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

[SuperPolymath]

The concept behind algebraic equation can always be modified, developed, & incorporated I any calculus or applied to all the tensors, etc as well as applied to the variables of higher dimensional math I'd show vmedvil how to do this step by arduous step.

I may have been missing minutaes but they didn't change the jist of my theory much at all other than adding new elements

Edited November 28, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

A variable represents a number this is basic math. We are not reinventing the rules of math because it doesn't work for you.

Use the correct math rules. They do already exist.......

feel free to take the time to learn them...

Edited November 28, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

A variable represents a number this is basic math. We are not reinventing the rules of math because it doesn't work for you.

Use the correct math rules. They do already exist.......

feel free to take the time to learn them...

What are you talking about frame dragging & geodetic recession can be applied with any math not just algebra

[Mordred]

I can easily and accurately model both.

Can you? Those are basic lessons in a standard GR textbook. (ie first year undergraduate studies)

Edited November 28, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

 

Just now, Mordred said:

I can easily and accurately model both.

Can you?

This isn't a competition between who's better with mathematics, this is like the last element to his equation & apparently he needs find close to a thousand ways to apply them properly to every element of his equation somehow.

 

[Mordred]

No this is about saving him time and effort using the wrong math rules plain and simple.

You who knows nothing about the topic should stop wasting our time lecturing those that can.

 Your doing nothing more than causing problems to Vmedvil gaining the required skill set to properly model any dynamic.

Quit wasting our time because you refuse to understand the proper tools for the job.

If you can't do the job yourself don't lecture others in how to do it plain and simple....

[SuperPolymath]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No this is about saving him time and effort using the wrong math rules plain and simple.

You who knows nothing about the topic should stop wasting our time lecturing those that can.

 Your doing nothing more than causing problems to Vmedvil gaining the required skill set to properly model any dynamic.

Quit wasting our time because you refuse to understand the proper tools for the job.

If you can't do the job yourself don't lecture others in how to do it plain and simple....

They aren't wrong rules if they're applied properly. Surely any model can be modified, otherwise you're not even model building, you're just using a preexisting model

[Mordred]

Any model can be modified it occurs all the time. If you had any clue at all you would know that.

 WITH THE PROPER math tools. 

GR itself is a primary example it constantly develops under new research. Same with the FRW metric to include DM and the cosmological constant.

 These were added later on when they were discovered as being required.

The entirety of particle physics developed long after Einsteins time when only 2 particles were known.

The proton and electron. The Neutron wasn't discovered till roughly 1935.

Would you like an excerpt on how the atom was described on my 1921 physics textbook?

Maybe you would like a copy of the great debate written in Einstein's time when they thought other galaxies were simply nebulae? I can provide you that pdf file.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

Alright fine don't walk him through how to properly show frame dragging & geodetic recession for that part of his equation

[Mordred]

I will when he applies the correct understanding of the equations I already posted far earlier in this thread.

 I already showed him how to model a static central potential gravitational system. All he has to do is apply 1 single further term to get to rotation.

an side not I actually did that twice. Once under classical and once under QFT.

 

lol but then again so did Dubbelosix but required a simple additional term where this all got started lmao. I would have to double check that I can't recall if Dubbelosix had reached Levi-Cevita by then on the other forum... 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

This is going to be major, a molecular biologist is going to win the Nobel for physics. How does that even work? Can they give it to non-physicists? There are so many implications to this model that are pushing the limits of mind-blowing.

If this is the right TOE, than the consequences of a ToE are far greater than anyone could have imagined. Michio Kaku talked about the implications, he really low-balled them if this is it. Mastery of spacetime? That's what he said. With this, yes & no. We're talking about the notion of infinite parallel realities where there is a 1:1 chance of alternate human histories, applied to the inside of every particle in the universe as well as far enough into deep space. No need for any parallel realities as per non-locality or a probabilistic version of the subatomic particle. No warp drive or wormhole, but http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30570-possible-proof-of-the-great-filter/?p=352524 & that leads to a God like a late stage entropy Boltzmann brain but worked toward, a slightly less random product of mathematical chaos. 1:1 chance of it arising from that infinite regression of microverses in entropy states

Edited November 28, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

roflmao

[Strange]

4 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

This is going to be major, a molecular biologist is going to win the Nobel for physics. How does that even work? Can they give it to non-physicists?

Who is this "molecular biologist"?

Of course they can give it to a non-physicist. Although if that person has done enough physics to deserve a Nobel Prize, I'm not sure how they can not be a physicist.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

The concept behind algebraic equation can always be modified, developed, & incorporated I any calculus or applied to all the tensors, etc as well as applied to the variables of higher dimensional math I'd show vmedvil how to do this step by arduous step.

I may have been missing minutaes but they didn't change the jist of my theory much at all other than adding new elements

!

Moderator Note

You should not be discussing your theory anywhere outside of its own thread in speculations.

 

5 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

This is going to be major, a molecular biologist is going to win the Nobel for physics. How does that even work? Can they give it to non-physicists? There are so many implications to this model that are pushing the limits of mind-blowing.

!

Moderator Note

And let's keep the blatantly off-topic discussion to a minimum.

 

[Vmedvil]

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

I will when he applies the correct understanding of the equations I already posted far earlier in this thread.

 I already showed him how to model a static central potential gravitational system. All he has to do is apply 1 single further term to get to rotation.

an side not I actually did that twice. Once under classical and once under QFT.

 

lol but then again so did Dubbelosix but required a simple additional term where this all got started lmao. I would have to double check that I can't recall if Dubbelosix had reached Levi-Cevita by then on the other forum... 

Okay, mordred I know the tensor's are a matrix basically. 

But its like (T_uv)²  the same of squaring every value in the matrix. 

 

Einstein's own field equations say.

Where R/2 = K , am I missing a 1/C⁴  next to 8piG

and K = k₁k₂

Edited November 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

not quite because from the top image those entries are not single valued. Some of those entries are also matrixes.  Those are statements to give an aid to understanding how to derive to apply those entries. So while handy it is also misleading if your not familar with what the entry terms represent.

for example [math]\sigma[/math] are matrixes

That image is just a representation or visual aid to help see the vorticity and flux relations. There is further formulas that apply to each entry above.

Now if you want to square the tensor you need to do the tensor product of two tensors.

There is a specific procedure to follow in order to do this. For that you will need to apply in essence matrix multiplication rules. 

That will generate a new tensor.

 Multipying tensors and matrixes is a rather lengthy procedure to learn with numerous rules applied to different types of tensors. In the case above orthogonal tensors.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

Let's step back to here for a moment 

∇E_b(x,y,z,t,M,I,k,φ,ρ,m) = ∇(1/((1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_s(k_s² + m_k²)/2M_b) + (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)³)∫(p² + m_p²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((E - μ)/T)}±1)d³p) - (k_sC²/R_s²) + (k_s²))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/C²))^1/2))M_bC²

I have k_s²  which = k_s1k_s2  = K_s

Edited November 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Again you run into the same problem with tensors in the equation in the box you have 3 tensors. Each entry of each tensor is its own set of operations or formulas to apply.

Think of tensors as arrays ie computing where each array isn't single valued but is a setvof instructions on what operation to perform.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

46 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Again you run into the same problem with tensors in the equation in the box you have 3 tensors. Each entry of each tensor is its own set of operations or formulas to apply

oh, i do get what your saying they are not solved matrices so they are not uniform and cause the equation to split.

39 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

oh, i do get what your saying they are not solved matrices so they are not uniform and cause the equation to split.

REVERSION

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_s)^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_s)^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_s))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))(M_b/ε₀ μ₀)

Now, it is K_s  being Gaussian Curvature. 

R_uv - Kg_uv  = G_uv

So,

K =(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)

Retransform

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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)) + (G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))(M_b/ε₀ μ₀)

didn't pass through a single matrix that time, didn't touch them.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Ok lets try showing tensor advantage.

Take your electromagnetic stress tensor above. Do not confuse with the stress under relativity.

I want a scalar uncharged electromagnetic field.

now this will be a bit of a garbage equation but its just a demo.

[math] A(whatever)+T^{00}=whatever [/math]

replace the T^{00} with the formula in that entry above.

Does that hekp?

[Vmedvil]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Ok lets try showing tensor advantage.

Take your electromagnetic stress tensor above. Do not confuse with the stress under relativity.

I want a scalar uncharged electromagnetic field.

now this will be a bit of a garbage equation but its just a demo.

A(whatever)+T00=whatever

replace the T^{00} with the formula in that entry above.

Does that hekp?

You know what we are just going to assume Einstein got it right and not worry about that since it is pretty accurate to reality not having many things it cannot do besides the corrections for QM which was totally not right it does happen it is odd.

Things Einstein Got Wrong.

Missed a m_k on retransform.

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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)) + (G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))(M_b/ε₀ μ₀)

Mordred on that equation I got from you what was m² in it defined as, which I gave a m_p² label, I will expand a_ji based on what it is.  

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

2 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

You know what we are just going to assume Einstein got it right and not worry about that since it is pretty accurate to reality not having many things it cannot do besides the corrections for QM which was totally not right it does happen it is odd.

Things Einstein Got Wrong.

Missed a m_k on retransform.

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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)) + (G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))(M_b/ε₀ μ₀)

Mordred on that equation I got from you what was m² in it defined as, which I gave a m_p² label, I will expand a_ji based on what it is.  

 

For Instance, Lagrangian form. 

L'(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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)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-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)) + (G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))

As in SR

Where L can be wrote as Δx 

then becomes which in that form is like saying (Δx²  + Δy² + Δz²)

∇'(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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)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-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)) + (G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))

which L is still there but I brought Schrodinger's EQ through it in solving ∇ form.

(note: to swan)

back to Energy solving form.

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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)) + (G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))(M_b/ε₀ μ₀)

Edited November 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You should not be discussing your theory anywhere outside of its own thread in speculations.

 

!

This is what he's modelling as well.

@Mordred laugh after you've taught him how to show this mathematically & it checks out. You'll wish you did it

You'll also realize I knew what I was talking about

On 11/26/2017 at 6:22 PM, Strange said:

So there is no reason for anyone to take it seriously. It is just a fairy tale you have made up.

So there is no reason to take Niels Bohr seriously. The quantum interpretation is just a fairy tale that he has made. 

Two fairy tales, one claiming action at a distance, clear violations in the laws of motion defined by GR at the quantum level. The other, the one being modelled in this thread, just applying special relativity & a no limits argument for Zeno's paradox to explain things like bells theorem & double slit experiment

Edited November 28, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Vmedvil]

27 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

This is what he's modelling as well.

@Mordred laugh after you've taught him how to show this mathematically & it checks out. You'll wish you did it

You'll also realize I knew what I was talking about

Okay, I know how to define it, I will just use an electron then take it to a constant for Molar Mass constant m_u  and  Nucleon Binding Energy, which is a weird way to go the SNF for this. 

E_b(x,y,z,t,ω_s,ω_p,M,I,k,φ,ρ,m_e,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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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_e²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((E - μ)/T)}±1)(2ħω_s)) - ((k_sR_s²/ε₀ μ₀)) + (G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))(M_b/ε₀ μ₀)

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

28 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Okay, I know how to define it, I will just use an electron then take it to a constant for Molar Mass constant m_u  and  Binding Energy, which is a weird way to go the SNF for this. 

E_b(x,y,z,t,ω_s,ω_p,M,I,k,φ,ρ,m_e,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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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)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(G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv)^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_e²)^(1/2)(1/e^{((E - μ)/T)}±1)(2ħω_s)) - ((k_sR_s²/ε₀ μ₀)) + (G_uv - R_uv/-g_uv))^1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))²/(1/ε₀ μ₀)))^1/2))(M_b/ε₀ μ₀)

 

Yeah, just beware that there's an understanding of the equations @Mordred has been exposed to so I try and understand everything he shows you first. In math, you have to not only cover all the angles, but know all the angles you have to cover.

@swansont, this is my last post in this thread, I promise. Good luck, Vmedvil.

@Vmedvilyour final summarized equation should only be an inch long when written out on a chalk board after being simplified. That's how you'll know it's done. The polarity of a photon when the quantum it's mass, the polarity aka mass of psuedo-particles in a wave of a wave are collective far far more dynamic. The four fundamental interactions are euphemisms for ADS' effects on DS spacetime & vice versa (as governed by bodies in motion with GR &SR) infinitely beyond the Planck scale

Edited November 28, 2017 by SuperPolymath