Electro-Unity Theory

[Unity+]

So their spin is not quantized? Interesting.

 

 

No, it's quite circular. For starters, energy is not a substance, it's a property. So this is like saying the field is made entirely of tall.

 

 

Exchange particles are typically Bosons. But at least we know that the exchange particle is massive, which, of course has implications for the range of the interaction.

 

 

Yeah, you posted these earlier. About them —

 

Schaffter's constant is unitless, so how is that the "width" of the phesron?

 

In an equation like W(G)=gsin(G) + g + p, it implies that W and g and p have the same units, but g and p obviously do not. Also, sin(G) implies G is unitless, but I don't see where you've explained what G is.

 

The width of a Phesron actually is the Schaffter's constant in angstroms, which is why the given equations deal with the Schaffter's constant in the first place. Dealing with the width of a Phesron determines how energy reacts within the Phesron itself.

 

This equation is generally used to measure energy fluctuation of a Phesron. In this case, g represents gravity while p represents density, which means that g is the gravitational acceleration while p is mass over volume(or in other terms of equations). G could be said to be just an x variable.

 

 

 

I think I must have worded it wrong. I know energy is not a substance but is a property. I think my terminology should have been better.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Unity+

[Ophiolite]

You forgot to ask how this fits in with the Fetzengru matrix.

I deliberately avoided that. As I understand it the matrix was first discovered, or at least implemented, by two Irish physicists working at Queen's in the 50's, William Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzwilliam. Rumours of their then unconventional personal relationship still colours a willingness to take the matrix out of the closet. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, it basically relates to an early version of Catastrophe theory where variables grow in fits and starts.

[Unity+]

Well, I am going to be releasing another video explaining more of my video theory(correction) soon. For now, I will keep updating the mathematics behind this theory and present some visuals to explain the theory.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Unity+

[swansont]

 

This equation is generally used to measure energy fluctuation of a Phesron. In this case, g represents gravity while p represents density, which means that g is the gravitational acceleration while p is mass over volume(or in other terms of equations). G could be said to be just an x variable.

But g and p don't have the same units. How can you add an acceleration and a density?

[Unity+]

But g and p don't have the same units. How can you add an acceleration and a density?

 

Because, in theory, they have a connection with each other. Gravitational acceleration is connected to the mass of the particle or object, while density deals with the mass and volume. Since both of a connection with mass, being the mass has relation to the energy of the particle or object.

 

EDIT: I think I misunderstood the question at first. You aren't really adding the two together. You are multiplying the gravitational acceleration of the particle or object by the values in the parentheses to get a different value for the relation with the density variable. Almost like ab + c.

 

 

 

 

Also, an interesting finding that was made with the Time Constant equation.

 

 

If you were to modify the equation to calculate density, here is what it would look like:

 

 

Now, one problem I faced earlier with the equation was the fact that if gravity is equal to 0, like in space, then that would mean density is equal to 0. That, at first, was a problem faced with the equation. However, I finally realized that it was actually good that it was zero because of how we look at density.

 

 

 

 

Density can be measured by submerging an object into a volume of water and calculating the volume and then divide mass by the volume. This is a good method to calculate volume, but there is one problem. That is density relative the Earth and the strength of the electro-magnetic field of the Earth(this electro-magnetic field will be explained later on). This brought up other hypotheses about water and the molecule itself. As we know, water molecules have a polarity, meaning that is has both a positive and negative charge. This could mean that because of the electro-magnetic field of the Earth these water molecules are spinning at speeds determined by the amount of energy that is within that area of the water molecules. Now, low density objects float while higher density objects sink. This is due to the fact that water molecules are spinning at certain speeds, creating a push on the object itself. Now, back to the equation.

 

Since this equation's phenomena happened, this brought up the idea of relative density. Our idea of density relies on the fact that we can measure with the water on the Earth, but in space the density would be relative to the "gravity" of space, which is or close to 0. This means that density is actually how much force it takes for an object to reach another with electro-magnetic interaction or gravitational attraction relative to the particles or objects in-between these two objects.

 

This hypothesis could be the explanation for why things float in water(besides the explanation of density).

Edited October 13, 2012 by Unity+