Quantized inertia within black hole systems

[DavidWebb]

Imagine a spherical volume of space and time representing a photon as 60 iterations that reduce, via sphere eversion, by one planck length at a time:

x^2+y^2+z^2-n=4/3pix^3

x/((2(3^59))=1.616229e-35

x=1.616229e-35*((2(3^59)))

x=4.56758796e-7

x^2+y^2+z^2+n=(4/3*pi*4.56758796e-7)^3

x+y+z=square root(7.0036847e-18-n)

x+y+z=7.0036847e-18^(1/2)-n^(1/2)

n^(1/2)=7.0036847e-18^(1/2)-(3(4.56758796e-7))

n=7.0036847e-18^(1/2)-(3(4.56758796e-7))^2

8x-6y-4z-7=2.6445699e-9

8x-6y-4z=2.6445699e-9+7

4x-3y-2z=(2.6445699e-9+7)/2

4x-3y-2z=3.50000000132

S(0)=x^2+y^2+z^2+4x-3y-2z-3.50000000132=0

S(60)=x^2+y^2+z^2+4x-3y-2z-(3.50000000132)/(2*(3^59))=0

S(60)=x^2+y^2+z^2+4x-3y-2z-1.2384658e-28=0

V©=x/((2(3^59))=1.616229e-35

x=1.616229e-35*((2(3^59)))

x=4.56758796e-7

4.56758796e-7/(2(3^59))=1.616229e-35

1.616229e-35=squareroot((1.0545718e-34*6.67408e-11)/c^3)

2.6121962e-70=(1.0545718e-34*6.67408e-11)/c^3

c^3=(1.0545718e-34*6.67408e-11)/2.6121962e-70

c=cuberoot((1.0545718e-34*6.67408e-11)/2.6121962e-70)

c=299792379.714

Now we suppose matter is trapped light. You can fit 8 spheres around the surface of a sphere, if these 9 spheres
represent a charged particle with 9 times the mass in 1/9th the volume of
your original photon than you can repeatedly perform these 9-fold compressions 28 more times before you exceed the planck mass. I calculated
that the entire 29th sphere would be <lp:

Since it’s charge must compress the photon by 1 planck length per planck
time for it to travel at c, the photon mass can be expressed by the quotient of
radii between a photon & planck length -> (7e-7/2)/(2(3^60))=4.1282194e-
36. Viz a viz, the photon density of elementary particle (EP) 1 is
4.9320464e-36/(4/3pi(7e-7)^3)=3.388006e-17 kg/m^3. Ergo, the particle
density of EP 28 is 4.9320464e-36 x 9^28/(4/3pi(1.6e-
35)^3)=1.4848022e+96 kg/m^3 this pretty much checks out as the densest
possible EP before you get a black hole planck particle.

In this theory the interior of the planck particle is virtually hollow, having less quantum fluctuations than the vacuum of space allowing for c to be increased, it's the photon sphere in which we get the gamma wavelength and where gravity is strongest as everything within the planck particle is pushed about the BH horizon - to prove this:

Black hole evaporation will be used to find the higher & lower cosmic
scales; the size of an antiproton is 10^-15 m and the Schwarzchild radius of
its central black hole should equal the rate at which black holes evaporate.
The Schwarzchild radius is 2.484e-54 meters (just type proton into where it
says earth). The rate of evaporation is 8.41e-17 seconds (just type proton
into where it says earth).
But protons do not have λmax = vacuum density, that’s the problem, so for a
proton we must use the original equation f(n)=(λmax)•((4π/3)r^3); where
f(x)=4/(n/(4π/3)^(1/3)) where 4>n to find the contraction of c with the λmax
of a proton ≈ 395 nm. However, in the special case of black holes the
equation must be modified.
First of all, it’s 4πr^2 because the quasar within the Schwarzschild radius of
the antiproton is a hollow sphere. Secondly, λmax of the proton’s collective
micro-BH quasars is the proton’s normal λmax but to the negative power of
the proton’s length divided by twice the Schwarzschild radius
f(n)=(3.95e-7^-(1e-15/2(2.484e-54)))((4π)(2.484e-54)^2)=7.753772e-107

f(x)=4/(7.753772e-107/(4π))^(1/2) = 1.610306e+54 m/s
So a black hole with the mass of the sun (1391400000 meters) has a
Schwarzschild radius of 2953 meters & will evaporate in 6.61e+74 seconds.
f(n)=(5.04e-7^-1(1.3914e+9/5906)) x ((4π x 2953)^3) = 2.3886249e+25 m/s
f(x)=6/(4π(2.3886249e+25^(1/2))=9.7693891e-14 m/s
1.610306e+54/299,792,458/9.7693891e-14=5.4981971e+58
5.4981971e+58/8.41e-17=6.5376898e+74 seconds ✓

So we rescale the photon after the final transformation.

v(QE)=X/(2(3^59))=1.616229e-35/(9^28)

X=(2(3^59))*(3.0882513e-62)

X=8.7276366e-34

8.7276366e-34/(2(3^59))=3.0882513e-62

3.0882513e-62=squareroot((1.0545718e-34*6.67408e-11)/c^3)

9.537296e-124=(1.0545718e-34*6.67408e-11)/c^3

c^3=(1.0545718e-34*6.67408e-11)/9.537296e-124

c=cuberoot((1.0545718e-34*6.67408e-11)/9.537296e-124)

v(QE)=cuberoot((1.0545718e-34*6.67408e-11)/9.537296e-124)

v(QE)=1.946917e+26 m/s

There was no big bang, and there will be no big bounce. We live in a black hole. The horizon is about 14 billion light years away, that's where we see the picture of the Cosmic Microwave Background at the edge of the quasar around our black hole. Our black hole was built from planck particles in a super cosmos that were about about 7e-7 meter across, that's about the length of the black holes that are merging with ours to produce Dark Energy. Our cosmos is collapsing via black hole evaporation, by the planck length which is the source of Dark Matter. That is why the universe has more Up Quarks than Down Quarks, and why there's not much anti-matter in the cosmos.

Also interesting to note, that when one travels even at 7e-7 meters every 10^-10 seconds as is the case beyond our cosmic event horizon, the photons there that we see as the CMBR are 38000 light years across so even if they weren't gamma shifted about a quasar they're still not going to register like normal light to our instruments.

So about the horizon of the Cosmic Black Hole we add S(0) about the circumference, which is around 44 billion light years worth of them, to the edge of the x&z-axes per planck time - and of course we are subtracting by S(60) per planck time of the photon particle:

Ex.) Plot2(S(0))=(x^2+(3.50000000132^2-1.2384658e-28^2))+y^2+(z^2+(3.50000000132^2-1.2384658e-28^2))+(4x+3.50000000132-1.2384658e-28))-3y-2z(+3.50000000132-1.2384658e-28)-(3.50000000132-1.2384658e-28)=0

 

I am not refuting that the formation of a black hole looks like a spontaneous expansion resembling the big bang in the center of a very large star in a very time dilated space that has gone supernova, but this big bang will be very cold and blue suns will become the SMBHs at the center of galaxies when they run out of fuel.

Edited March 12, 2019 by DavidWebb

[beecee]

5 hours ago, DavidWebb said:

In this theory the interior of the planck particle is virtually hollow, having less quantum fluctuations than the vacuum of space allowing for c to be increased, it's the photon sphere in which we get the gamma wavelength and where gravity is strongest as everything within the planck particle is pushed about the BH horizon - to prove this:

"c" is never increased and of course the "tidal gravitational effects" are strongest as one approaches the center of the BH. At the Photon Sphere is where light/photons can orbit, and the escape velocity will reach "c' at the EH.

Quote

There was no big bang, and there will be no big bounce. We live in a black hole.

We have no evidence whatsoever of being in a BH, and while the big bounce is highly unlikely, the BB is overwhelmingly supported by many facets of observational data.

The rest is just made up from where I sit.

[DavidWebb]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

"c" is never increased and of course the "tidal gravitational effects" are strongest as one approaches the center of the BH. At the Photon Sphere is where light/photons can orbit, and the escape velocity will reach "c' at the EH.

c is decreased though, via the refractive index as wavelength decreases, which could just be the effect of tidal gravitational resistance in quantum fluctuations. The velocity of gamma wavelength is < the velocity of radiowavelength, because the quantized inertia is going to be forced back more often with a shorter wavelength. If a black hole were virtually hollow, referring to the wavelength in the absorption spectrum where the absorbance is maximum, than it would have longer wavelength than the vacuum and therefore c is accelerated under the notion that there's less tidal gravitational effects. 

Quote

We have no evidence whatsoever of being in a BH, and while the big bounce is highly unlikely, the BB is overwhelmingly supported by many facets of observational data.

The rest is just made up from where I sit.

Actually the inflationary model has been refuted in observations of redshift and quasars. However many scientist have lost their license for pointing this out.

The rest is mathematically confirmed by accurately predicting the evaporation under entropy rules of a black hole defined mathematically as being hollow, wherein the bulk of its density is at its surface when referring to the wavelength in the absorption spectrum where the absorbance is maximum

Edited March 12, 2019 by DavidWebb

[Bufofrog]

46 minutes ago, DavidWebb said:

However many scientist have lost their license for pointing this out.

Ha ha.  I guess scientists that disagree with inflation should not be allowed to drive.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Bufofrog

[Strange]

1 hour ago, DavidWebb said:

Actually the inflationary model has been refuted in observations of redshift and quasars.

I'm not sure you know what inflation is. It is not the same as expansion.

I am not going to watch a video of unknown quality. Please provide a link to the peer reviewed journal where this work is published. Presumably the people who have done this will be nominated for a Nobel Prize...

[taeto]

1 hour ago, DavidWebb said:

Actually the inflationary model has been refuted in observations of redshift and quasars.

According to a well-known crackpot theory based on some unfortunately ill thought-out suggestions by Halton Arp. It is doubtful that any physicist with a valid "science license" believes in it.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, DavidWebb said:

c is decreased though, via the refractive index as wavelength decreases, which could just be the effect of tidal gravitational resistance in quantum fluctuations. The velocity of gamma wavelength is < the velocity of radiowavelength, because the quantized inertia is going to be forced back more often with a shorter wavelength. If a black hole were virtually hollow, referring to the wavelength in the absorption spectrum where the absorbance is maximum, than it would have longer wavelength than the vacuum and therefore c is accelerated under the notion that there's less tidal gravitational effects. 

"c" is decreased actually, as light/photons pass through any medium that is not a vacuum. Isn't that much simpler?

The rest of your unsupported hypothetical depends on the  "ifs" and "coulds" as highlighted. 

Quote

Actually the inflationary model has been refuted in observations of redshift and quasars. However many scientist have lost their license for pointing this out.

Have you ever had the appropriate license? 

Quote

The rest is mathematically confirmed by accurately predicting the evaporation under entropy rules of a black hole defined mathematically as being hollow, wherein the bulk of its density is at its surface when referring to the wavelength in the absorption spectrum where the absorbance is maximum

Not sure what you mean by hollow, but in reality, and according to the tried and tested GR, ignoring any matter/energy crossing the EH, a BH would be the perfect vacuum, with the mass at the center squashed below the Planck/Quantum level. And of course speaking of density of any BH is illogical at best.