try using the Strong Interaction instead, Otherwise it would have interaction with photons if it had Electromagnetic Interaction. Dark Matter CERN

I dunno, exactly how to explain that chart besides those are the number of dimensions those properties express themselves into per dimension of the other like flow rate acts upon three space dimensions for every dimension of time or the current of Maxwell's equation expressed in Length (3) and Time (-3), this has to do with SO(n) groups.

Simply things are superconnected along many dimensions, this being picture below only being a SO(3) Now, String Theory uses a SO(32) to show connectivity between different dimensions having 29 more dimensions than that SO(3) to connect. Which at SO(32) this shows the exact state of a dimension based on the exact state of 31 other dimensions being a really odd looking shape being 32 dimensional.

There is a problem with this, a major problem Dark Matter does not have charge, thus electromagnetic fields would not be the solution. You will have to use a different field to explain it otherwise if it did have electromagnetic interaction it would not be Dark matter because light would interact with it.

Psssh that is not important that is a error in quantum mechanics everything is certain, uncertainty principal sounds like a quantum cop out for wrong answers or non exact answers...........Lol, I want exact answers from QM always!

No, space cannot be flat or you wouldn't see time dilation. All matter is not contracting at the same rate or they would all have the same velocity, which they do not. The space is shrinking, expansion of space is constant throughout the entire universe. Subatomic particles do have volume, take half the diameter or size then do the sphere volume equation you will find they do, this makes them non point mass. "Therefore the volume of an object is just space and a high concentration of electric fields." Yes, and a resounding NO, there are many fields not just electric, if they were just electric then you would only have charge in the universe, which we don't find just a single force which is not even general relativity at this point, take that up with QCD and QED. That is still dark energy, it could have never have been just charge, charge does not expand the universe just increase density of space whether (+,- )(+,+)(-,-) The magnitude of the field is positive or negative the vector not the energy increasing or decreasing potential difference not positive or negative energy. The Universe just isn't that simple is the reason why this system fails to explain it, even classical mechanics is not that simple to have a single form.

The reason that photons seem to slow down in certain medium is for a time they become energy of a electron then are transmitted as the electron loses this energy. Light seems to slow due to this time repeatedly spent as electron energy. The light particle is never going slower than the speed of light but the electron that absorbs and transmit it does go slower than the speed of light. This is why you get the illusion that the light particle is going slower than the speed of light, but no those are the electrons. The interaction with electrons cause photon lag time it would be like having a 2.6 GHz processor run into a 1.1 GHz video card, despite being 2.6 GHz when running information through the video card it can only use 1.1 GHz this creates a disconnect in speed, you would ask? Why is my processor running so slowly, no that is your video card causing that because it is so slow only being 1.1 GHz. This in electrons is due to rest mass which photons have none causing them to move much more slowly.

Well, they are relationships between different action potentials playing out. You can write most of physics as a function of the planck's constant and Speed of light, it just shows what switching between these action potentials are. In the most basic sense the equations are just detailed ratios between things totally man made but the universe still uses those ratios for conversion. Here is a list of things that are not based on man that spawn out of planck's constant and other constants.