The Wizard of pi

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LJ5sx_P_tJU6OXnX-Y-P-FKiFldrbmFUVnht-nRGvYo/edit?usp=sharing

If electrons didn’t have VOLUME, the universe wouldn’t exist in the first place! Our physics understandings of SPACE is wrong and the “renormalization” performed any time the irrational mathematical constant pi is used in calculations is ludicrous and is keeping us from unifying all theories into one. I just recently published a few articles explaining the negative consequences of a convenient selection of a random decimals of pi for pure practical purposes while ignoring the repercussions that this practice has inflicted in our understanding of the true nature of SPACE and its implications when energy and matter is present. When I talk about subatomic particles and their VOLUME I’m not referring to QM’s interpretations of a density wave of probabilities, instead I’m talking about an incompatibility present between infinite fractional SPACE and quantized ENERGY. If you take a look at the first picture where I inserted the equation used to calculate the volume of a sphere in three dimensional space, the real volume in space when energy is present and the number of decimals of pi began to increase will also increase in very small and fractional fashion...yes! But will absolutely continue to increase. We can only guess that this theoretically infinite augmentation of space capacity serves to the spreading or a sort of stretching of the mass of the electron into a “fuzzy cloud” around the edges of the point-particle. In my own personal interpretation, it is precisely this oscillatory and FTL recoil of the energy of all subatomic particles what lies at the very root of their EM nature. Obviously the point-particle the reason for the electric charge and spin while the cloud being the one for magnetism and magnetic momentum. Miguel De Zayas

https://youtu.be/Ohp6Okk who mentioned push? I said energy (EM energy) spread within the fractional nature of space (which yes is infinite) I can explain this twice sorry if you don't follow me. since the EM of the quanta is quantized (indivisible) it recoils back into its particle-like state and this oscillatory process occurs both in atomic orbital and in the vacuum of space. in orbitals it happens while the electrons moves around the nucleus of the atom [protons and neutrons] in the vacuum electrons appear and disappear as QM has proved making the fabric of the vacuum of space chaotic. The EM energy is the electric and magnetic energy of particles. Duality makes them both part of the process. no point-particle in the sense either. if you concentrate the energy of the electron in a point in space the charge of the electron becomes infinite. I spoke about the infinite nature of the space within the volume occupied by the quanta but never about infinite magnitudes of charge or infinite magnitudes of magnetic field. that;s a wrong characterization. in fact according to my theory, both states, particle-like and wave-like alternate each other at FTL speeds. bollocks may describe your capacity to understanding my points. I don't blame you for not being able to see it, don't feel bad for it, your brain is not wired in the same way mine is. Sorry about not being able to prove everything you quoted above. I just want you to understand that the irrational nature of pi does change the topography of space inside the energy volume of particles. Perhaps you should follow my advice and ask the same question to your professor or a friend with higher level of physical education. No offense but if your calculator can't blow up in fire and smoke trying to give you an answer you deny is not my fault, it's the way calculators work. they give you a few decimal spaces to the right of the point and they signal infinite or other sign. Sorry if you need me to explain in details or showing you proof of things that will be decades from now proved to be right. I'm just writing about them for my own ego. I want those scientists from the future to see that I was able to conceive the infinite nature of space, the production of EM waves and the resonance within the volume of quanta as a direct result of my interpretations. good night!

I referred as a circle and it is posted as a circle before if you look for it. Yes, a sine wave can be represented in a plane 2 d as a circle. my reference to a sphere is this: Space is, as you already know mt point, a fabric of an infinite inward "universe" if you wish. The presence of pi in the volume equation makes it infinite, fractionally but infinite. I spoke about the incompatibility of space and energy together. Energy as EM energy in the electron is in a constant oscillation (resonance) within its own PERFECT VOLUME. (this capital letter is for another member who argued about the spherical shape of electrons. As electron oscillates between two states 'particle' electric charge and 'cloud' magnetic field the magnetic polarity also oscillates into two polarity states and as the EM energy of the electron recoils back into its particle state, it becomes mass-charge but also it's an alternating oscillatory process where charges alternate from one spin to the opposite. In the case of bosons or photons, there's no charge because they don'e have rest mass but they do have a particle state (photons) and a cloud state that alternates into two polarities as well. you have heard that light has two polarities just as electrons have two magnetic momenta. All these processes are easily seen if we linked the oscillation aka resonance with the incompatibility between space and energy. Without my interpretation all you get is the same phenomenon without a theoretical explanation. yes you have equations and math ready to calculate those parameters but no argument that you could rely to in plain words. Physics is missing the explanation and the argument to explain in simple words how these processes take place and what's behind them. as for the concept "point particle" you have to be careful. a mathematical point could mean that the EM energy (mass and charge) of the electron in its particle state would be infinite and that's is an impossibility. The charge of the electron is not infinite and neither it's its magnetic momenta. the spin is 1/2 because around the atomic orbital electrons alternate their charge just as the example I posted of the LC circuit. a resonance process keeps alternating opposite spins and opposite magnetic polarities within one complete oscillation. the process is the same inside atomic orbits and outside. when outside or in the vacuum, electrons keep oscillating and alternating their magnetic polarities and their spins. I'm not talking that charges became positive or negative, please. spin is just the direction of the charge in space. the azimuth as it's also known.

My point is pretty simple. When physicists use those equations I mentioned in blue and it’s time to introduce the value of pi, what value they’ll take? 3.14 or 3.141 or 3.1415 or 3.14159 or 3.141592… how many decimals they insert? 20, 30 or 100 decimals? Let me help! Click in below! https://www.piday.org/million/ This is the question I'd like you to ask them! how many decimals are enough to make it right? they will argue with the response of the secretary of state Hillary Clinton when the attack in Bengasi: "At this point what difference does it make?!" I bet you anything they will avoid and ignore your question. They don't have an answer because they never thought about the implications that such "irrelevant" issue may have in almost all of the most fundamental physical equations.

wow! I don't really know where to start... Let's start with the "it depends to how accurately bla bla" It doesn't depend on anything, my friend! The physical reality doesn't accommodates to our practical conveniences... You keep talking about rounding a mathematical constant depending in the level of accuracy we expect based on making or predictions more... reliable? I'm talking about the way (God) the universe actually works. when I spoke about the infinite numbers in the realm of fractional numbers with respect to cardinal numbers was to explain to you that infinite is infinite however you want to see it. It exists in the smallest "microscopically tiny" fabric of space, places where our observation is limited but doesn't deny its existence. I guess the "weirdness" you mentioned above has to do with the abilities of humans to conceive realities completely off our own nature. perhaps our minds ate not equipped to assimilate that there is as much infinite within a point in space than in the entire universe. That's the beauty of the universe where we live! How the smallest thing could be as big as the biggest one. It's said that the human body has more bacteria species (not just bacteria in numbers but species) than the number of cells we have in our bodies. I can't make you see it, sorry. All I'm trying to convey with my views is that it is precisely the "weird" (using your words) nature of the fabric of space [its fractional, infinite and inwardly extension] where quanta spread the energy, recoil it back into a particle-mass and where the oscillation that produces EM waves are born. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtzuM96VWg-QwVpxpK2Bbq_VjjyW3nWhIuoh02Tsd8Q/edit?usp=sharing the question is here. I have links from one article to the next. in fact you can read all my articles in Facebook by searching me by you're always welcome.

EXCUSE ME...! https://www.wired.com/2011/05/electrons-are-near-perfect-spheres well, maybe not perfect since if the electron were of the size of our galaxy the difference from a perfect sphere would be the thin of a human hair...maybe you were right Your assumption is correct: "that implies that they have volume" They do have volume and you just gave me the reason. On the other hand who said that subatomic particles can be divided? For Goodness sake...It wasn't me! I swear! My entire article is based on the indivisibility of a quantum of energy! It's the fact that they can't be divided what keeps them oscillating within the volume they occupy in space. Listen, I don't want and much less need to argue with you, but I think that you should read my words carefully before saying that my theoretical interpretation of the true fabric of space is ... "gibberish". Is it me the only one here who sees the mistakes of this member in regard to the words he just put in my mouth or other too see it? All I'm saying and illustrated not long ago with a simple example was that you can see SPACE as an analogical realm, where its innate fractional nature (seeing in the equation of volume) is given by the irrationality of pi in the equation. I didn't invented nor discovered the mathematics of the volume calculation, neither I did such thing with regards to the mathematical constant pi. Those were there before I was even born. I saw quantized energy more like a digital wave, indivisible where it can only be 1 (as exists) or 0 as (nothing). Space on the other hand can extends in a fractional manner toward infinite in both directions: outwardly and inwardly. as to the proof of the spherical nature of subatomic particles just click on the top link please.

I'd suggest that you think again what you just posted. The more decimals you input in the equation to calculate the volume of one sphere, the bigger the space grows. it grows in the fractional direction but it will keep changing! That's the difference between having pi as irrational in this universe. had been pi rational we were not having this chatting here. what do you mean by "rounding"? In case you missed out my example, let me give you the argument once again: You know what a lepton is, right? commonly known a one electron. The energy of the electron is quantized. You can't simply divided in little pieces because it doesn't work that way. It can be stretched or spread within the contours of the sphere where it's contained. I showed you a mathematically formulated equation of volume in three dimensional space. It's not a rounded formula that we can play with the factors...it's the basics of science...math! The equation shows you an irrational constant. An infinite magnitude and one that makes your life miserable because you or nobody I know, can calculate anything with precision when using infinite in math. That's the reason Dirac was so angry of the mathematics in QED https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqRUFU3SIjUsJybp6XpbJ8XbUeezvLSf-8DwT5NO_qE/edit?usp=sharing Both mathematicians and physicists hate, avoid and ignore the presence of infinite whenever it appears in calculations. That doesn't help, in my humble opinion, because infinite is here to stay until the end of times. Whether you agree with me or not that there's a hidden realm of fractional space within the volume occupied by either energy or matter is entirely irrelevant... it's there and the equation teaches you that fact. ignoring it for the sake of human convenience won't help us in the seeking of the theory of everything. (Great Unified Theory). There's no "rounding" in the physical reality my friend. The universe or as Einsteins once said (God) doesn't play dice with the fundamental laws that govern the universe.

I posted a comment just recently where I compared space and quanta to an analogical wave holding a digital one inside. The example wasn't complete although it was very effective. you know that a sine wave can be closed into a sphere too. So try to close the loops of both waves and you'll see that the empty not filled region of space will be bat the edges of the circle. this is the fractional nature of space. It can't be filled because energy comes in quanta and space is infinite and fractional into the most infinitesimal point in the vacuum. With all due respect... "nothing like that?" It's a fact that the more digits you input into pi (decimals) the larger into the inward direction (the fractional space) it gets. Have you ever heard that there are more fractional numbers than if you start counting 1-2-3-4-5-6- etc? If you always step half of the distance you'll never get to the end line. What's wrong with your analysis, Sr? I'd suggest that you think again what you just posted. The more decimals you input in the equation to calculate the volume of one sphere, the bigger the space grows. it grows in the fractional direction but it will keep changing! That's the difference between having pi as irrational in this universe. had been pi rational we were not having this chatting here.

Thank you for the link but I already bought popcorn in the store. The question is pretty clear in my link to the article posted the very first day: HOW MANY DECIMALS OF PI IS ENOUGH FOR YOU MR/RS PROFESSOR, TO SAY "-THESE ARE ENOUGH" Why don't you answer it yourself, genius? what constant you take? 3.1 3.14, or let's see... 3.14159265359... or why not a million? no wait! let's take a trillion? My point is that the volume of the sphere will keep increasing as you input more and more decimals into the equation. which one? this one! listen, if you can't give me a final and definitive answer to my concrete question, then look for another topic, will you? Don't give me the obvious response that ignorant people always give: "-well, there most be a flaw in the way we calculate pi, maybe... uhmmmm pi is not irrational at all. give me a break!

Thank you for the link but I already bought popcorn in the store. The question is pretty clear in my link to the article posted the very first day: HOW MANY DECIMALS OF PI IS ENOUGH FOR YOU MR/RS PROFESSOR, TO SAY "-THESE ARE ENOUGH" Why don't you answer it yourself, genius? what constant you take? 3.1 3.14, or let's see... 3.14159265359... or why not a million? no wait! let's take a trillion? My point is that the volume of the sphere will keep increasing as you input more and more decimals into the equation. which one? this one! listen, if you can't give me a final and definitive answer to my concrete question, then look for another topic, will you? Don't give me the obvious response that ignorant people always give: "-well, there most be a flaw in the way we calculate pi, maybe... uhmmmm pi is not irrational at all. give me a break!

My only evidence is that the universe exists.

I will try to do it this way: I'll make it easier for you and for those (I'm sure will be reading this comment too) by asking questions that I'll answer myself, shall we? Q. What is showing this picture? A. it's showing an equation that calculates the volume of spheres in three dimensional space. Q. What's the point to show this equation? A. Energy and matter in the universe adopt this configuration because it's the MOST EFFICIENT and LOWER ENERGY LEVEL any quantum or packet of energy could chose. Q. Can you be more specific? A. photons and the rest of the Bosons, leptons and the rest of the Fermions. matter as planets and the rest of celestial bodies. Q. Are you saying that electrons are spheres? A. yes! according to latest experiments, yes they are perfect spheres Photons would also be perfect spheres if the property of space -I theorized in this forum- were to be conceived. Q. What property is that? A. Take a closer look at the sphere equation... There is an irrational constant called pi that holds an infinite number of decimals in its tail. Q. ...and how is that so important here? A. It is so because if I told you to calculate the volume of the sphere that represents the electron you'll find what I called it "an incompatibility between quantized energy and a fractionally infinite fabric of space" (not space-time; just plain space). Q. What do you meant to say by incompatibility there? A. We all know about the very first proof of the particle nature of the energy: the Planck's black body experiment. Even photons (the messengers of the EM force ate pockets of energy). However here comes the paradoxical situation that I found in my analyses. If according to that equation, the volume increases toward a fractional infinite and energy will obviously tend to occupy the sphere and the space within... then what will happen as the energy spreads into that infinitesimally small fabric of space? Obviously we know that in reality the energy of the subatomic particles is not vanished into thin air, so at some point there will be a limit, which I see it as the resistance of an elemental pocket of energy (indivisible by accepted conclusions of multiple experimentation) to divide itself. The exact point within the volume of the sphere and the corresponding decimal place in pi where that "RECOIL" takes place has never been determined nor even searched for. It's that recoil what makes EM waves propagating at c in the vacuum. It's that recoil what's responsible for a phenomenon without proper theoretical explanation up until now, called "spin of particles". If you connect a coil to a battery, the current (electric charges) will be stored in that fractional space I theorized in my articles. It's not stored in the wires of the coil but in the air around it... in a microscopic region of space, spread across it. when the magnetic storage returns back into the circuit, the polarization will be the opposite with respect to the original; just like you can observe in an LC resonant circuit. In fact within the subatomic particles (Fermions) there is a FTL oscillation that can be explained as a resonant process within themselves. This is the true nature of a magnetic field; energy stored within a fractionally inward infinite of the fabric of space. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtzuM96VWg-QwVpxpK2Bbq_VjjyW3nWhIuoh02Tsd8Q/edit?usp=sharing Give it a second try and see my point before judging me in a run. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19lln6kSwHhKg6K60YFyni4lX1k3CifTH_DF0fRpDEr8/edit?usp=sharing

what proof is long dead, my dear forum mate? I consider myself with a standard IQ but I don't seem to understand your colorful response. Let me try one more time and see if I am luckier this time: I'll make it easier for you and for those (I'm sure will be reading this comment too) by asking questions that I'll answer myself, shall we? Q. What is showing this picture? A. it's showing an equation that calculates the volume of spheres in three dimensional space. Q. What's the point to show this equation? A. Energy and matter in the universe adopt this configuration because it's the MOST EFFICIENT and LOWER ENERGY LEVEL any quantum or packet of energy could chose. Q. Can you be more specific? A. photons and the rest of the Bosons, leptons and the rest of the Fermions. matter as planets and the rest of celestial bodies. Q. Are you saying that electrons are spheres? A. yes! according to latest experiments, yes they are perfect spheres Photons would also be perfect spheres if the property of space -I theorized in this forum- were to be conceived. Q. What property is that? A. Take a closer look at the sphere equation... There is an irrational constant called pi that holds an infinite number of decimals in its tail. Q. ...and how is that so important here? A. It is so because if I told you to calculate the volume of the sphere that represents the electron you'll find what I called it "an incompatibility between quantized energy and a fractionally infinite fabric of space" (not space-time; just plain space). Q. What do you meant to say by incompatibility there? A. We all know about the very first proof of the particle nature of the energy: the Planck's black body experiment. Even photons (the messengers of the EM force ate pockets of energy). However here comes the paradoxical situation that I found in my analyses. If according to that equation, the volume increases toward a fractional infinite and energy will obviously tend to occupy the sphere and the space within... then what will happen as the energy spreads into that infinitesimally small fabric of space? Obviously we know that in reality the energy of the subatomic particles is not vanished into thin air, so at some point there will be a limit, which I see it as the resistance of an elemental pocket of energy (indivisible by accepted conclusions of multiple experimentation) to divide itself. The exact point within the volume of the sphere and the corresponding decimal place in pi where that "RECOIL" takes place has never been determined nor even searched for. It's that recoil what makes EM waves propagating at c in the vacuum. It's that recoil what's responsible for a phenomenon without proper theoretical explanation up until now, called "spin of particles". If you connect a coil to a battery, the current (electric charges) will be stored in that fractional space I theorized in my articles. It's not stored in the wires of the coil but in the air around it... in a microscopic region of space, spread across it. when the magnetic storage returns back into the circuit, the polarization will be the opposite with respect to the original; just like you can observe in an LC resonant circuit. In fact within the subatomic particles (Fermions) there is a FTL oscillation that can be explained as a resonant process within themselves. This is the true nature of a magnetic field; energy stored within a fractionally inward infinite of the fabric of space. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtzuM96VWg-QwVpxpK2Bbq_VjjyW3nWhIuoh02Tsd8Q/edit?usp=sharing Give it a second try and see my point before judging me in a run. I'll use a rather primitive but effective example of the different nature of the fabric of space and the nature of energy -quantized energy as it has been proven by QM- in a moment: SPACE is "ANALOGIC" while ENERGY (Quanta or subatomic particles [fermions and bpsons] are DIGITAL! I think you get the idea! If you attempt to insert many many digital sine waves one beside the other, you'll never fill out all the space within the carrier analogical wave. This illustrates my point much easier I hope. The analogical character of the fabric of space is originated in the irrationality of the pi constant. (a constant found in all the most important equations of physics). The digital nature of the quanta is given by the quantifiable nature of the energy 1-0 0-1 there you have the two spins. The higher the energy, the higher the frequency of the digital wave, the more compacted the fabric of space but there will always be unfulfilled space within the "volume" of the sphere that contains both in mutual oscillation.

Why the diminishing reactions against a simple question? Is it that hard to look into it than trying to mock someone who presents a different point of view? Is this how present science forums work? I'm not trying to advertise anything. I published my views already and I don't expect to receive any prize for it. Time will tell who was right and who wasn't...that's all!

Einstein was wrong about the existence of "Eather" as it's known in official texts. He agreed that it was not tangible; it couldn't be observed and it couldn't be measured by any instrument. He was obviously justifying his space-time theory of space although he never explained how EM waves (light for example) is produced or even what is the propagation mechanism employed by space. I have a layman proposition that I'm suggesting you for comments. I'm not in the mood for engaging into an empty heated arguing with fellow members, just a pleasant conversation about your personal feelings about it. My argument is very simple really, I believe that there is no space-time fabric. Time is indeed observed differently as well events are delayed too but it has nothing to do with an assumed fabric of space but with its infinite nature, both outwardly and inwardly. I posed an inconvenient question in my very first posting, I see the general reaction to it, but I was expecting a more civilized discussion and acceptance on the part of this forum of physics enthusiasts. Why attacking me instead of trying to answer my simple questions? What's wrong in trying to see my point? https://docs.google.com/document/d/19lln6kSwHhKg6K60YFyni4lX1k3CifTH_DF0fRpDEr8/edit?usp=sharing Good luck!

when you read my articles you'll understand. There are much more deeper interests in ignoring the mathematical infinite in science today than you are capable of imagining... if you're interested in knowing what I'm trying to convey, just try reading first and then comment. thanks

Hi! My name is Miguel De Zayas and I'm just a layman not a physicist or anything. For years I've been concerned about the true nature of our physical Reality... I came up with a theory of my own, well more like a personal interpretation of the way God conceived the universe and I came up with a simple question: Why are we (humans) so afraid of the concept of INFINITE? My articles are published in various sites and I thought that perhaps the title of this posting could spark some curiosity about the subject in yourselves too. In case you have problems by opening my site, I urge you to look me up in Facebook under redacted. The question I promised is in every single article I have already made public in the internet. Good luck with the question. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtzuM96VWg-QwVpxpK2Bbq_VjjyW3nWhIuoh02Tsd8Q/edit?usp=sharing also I welcome you at: redacted Open your minds and relax... The dilemma about the ignorant misuse of the irrational mathematical constant pi is not going anywhere. Don't be angry with yourselves if you didn't see it before...