Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

[Vmedvil]

19 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

That's what the vacuum is, a soup of radiation from all different sources. It's amazing we can even receive signals probes way out in the edge of the solar system with all that interference. That's why there is no perfect vacuum & why most of the baryonic matter is in the vacuum radiation of great voids between galactic superclusters.

This isn't why I cited those links. Vmedvil was trying to make an invariant equation based on toric geometry & SU(n). I was showing something along the lines of what he'd need to use.

We're not just talking about distinguishing signals, we're talking about ftl communication using quantum entanglement. Obviously far beyond the standard model, especially since a lot of it is based on incorrect interpretations. 

Small things acting differently than our macroscopic world is an illusion, it could just be special relativity beyond the speed of light in sub Planck particles that compose "psuedo-energy", a concept adopted out of necessity in fractal analyses  happened helped with isolating individual signals. That simple understanding would need to use different math than anything you've been indoctrinated with, Mordred.

Dude, I always believed it existed at the Planck scale it is there I have deceased to care transform Planck's constant in this equation into Planck units.

E_b(x,y,z,t,ω,M,I,k,φ,ρ,m,S) = ((ħω_s)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  (M_p²/2)R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji.) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)) - (M_bω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)R_s²/2)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  (M_p²/2)R_s -(1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h))) / (ħ²/2M_b)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  (M_p²/2)R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)))^1/2(1/((1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)/2M_b)+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)³)∫(p² + m_p²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((E - μ)/T)}±1)(2ħω_s)) - (k_s(1/ε₀ μ₀)/R_s²) + (k_sG_uv/g_uv8πG ))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))M_b(1/ε₀ μ₀)

It basically says the scale of G is ħ on length and time Planck beyond that personally I do not care what happens being the size of a string.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

Sorry, I'm just mad at the long line of plebs starting with Niels Bohr who completely shut Einstein down & band-wagoned their own ideas thinking they were going to make the next break through acting like they were going to be the next Einstein. But nothing has really produced anything like that after nearly a century. In fact the only one who's still getting his theories proven right is Einstein, like the LIGO detection of gravity waves (post Newtonian frame dragging)

Guess I'm wrong to let it out on their acolyte. They started this mess of a model, not Mordred.

27 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Dude, I always believed it existed at the Planck scale it is there I have deceased to care transform Planck's constant in this equation into Planck units.

E_b(x,y,z,t,ω,M,I,k,φ,ρ,m,S) = ((ħω_s)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  (M_p²/2)R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji.) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)) - (M_bω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)R_s²/2)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  (M_p²/2)R_s -(1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h))) / (ħ²/2M_b)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  (M_p²/2)R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)))^1/2(1/((1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)/2M_b)+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)³)∫(p² + m_p²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((E - μ)/T)}±1)(2ħω_s)) - (k_s(1/ε₀ μ₀)/R_s²) + (k_sG_uv/g_uv8πG ))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))M_b(1/ε₀ μ₀)

It basically says the scale of G is ħ on length and time Planck beyond that personally I do not care what happens being the size of a string.

The Planck length didn't come from Einstein, & neither did anything with "quantum" in it. Space & time are not at all how you're conceptualizing right now. The length of a Planck unit is actually 1.6x10^-35

The Planck length needs to be reduced to fractions of a Planck length. Period. It came from Zeno's paradox, which wasn't even really a paradox. You can always reduce something.

& string theory really hasn't yielded much of anything at all.

That picture is an oxymoron

Edited November 27, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Vmedvil]

11 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Sorry, I'm just mad at the long line of plebs starting with Niels Bohr who completely shut Einstein down & band-wagoned their own ideas thinking they were going to make the next break through acting like they were going to be the next Einstein. But nothing has really produced anything like that after nearly a century. In fact the only one who's still getting his theories proven right is Einstein, like the LIGO detection of gravity waves (post Newtonian frame dragging)

Guess I'm wrong to let it out on their acolyte. They started this mess of a model, not Mordred.

The Planck length didn't come from Einstein, & neither did anything with "quantum" in it. Space & time are not at all how you're conceptualizing right now.

The Planck length needs to be reduced to fractions of a Planck length. Period. It came from Zeno's paradox, which wasn't even really a paradox. You can always reduce something.

& string theory really hasn't yielded much of anything at all.

It is those fractions are Planck Times where L_p = t_pC

Edited November 27, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

9 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

It is those fractions are Planck Times.

<Planck unit

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Vmedvil]

47 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

<Planck unit

 

It is constructed from elementary constants it came from the universe, Planck Scale.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

4 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

 the scale of G is ħ on length and time Planck 

I see, that's actually kind of clever. Can you graph it?

There's so much you could show from this.

A solution to the quantum venn diagram paradox, the velocity of quantum entanglement, how many of the microverses you'd have to jam into one small area before they behave like an atom, like qg-plasma, or a full macroscopic black hole.

Or the flight paths of individual particle-waves including spin, charge, polarity or exactly how one will effect another ad infinitum & again at what rate (QE).

All of this should be consistent with observational &, if so, would be nearly 100 accurate but a **** to calculate.

[Mordred]

I hate to break this to you, but there is no communication between two entangled particles.

 This unfortunately is also a very common misconception. The term superposition originated from statistical mechanics same with the term correlation function. If there is a correlation function the two particles are entangled.

 Well naturally particle entanglement occurs quite often in nature. It actually applies to the conservation laws involved in particle pair production. However we don't know which particle is which until measured. Once you measure one the other must be the opposite.

 You can actually do a home demonstation of this. Take a red and green ball place one in a bag the other a different bag. Hand those bags to two other individuals. Neither of those individuals knows which of the two balls they have so its a 50% chance it could be either red or blue. Once one bag is opened the opposite ball is automatically known.

 Same thing applies to entangled particles. A does not need to affect B for them to be correlated.

 Unfortunately this got lost in papers on Bells experiment which involves the ratio of polarity alignment with the detectors. Ie in the same polarity as detector a or detector b. Dr.Chinese website has an excellent paper on this.

 http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm
 

I used to chat with him on another forum at one time but haven't seen him post in ages. He taught me a ton on entanglement back when I wasn't too keen on the topic.

 

Just a side note give me any two datasets doesn't matter what they are. 1 could be population while the other the number of apples growing on a tree. With those two datasets one can readily calculate a correlation function. Or from from the same formula see if there is a correlation.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

32 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I hate to break this to you, but there is no communication between two entangled particles.

 This unfortunately is also a very common misconception. The term superposition originated from statistical mechanics same with the term correlation function. If there is a correlation function the two particles are entangled.

 Well naturally particle entanglement occurs quite often in nature. It actually applies to the conservation laws involved in particle pair production. However we don't know which particle is which until measured. Once you measure one the other must be the opposite.

 You can actually do a home demonstation of this. Take a red and green ball place one in a bag the other a different bag. Hand those bags to two other individuals. Neither of those individuals knows which of the two balls they have so its a 50% chance it could be either red or blue. Once one bag is opened the opposite ball is automatically known.

 Same thing applies to entangled particles. A does not need to affect B for them to be correlated.

 Unfortunately this got lost in papers on Bells experiment which involves the ratio of polarity alignment with the detectors. Ie in the same polarity as detector a or detector b. Dr.Chinese website has an excellent paper on this.

 http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm
 

I used to chat with him on another forum at one time but haven't seen him post in ages. He taught me a ton on entanglement back when I wasn't too keen on the topic.

 

Just a side note give me any two datasets doesn't matter what they are. 1 could be population while the other the number of apples growing on a tree. With those two datasets one can readily calculate a correlation function. Or from from the same formula see if there is a correlation.

Yes I am aware of observer effect, I explained how microgravity does that in my thread. This is done on a mathematical level the communication pathways is already constructed, no interference or wave collapse isn't already graphed out & predicted no observation is done it just plays out on it's own. Which is why you can only create a string computer the size of a meter at first. But string computers can network & graph more interactions for bigger string computers

Google quantum autamata

Edited November 27, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

This has absolutely nothing to do with observer affects that is not what polarity means. Granted we always have observer effects but phase angles is not dependant upon observers per se.

 Have you any electromagnetic signal knowledge? Ie have you never heard the term polarity phase angles?

Secondly there is no such thing as FTL communication it does not exist between entangled particles as they do not communicate nor interfere with one another once they are spatially seperated.

 No quantum cellular automata is something else entirely lol 

sigh about the only similarity is the word quantum. Cellular automata is specifically a quantum information theory that incorporates logic gates.

Simply put automata (classical arose from computations on a tape) in quantum computing it is much the same but instead of one computation it is all computations simultaneously on a quantum computer Turing machine.

If your going to throw buzzwords around at least take the time to make sure you know what they mean please.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

This has absolutely nothing to do with observer affects that is not what polarity means. Granted we always have observer effects but phase angles is not dependant upon observers per se.

 Have you any electromagnetic signal knowledge? Ie have you never heard the term polarity phase angles?

Secondly there is no such thing as FTL communication it does not exist between entangled particles as they do not communicate nor interfere with one another once they are spatially seperated.

 Cellular automata is specifically a quantum information theory that incorporates logic gates.

Particles are paired over vast distance. Move one & it's like superluminal dominoes. They used this for https://www.nature.com/news/china-s-quantum-satellite-clears-major-hurdle-on-way-to-ultrasecure-communications-1.22142

Anyway take a closer look, 

 

9 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

 

 

It basically says the scale of G is ħ on length and time Planck 

 

The qubit from strings vmedvil modelled does not behave like a probabilistic wave function with randomized polarity, but a diffusion of a measurable subatomic energy into an immeasurable pseudo-energy whose spins, polarities, charges, & overall behavior is governed by virtually the exact same laws of motion & number of bodies (scattered pseudo-particles) as our cosmos at 234 billion light years across (13 billion ly wide CMB expanded to 18x it's original volume). This is not subject to the quantum interpretation adopted by popular models, this is an alternative assumption that's just as valid theoretically speaking. 

Yes, I meant QCA. But you know all this already Mordred. This is becoming redundant so you are intentionally misdirecting Vmedvil in his attempts at model building! Weak.

Edited November 27, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Yes Super I know about those testsai read that article when It first came out. Doesn't change anything I stated.

[SuperPolymath]

The polarity phase angles are not controlled by static electromagnetic fields in this model. Refer to frame dragging. This is not action at a distance. How long does it take light or a propagating gravity wave to cover a distance of 1/nx10^4 Planck lengths? The answer is the speed of QE.

[Vmedvil]

41 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

The polarity phase angles are not controlled by static electromagnetic fields in this model. Refer to frame dragging. This is not action at a distance. How long does it take light or a propagating gravity wave to cover a distance of 1/nx10^4 Planck lengths? The answer is the speed of QE.

Well, that is defined as C, we have already taken C' at one point it is included at this point to explain Spin² , but still  m_k is undefinable, and that set there makes a infinity as L², do you see m²  there.

And it is a infinity I cannot dodge this below is in the wrong state.

I found the right state of it, which transformed to Einstein Tensor.

k_sG_uv/g_uv8πG

and does this look familiar Polymath.

-e^2S(r,t)/h

e^πi = -1

Edited November 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

47 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

 

Yes, I meant QCA. But you know all this already Mordred. This is becoming redundant so you are intentionally misdirecting Vmedvil in his attempts at model building! Weak.

 

lol considering you don't know any of the mathematics or even understand the physics correctly. I certainly won't accept any conclusion from you on the assists I have provided Vmedvil.

I have literally provided several of the correct tools to properly develop his model so it has a chance of getting somewhere.

 In particular after watching his struggle to integrate the numerous equations by stating to examine the "Action" that correspond to those equations so that he has a better starting point to develop his derivitaves.

 So please stop trying to lecture me when you don't know the first thing about physics.

 QUIT TRYING TO PUSH YOUR MISCONCEPTIONS UPON OTHERS. 

I have repeatedly had to point out where your advise has been literrally wrong.

31 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, that is defined as C, we have already taken C' at one point it is included at this point to explain Spin² , but still  m_k is undefinable, and that set there makes a infinity as L², do you see m²  there.

And it is a infinity I cannot dodge this below is in the wrong state.

I found the right state of it, which transformed to Einstein Tensor.

k_sG_uv/g_uv8πG

 

 So now the LHS. I have to check a few details, not sure if "Fields" on arxiv will help or confuse but its over 1000 pages on the topic so should have something to help here

[SuperPolymath]

Actually I am comprehending most of the physics involved, regardless of my inability to express mathematically.

[Vmedvil]

10 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Dude, I always believed it existed at the Planck scale it is there I have deceased to care transform Planck's constant in this equation into Planck units.

E_b(x,y,z,t,ω,M,I,k,φ,ρ,m,S) = ((ħω_s)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  (M_p²/2)R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji.) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)) - (M_bω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)R_s²/2)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  (M_p²/2)R_s -(1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h))) / (ħ²/2M_b)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  (M_p²/2)R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)))^1/2(1/((1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)/2M_b)+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)³)∫(p² + m_p²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((E - μ)/T)}±1)(2ħω_s)) - (k_s(1/ε₀ μ₀)/R_s²) + (k_sG_uv/g_uv8πG ))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))M_b(1/ε₀ μ₀)

It basically says the scale of G is ħ on length and time Planck beyond that personally I do not care what happens being the size of a string.

So, and I did want to say this  Mass Planck is defined as M_p  ,  m_p ≠ M_p  two entirely different things. m_p  is the permeability of momentum, as m_k  is the permeability of curvature. 

Which is about to get transformed so people don't mistake it. ħC/G = M_p² , C = (1/ε₀ μ₀)

E_b(x,y,z,t,ω,M,I,k,φ,ρ,m,S) = ((ħω_s)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}(((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji.) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)) - (M_bω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)R_s²/2)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s -(1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h))) / (ħ²/2M_b)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  ((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)))^1/2(1/((1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)/2M_b)+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)³)∫(p² + m_p²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((E - μ)/T)}±1)(2ħω_s)) - ((k_sR_s²/ε₀ μ₀)) + (k_sG_uv/g_uv8πG ))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))(M_b/ε₀ μ₀)

Edited November 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

37 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Actually I am comprehending most of the physics involved, regardless of my inability to express mathematically.

 Sorry but your far too inconsistent on your statements concerning things like entanglement, String theory, De-Sitter/Anti-Desitter etc. In particular statements like microverses  and FTL communication etc. Anyways Enough with you, I'm more interested in helping Vmedvil as he is the one trying to get the math right.

Vmedvil I recommend you pick up a good coverage of

ADS/CFT correspondance for what you are attempting. You want an example of String theory and higher dimensions with the Schwartzchild metric that will provide a good starting point.

Here not the greatest but has some applicable details on D branes.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/jared-kaplan/files/2016/05/AdSCFTCourseNotesCurrentPublic.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiGuoThiODXAhWpxFQKHZiNBc0QFgguMAM&usg=AOvVaw1W68K5piuiuav3E-B3Y8qG

It will also help address the cosmological constant via the ADS (anti-Desitter under the same regime).

You should find tons of info on De-Sitter/Anti De-Sitter as every metric in cosmology uses it at some point. Its been around as long as Allen Guths False vacuum inflation lol.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1206&ved=0ahUKEwjd2qvti-DXAhUT0WMKHbehCnMQFggkMAE&usg=AOvVaw1-3IcaytZiqR6ulwqQ19H3

This is more applicable to String theory and ADS/CFT however

Edited November 28, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

 Sorry but your far too inconsistent on your statements concerning things like entanglement, String theory, De-Sitter/Anti-Desitter etc. In particular statements like microverses  and FTL communication etc. Anyways Enough with you, I'm more interested in helping Vmedvil as he is the one trying to get the math right.

Vmedvil I recommend you pick up a good coverage of

ADS/CFT correspondance for what you are attempting. You want an example of String theory and higher dimensions with the Schwartzchild metric that will provide a good starting point.

Ya, there is nothing on what these two prems would be, which is really the last thing that needs to be solved and of course a_ji , which I believe to beyond what M theory knows about D Branes, other than they are N  then n of these, 

 

Wait found something on m_k

Page 45 -47

D Brane instantons Type II

Which is good this is for Type II ours is Type IIA.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

well considering how many tensors and different units of measure involved in that lengthy equation above involves I don't see how that is possible. 

Should also add all the complex conjugate states.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

57 minutes ago, Mordred said:

well considering how many tensors and different units of measure involved in that lengthy equation above involves I don't see how that is possible. 

Should also add all the complex conjugate states.

Right here.

I happen to know a solution for Ω and actually so does polymath, if he remembers.

s²/ Ω² = m_k²

E_b(x,y,z,t,ω,M,I,k,φ,ρ,m,S) = ((ħω_s)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}(((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji.) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)) - (M_bω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)R_s²/2)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s -(1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h))) / (ħ²/2M_b)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  ((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)))^1/2(1/((1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)/2M_b)+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)³)∫(p² + m_p²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((E - μ)/T)}±1)(2ħω_s)) - ((k_sR_s²/ε₀ μ₀)) + (k_sG_uv/g_uv8πG ))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))(M_b/ε₀ μ₀)

52 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Right here.

I happen to know a solution for Ω and actually so does polymath, if he remembers.

s²/ Ω² = m_k²

E_b(x,y,z,t,ω,M,I,k,φ,ρ,m,S) = ((ħω_s)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}(((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji.) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)) - (M_bω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)R_s²/2)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s -(1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h))) / (ħ²/2M_b)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  ((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)))^1/2(1/((1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)/2M_b)+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)³)∫(p² + m_p²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((E - μ)/T)}±1)(2ħω_s)) - ((k_sR_s²/ε₀ μ₀)) + (k_sG_uv/g_uv8πG ))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))(M_b/ε₀ μ₀)

Transform to Precession, thanks Dr. David Lewis Anderson

E_b(x,y,z,t,ω_s,ω_p,M,I,k,φ,ρ,m_ρ,S) = ((ħω_s)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}(((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji.) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)) - (M_bω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + m_k²)R_s²/2)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s -(1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h))) / (ħ²/2M_b)((|(Log_{(DgDaDψDφ-W)}((  ((2ħG/ε₀ μ₀))R_s - (1/4)F^a_μvF^aμv + i(ψ-bar)γ^μD_μψⁱ +(ψ-bar)ⁱ_LV_ijφψ^j_r + (a_ji) - V(φ)/-D_μ²)|)-e^2S(r,t)/h)))^1/2(1/((1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s(k_sG_uv./g_uv8πG)^1/2 + (S²/ (3GM_b/2(1/ε₀ μ₀)²R_s³(R_p x v_p)+GI_s/(1/ε₀ μ₀)R_s(3R_p/R_s²(ω_pR_p) - ω_p))²))/2M_b)+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)³)∫(p² + m_ρ²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((E - μ)/T)}±1)(2ħω_s)) - ((k_sR_s²/ε₀ μ₀)) + (k_sG_uv/g_uv8πG ))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))(M_b/ε₀ μ₀)

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

no 100 percent absolutely wrong. I can't even pick a starting point on the number of errors in that.

You have mixed coordinates, mixed zeroth order to second order derivatives, mixed units, mixed tensors, mixed complex conjugates, mixed vectors with scalar quantities shall I continue....?

[Vmedvil]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

no 100 percent absolutely wrong. I can't even pick a starting point on the number of errors in that.

You have mixed coordinates, mixed zeroth order to second order derivatives, mixed units, mixed tensors, mixed complex conjugates, mixed vectors with scalar quantities shall I continue....?

eh, I was just following Alegbra rules, I didn't make these equations.

[Mordred]

You can't use algebra directly to a tensor Why dovyou think calculus exists?

You don't substitute tensors like you do a common everyday variable as per algebra. 90% of those terms above are not algebraic variables. They do not follow the same blooming rules

Edited November 28, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You can't use algebra directly to a tensor Why dovyou think calculus exists?

You don't substitute tensors like you do a common everyday variable as per algebra. 90% of those terms above are not algebraic variables. They do not follow the same blooming rules

Then why does this say that.

where K = k₁k₂

Edited November 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Do you have any clue as to how many partial derivatives that are involved in

[math]T^{\mu\nu}[/math]  255 of them. A 4 by 4 tensor organizes dozens of equations under 1 expression.

Yet your trying to apply it like an algebraic variable which is strictly a scalar (magnitude only) quantity.[math]\frac{8\pi G}{3}[/math] is a relation that only applies to a central potential system yet you mixed it with the EFE equations which includes Euclidean coordinates.

[math]T^{00}[/math] for example is a zeroth order order quantity describing a massless particle ie a photon via [math]\rho c^2[/math] that is just a single entry in that tensor

i,jk are vectors not algebraic variables.

 They include both magnitude and direction.

Shall I continue? ie no algebraic variable will EVER include indices...ie [math]\mu\nu[/math] or indices [math]i,j,k[/math]

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Mordred