Non-unifying Geometrized Newton-Cartan Gravity

[swansont]

14 hours ago, inSe said:

In this model, space, time AND matter AND energy are one continuum. So as time contracts c speeds up. As time dilates c slows down.  

 

Let's see your reformulation of Maxwell's equations in light of this conjecture.

14 hours ago, inSe said:

I'm pretty sure Strange & Koti are bot accounts. Same person made both accounts. They've failed my Turing test.

You don't want to go there. Disagreeing with you does not make then bots.

Stick to discussing the topic.

[inSe]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Let's see your reformulation of Maxwell's equations in light of this conjecture.

I can't change one equation without changing every affine gauge connection throughout the entirety of the LCDM model.

The Lamda Cold Dark Matter model is rigged like a poker game to hide certain cards, to cover up certain aspects like where unruh radiation in the form of Gravitation causally bridges two observers with radically different frames of time where the speed of light is different from two to four orders of magnitude, namely the dark flow (cosmic expansion) and spook action (esp).

There are things that Einstein & Tesla knew that were shared, and things that they knew that weren't shared. Long before 90% of the astronomical evidence for what's in my thread was known about - most of what I've found is based on CMB & black hole data that simply didn't exist before the 90s. Yet Einstein knew about black holes long before they were even observed. I believe the "OMG it's full of stars" quote in Robert C Clark's space Odyssey came from a secret conversation with Einstein before he passed away. Einstein's God was nature.

William J. Sidis knew about black holes too, & he wasn't even a physicist, his description of the reverse universe matches half of the spheres that would be turned inside out from my Koch snowflake derived geometrized coordinate brane

Edited May 8, 2018 by inSe

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, inSe said:

I can't change one equation without changing every equation in the affine gauge theory of the entirety of the LCDM model.

Well, you have your work cut out for you, then. Because in these equations, c is a constant. If you introduce a variable c, you have to deal with all the dominos you knock over. Not just a few issues in gravitation. All of them.

 

[inSe]

18 minutes ago, inSe said:

I can't change one equation without changing every affine gauge connection throughout the entirety of the LCDM model.

The Lamda Cold Dark Matter model is rigged like a poker game to hide certain cards, to cover up certain aspects like where unruh radiation in the form of Gravitation causally bridges two observers with radically different frames of time where the speed of light is different from two to four orders of magnitude, namely the dark flow (cosmic expansion) and spook action (esp).

There are things that Einstein & Tesla knew that were shared, and things that they knew that weren't shared. Long before 90% of the astronomical evidence for what's in my thread was known about - most of what I've found is based on CMB & black hole data that simply didn't exist before the 90s. Yet Einstein knew about black holes long before they were even observed. I believe the "OMG it's full of stars" quote in Robert C Clark's space Odyssey came from a secret conversation with Einstein before he passed away. Einstein's God was nature.

William J. Sidis knew about black holes too, & he wasn't even a physicist, his description of the reverse universe matches half of the spheres that would be turned inside out from my Koch snowflake derived geometrized coordinate brane

In the then there's Mandelbrot

[inSe]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Well, you have your work cut out for you, then. Because in these equations, c is a constant. If you introduce a variable c, you have to deal with all the dominos you knock over. Not just a few issues in gravitation. All of them.

 

 

On 4/26/2018 at 4:46 PM, inSe said:

Thats according to a certain interpretation. Over a dozen physicists attempted to contradict bells theorem in that regard in my OP. I'm working on mathematically disproving bells theorem for a return to Einstein's principle of locality under ops interpretation. A lot of that involves the sphere-like sub-planck scale particles in the geodesic I described in the previous page. The issue is computing power, the interpretation uses too many operations to construct the graphical branar geometry using those sphere-like granule coordinates.

So I need to learn how to condense that geometry in the previous page into a simplified equation that successfully falsifies Bell's theorem in regards to non-local particle states.

 

21 hours ago, inSe said:

The granular coordinate system made from this geometric process forms a unified field, that is, an aether that waves through all particles. Unlike observable or experimentally measurable fields in mainstream affine gauge theories, this aether field coordinate system remains three dimensional beneath the Planck length where additional energy can be stored, masquerading as virtual particle states. This geometric process built upon iterations of a Koch snowflake can be graphed & carried out for an angstrom divided by a Planck length of iterations by exascale computers, or memristers if you don't wish to waste enormous amounts of energy on these micro world sheets.

Apropo using the products of these microworld sheets to create the new isosceles angles as the koch snowlfake basis for the next micro worldsheet until a more defined and detailed vacuum and periodic table of elements can be constructed than is currently available using standard models and experimenting with that vacuum and those elements in the lab to confirm my alternative interpretation.

All of these processes will form the equation in my next post.

Edited May 8, 2018 by inSe

[Strange]

New periodic tabl? Based on what? fractional numbers of protons?

I don’t think there is any science in this word salad (never mind bots, your posts sound like the output of a random text generator fed on bad science).

[Mordred]

Yeah I've given up on seeing a proper post in terminology by the OP. Hence I don't bother trying lol

[inSe]

On 4/13/2018 at 5:33 PM, Mordred said:

Well its your model, no one will do the work for you particularly since its poorly defined mathematically.

 Little hint try applying a coordinate system and go from there. I recommend polar coordinates. You will need to define properly and with proper terminology your model if you ever hope to get it off the ground.

For a graph of approximately 5e-7 meters I begin with one iteration and express it 4 fold for an outline that will become my 3 dimensional spherical coordinates:

Now I place the centers of the spheres like so:

Notice every triangle had to be iscosoles, and half were pointed inward.

We add more spherical coordinates with the second iteration, exponentially increasing complexity for the upcoming topological transformations.

Only the spheres of the final iteration will get tugged inside out through their central coordinate by 1/3rd of their diameters. 

Whichwill be the first in a vast set of transformations. The volume in which each central coordinate passes through itself upon the first transformation (1/3 of the sphere's diameter) is equal to one Planck length and tugs every coordinate by that same amount. Each transformation will radically effect all the coordinates in a very chaotic way, the complexity of the system requires us to find out how many iterations will be needed to make 1/3rd of the diameter of the smallest spheres equal to one Planck length given the spheres of the largest coordinates to equal 1/2 of a photon's wavelength.

Each transformation is equivalent to one Planck time. For the volume of a spherical photon, these transformations serve as your unified field oscillations. At Tt(total time)/2 the photon is in it's particle state as opposed to the phase state, it's at it's smallest volume, where more solid state photons can be placed by it without phasing until more transformations occur. You'll find that doing this will produce inside out spheres that are smaller than a Planck length, those are the shwarchild radii of heavier particles. Everything in the universe can be constructed from compacting light.

 

[inSe]

When this gets graphed it will still only be the spheres of the final iteration that get drug inside out through their centers but only twice before they're fully inside out. Then the next few gazillion transformations keep going by the radius of the sphere of the final iteration until the entire structure is the same as when it started, but inside out. Then  the process restarts. 

This understanding gives us the number of iterations we need:

X=59. 59 iterations, idk why I had 28 there.

Again, 59 iterations.

Getting to the 59th iteration this would be grueling.

So not only does the photon have positive and negative charge, but this charge is the basis of all gravity. The gravitons of one individual photon is equal to the graphical omnidirectional drag of one Planck unit per topological transformation that I've explained. However, put photons close together, or increase the amount of time they have to bounce back and forth before escaping (core of the sun), and you get heavier particles.

Graph this, then run the topological transformations until you're halfway to the point in which the whole thing starts being positively charged. When half of total sphere volume is negatively charged (Tt/2). The entire object that is a photon will be 3.5e-7 meters in diameter, now at this point we can fit another photon that is 3.5e-7 meters in with it. When these two unravel in unison you will get a photon with a shorter wavelength, that has twice the mass but with half of the volume. Each transformation in this photon will represent a topological net drag of 1/2 of a Planck length, slower but the entire net drag is dragging an aether that is 4 times denser.

You can do this 33 times (net drag of 1/4^33 Planck lengths) before you get the mass of a proton with the e-54 meter schwarzchild radius in my OP.

I could code in all 59 iterations into an operation and program the net drag topology described above, but the computer doing the operations would need the energy of a nuclear power plant to simulate a photon, and it would take months just to cover one negative charge.

Edited May 18, 2018 by inSe

[inSe]

It's really 60 iterations of a Koch antisnowflake if you count S(1) and you do. Idk, I guess really exhausted for that. You find the iterations with 4.2753e+28 = 2(3^x-1) w x=60.

Anyway the hard part is coding the spherical coordinates for all 60 iterations. But I could do it and show how when you pack 33 of these topological graphs together the inside out tug is going to represent (n)e-54 meters and there's only going to be one centralized tug reduced from some 10^28 tugs equal to one Planck length. Which is the defining point of this theory.

Black holes form at infinitely small levels, they're even in a single photon of the first topological graph here. Refer to my definition of the endless hierarchy of microverses in the OP (the paradox is that there is no unmoved mover). But we don't need to find those. Just the sub-planck ones for the proton cores. This spherical coordinate system and it's inversive inner to outer tug system for topological transformations is to define finite changes (a geodesic).

The changes are, in reality, infinite between any two points and based on Zeno's paradox and sidis reverse universe as I explained in the very first part of my thread.

[inSe]

Finding the right online programs for fractal analysis wouldn't take long to get the centers of the spherical coordinates for those 60 iterations (so that the inversive transformations of that 3D graph of the inside of a photon can be expressed with equations).

Basically what those equations would entail, according to this classification of a TSVF, that CAN be distinguished from the standard quantum interpretation; is that a photon's charge = M + (4A + lp x n)

n = f(m)

f(m) = number of transformations (in Planck units) that have occurred in the graph between t(1) & T(t)/2:

The area belonging to the (7e-7)^3 meter volme of the triangle_S(0) from the S(60) Koch antisnowflake from which the spherical coordinates for graphing the inner structures of a photon are derived 

The mass based off of the midpoint for T(t) in the repeated addition of photon masses in the topological transformations representing 33 compressions of the photon. The time you pause at neutral charge where the photon's length is 3.5e-7, you can fit another neutralized photon in that compacted state, when the two unfold in unison as the clock stars back up again; the photon shrinks to a length of (3.5/2)e-7 meters before T(t) occurs and the photon is positively or negatively charged with a length of 3.5e-7 m and there will be exponentially less sphere inversions, that will cause the length of the topological transformations for each inversion to be reduced to 1/2 of the previous inversive transformation representing t(Planck time) that was one Planck length at a time. The second time, however,  well you get the idea. Repeat it 33 times and there's only one sphere that inverts. The photon mass in kilograms equals the length of that singular coordinate transformation, which is (n)e-54 m for the schwarzchild radius of the proton.

For an anti-photon every positive value in that equation becomes negative.

Time dilation can be seen as t + n, w f(n)=M (of the photon) - M (of any particles which are heavier than a photon, an atom, a collection of atoms, or even a stellar mass black hole)

This also defined rainbow gravity, the notion that photons of different wavelengths experience gravity differently based on the color spectrum of light visibility.

Edited May 23, 2018 by inSe

[Mordred]

You do realize no one can make any sense out of your images. Nor can we make any sense out of anything you've posted. 

 I haven't seen anything you have posted that conforms to any proper physics yet just a smattering of word salad. 

 Rainbow gravity seriously ???? Have you ever considered picking up a few good textbooks and learning how the photon is modelled under physics or how gravity is ?

 Try Snells law of refraction for starters.

 About the most accurate descriptive I can give of your last several posts is ramblings.

I can't read a single formula on any of your images but if your using Mandelbrot then you should have recursive functions. This includes the recursive functions of the Koch snowflake.

ie [latex] D=\frac{log m}{log f}[/latex]

Edited May 23, 2018 by Mordred

[inSe]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

You do realize no one can make any sense out of your images. Nor can we make any sense out of anything you've posted. 

 I haven't seen anything you have posted that conforms to any proper physics yet just a smattering of word salad. 

 Rainbow gravity seriously ???? Have you ever considered picking up a few good textbooks and learning how the photon is modelled under physics or how gravity is ?

 Try Snells law of refraction for starters.

 

Hang on I'm still working on figuring the fractals. There's 4, 2 dimensional, Koch antisnowflakes in 3 dimensions at the base of the equilateral triangles of every iteration get split into isosoles for the centers of what will become your 3 dimensional spherical coordinate system. I'm still working on figuring out how to formulate automatic recursions of the next iteration.

Then will get to how various laws for most every variation of the quantum interterpretation simply do not apply when Zeno's paradox can be be embraced even when setting a geodesic as an average velocity built upon the aggregate of smaller velocities. The only areas where smaller events do not occur like Cantor's infinity are within bh event horizons. Which exist everywhere, but only for set durations, that's based on size 

But I haven't begun to show much yet, or reproduce the proper values.

I'm not aware of another mathematical model that describes the inner workings of a photon. Or the entire know universe as just a section of the same type of structure. You percieve them as points on a line, correct. You do know electrons are spherical and protons of atomic nuclei hold 10 times more pressure per volume than neutron stars, right?

Edited May 23, 2018 by inSe

[Mordred]

Fair enough on the Mandelbrot or koch snowflake as to still working on it but what the blazes do you mean by inner workings of a photon ?

 A photon has no internal structure neither does an electron. 

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Fair enough on the Mandelbrot or koch snowflake as to still working on it but what the blazes do you mean by inner workings of a photon ?

 A photon has no internal structure neither does an electron. 

if a photon has a magnetic component and an electric component, isn't that a structure comprised of the two?

[Mordred]

Do wavefunctions have internal structure ie for example field excitations. The pointlike properties is defined by a compton wavelength there is no corpuscular particle. The properties you mentioned are described by state vectors. One can describe the structure of the functions but that isn't the same as inner structure of a photon 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Do wavefunctions have internal structure ie for example field excitations. The pointlike properties is defined by a compton wavelength there is no corpuscular particle. The properties you mentioned are described by state vectors. One can describe the structure of the functions but that isn't the same as inner structure of a photon 

Yeah, my mistake for forgetting a photon is not a little ball.  

[Mordred]

Correct, now if the OP wishes to explore fractals to approximate wavefunctions I would fully support him in doing so. However if he chooses to try to describe some corpuscular shape ie a ball or snowflake like structure then he is on the wrong track.

 There is work on there using fractals for light polarizations but they do not imply a photon is corpuscular. example

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Jacques/publication/263871671_Fractal_nature_of_light_scattering_in_tissues/links/547ca9470cf285ad5b08837d/Fractal-nature-of-light-scattering-in-tissues.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiKuJWCiJ3bAhXXFzQIHRS1Cc0QFjABegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0ryngdHO1xs0vD04tgMEPb

researchgate article but downloadable with free membership

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Mordred

[inSe]

18 hours ago, Mordred said:

Do wavefunctions have internal structure ie for example field excitations. The pointlike properties is defined by a compton wavelength there is no corpuscular particle. The properties you mentioned are described by state vectors. One can describe the structure of the functions but that isn't the same as inner structure of a photon 

Yes it's spherical at some point (3.5e-7 meters) where it's charge becomes neutral at T(t)/2. You're not acknowledging the pictures I posted, and you're only acknowledging 3% percent of what I write. 

The inner components of the wave are the microcausal masses all around the sphere eversions at the last iteration, that are causing them. Infinite number of inner structures, but in the spherical coordinate system I proposed you're not looking at the inner structures, just the spherical coordinates that get yanked and tugged between them, at the 60th iteration (photon length/Planck length) there's something like (n)e-28 inverting spheres that cause the topology of the wave to evolve.

Edited May 24, 2018 by inSe

[Mordred]

I recall stating that your pictures are too difficult to make our ob legibility. So no I can't make heads or tails of those images. For that matter most of what you've written has been poorly describes at best.

 If I recall I was constantly pointing out using proper physics terminology on this thread. Particularly since the mathematical details are still lacking

 However wavefunctions are not spherical at some point. They have no internal structure how can they ? Your claims always seem to have numerous misconceptions based largely on a rather poor understanding of the physics you believe to understand.

 That last post is a perfect example a wavefunction is in essence a mathematical descriptive of a waveform.... get your terminology straight and please don't try to claim a waveform has iman internal structure either. That would simply prove you have no understanding of what waveforms represent ie variations of a measurement. example voltage in 120 ac power...

 The QM and QFT view of particles are field excitations. Excitations are in essence waveforms. In the two slit experiment for example the constructive and destructive interference patterns caused by the slits gives rise to the pointlike scatterings and wavelike characteristics. The pointlike characteristics is defined by the compton wavelength for photons for matter waves it is determined by the De-Broglie wavelength.

 You have yet to post anything conclusive in your conjectures to state anything otherwise.

 You are working on a model but do not have one as of yet and have zero supportive tests of your conjectures. When I answer questions I ALWAYS answer in accordance to mainstream physics and never in suppport of unproven hypothesis as per forum rules and regulations.

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Mordred

[swansont]

20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

if a photon has a magnetic component and an electric component, isn't that a structure comprised of the two?

Those are oscillating fields. No structure means the photon is not built from other particles

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Those are oscillating fields. No structure means the photon is not built from other particles

That's what 'structure' means in science: composed of other discrete entities?

Edited May 24, 2018 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Just now, StringJunky said:

That's what 'structure' means in science: composed of other discrete entities?

It's what it means when discussing particles. Protons, for example, have structure- they're made of quarks. Electrons and photons do not.

[StringJunky]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's what it means when discussing particles. Protons, for example, have structure- they're made of quarks. Electrons and photons do not.

OK. Thanks.

[inSe]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

I recall stating that your pictures are too difficult to make our ob legibility. So no I can't make heads or tails of those images. For that matter most of what you've written has been poorly describes at best.

 If I recall I was constantly pointing out using proper physics terminology on this thread. Particularly since the mathematical details are still lacking

 However wavefunctions are not spherical at some point. They have no internal structure how can they ? Your claims always seem to have numerous misconceptions based largely on a rather poor understanding of the physics you believe to understand.

 That last post is a perfect example a wavefunction is in essence a mathematical descriptive of a waveform.... get your terminology straight and please don't try to claim a waveform has iman internal structure either. That would simply prove you have no understanding of what waveforms represent ie variations of a measurement. example voltage in 120 ac power...

 The QM and QFT view of particles are field excitations. Excitations are in essence waveforms. In the two slit experiment for example the constructive and destructive interference patterns caused by the slits gives rise to the pointlike scatterings and wavelike characteristics. The pointlike characteristics is defined by the compton wavelength for photons for matter waves it is determined by the De-Broglie wavelength.

 You have yet to post anything conclusive in your conjectures to state anything otherwise.

 You are working on a model but do not have one as of yet and have zero supportive tests of your conjectures. When I answer questions I ALWAYS answer in accordance to mainstream physics and never in suppport of unproven hypothesis as per forum rules and regulations.

 

The equations are actually going to be designed from graphs like this:

The topological transformation are going to work like this for xyz(sub1->(n))(sphereS(1->60):

But only for the spheres of the final iteration.

On 5/23/2018 at 5:48 AM, inSe said:

Finding the right online programs for fractal analysis wouldn't take long to get the centers of the spherical coordinates for those 60 iterations (so that the inversive transformations of that 3D graph of the inside of a photon can be expressed with equations).Basically what those equations would entail, according to this classification of a TSVF, that CAN be distinguished from the standard quantum interpretation; is that a photon's charge = M + (8Aof[triangle] + lp x n)

n = f(m)

f(m) = number of transformations (in Planck units) that have occurred in the graph between t(1) & T(t)/2:

The area belonging to the (7e-7)^3 meter volme of the triangle_S(0) from the S(60) Koch antisnowflake from which the spherical coordinates for graphing the inner structures of a photon are derived

The mass based off of the midpoint for T(t) in the repeated addition of photon masses in the topological transformations representing 33 compressions of the photon. The time you pause at neutral charge where the photon's length is 3.5e-7, you can fit another neutralized photon in that compacted state, when the two unfold in unison as the clock stars back up again; the photon shrinks to a length of (3.5/2)e-7 meters before T(t) occurs and the photon is positively or negatively charged with a length of 3.5e-7 m and there will be exponentially less sphere inversions, that will cause the length of the topological transformations for each inversion to be reduced to 1/2 of the previous inversive transformation representing t(Planck time) that was one Planck length at a time. The second time, however,  well you get the idea. Repeat it 33 times and there's only one sphere that inverts. The photon mass in kilograms equals the length of that singular coordinate transformation, which is (n)e-54 m for the schwarzchild radius of the proton.

For an anti-photon every positive value in that equation becomes negative.

Time dilation can be seen as t + n, w f(n)=M (of the photon) - M (of any particles which are heavier than a photon, an atom, a collection of atoms, or even a stellar mass black hole)

This also defined rainbow gravity, the notion that photons of different wavelengths experience gravity differently based on the color spectrum of light visibility.

Any advice on only programs for graphing those to confirm those estimates, and also, any advice on mathematically equating all of this to apply to the lambda max derived estimates made in my OP??

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's what it means when discussing particles. Protons, for example, have structure- they're made of quarks. Electrons and photons do not.

In this interpretation quarks are the optical illusions of a collection of around a billion microcosm-matter jets/accretion discs (magnetic dipole/monopole moments) of (n)e-54 meter black hole/neutron star-like objects in the interior of the particle's nucleus; interacting and evaporating in (n)e-17 seconds and reforming every nanosecond or so.

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by inSe