Asymmetry and monodynamic

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

 

To archive ---> Higgs data could spell trouble for leading Big Bang theory

 

http://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trouble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804

 

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

[Gebrar]

Do you hope Nobel 2014?

 

friendship.

[Gebrar]

In any case you're right for months.

 

And nobody says anything?

 

 

04/24/2013 --->CERN Details New Observation of Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry

10/15/2013 --->Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry | Simons Foundation

[swansont]

In any case you're right for months.

 

And nobody says anything?

 

 

04/24/2013 --->CERN Details New Observation of Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry

 

10/15/2013 --->Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry | Simons Foundation

That's actual physics. What is the connection with the ideas presented in this thread?

[Gebrar]

That's actual physics.

 

Good morning. Ok I see. But since then when? Because I have read "New Observation of Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry" dated April 24. Who have already predicted that?

 

But even more relevant (which made ​​me the chip has ear) is why this thread is in speculation then? Thank you for ance.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Gebrar

[swansont]

Experimental discoveries aren't always predicted.

 

This thread is in speculations because that's precisely what it is. It's non-mainstream science that is untested, and in this case, poorly explained IMO and lacking in math, making no predictions.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Good Morning.

I republished the graph Asymmetry-Monodynamic of June as the link above was wrong.

http://arnaudantoineandrieu.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fermionic_model_arnaudantoineandrieu.png

 

That's actual physics. What is the connection with the ideas presented in this thread?

 

Back to serious things.

The idea is that with my graph above I just republish, Is: that I can make Feynman Digramms obsolete.

To support and proof of June I still have this link is-there-a-feynman-diagram-which-includes-all-particles-in-one-electron-quark-pion-kaon/

The problem is that nobody has ever understood anything.
People do not answer me mails, and as soon as I send a tweet, I always zero visiting my blog. I think it'll be easier for me to go directly into universitée of France, and finally find true physical people so that they can analyze my revolutionary geometry.

Nobel 2014.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Je crois que pour un bon prix Nobel de physique, il faut commencer par de la trigonométrie de première année ; Non ?

 

 

---> http://http://wp.me/P3mH1d-7

 

 

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Finally and to term, The following model is able to draw a matrix of an atom and with the diagrams of the Fresnel by example.

 

 

http://wp.me/p3mH1d-4t

cotg-α = ∞ = collapse path = E

collapse path = instantaneous time (matter to antimatter)

[sheever]

good work,for a little add here the symmetry- assymetry regards to the energy density is only changing one into another symmetry.

originally the vectors are two directional.

Good Morning.

I republished the graph Asymmetry-Monodynamic of June as the link above was wrong.

http://arnaudantoineandrieu.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fermionic_model_arnaudantoineandrieu.png

 

 

Back to serious things.

The idea is that with my graph above I just republish, Is: that I can make Feynman Digramms obsolete.

To support and proof of June I still have this link is-there-a-feynman-diagram-which-includes-all-particles-in-one-electron-quark-pion-kaon/

The problem is that nobody has ever understood anything.
People do not answer me mails, and as soon as I send a tweet, I always zero visiting my blog. I think it'll be easier for me to go directly into universitée of France, and finally find true physical people so that they can analyze my revolutionary geometry.

Nobel 2014.

its a little more complicate than this the variables are way too much.

 

"Speed ​​or frequency of the fluctuation of the energy from the source

of emission and the emitted matter - following by the emitted matter to
it's source of origine Ef = (tp r²) + (tp √r)

Once the charge consumed (matter) the energy goes back at it's source A_eh to pick up a new load."

correct,now apply high number volume to this and causality will show you falling apart.untill your measure seperate objects it works but will turn into complex variables again if you measure units and the assymetry is based on seperate timelines you can not apply this nor quantize.nature solved this problem beautifully with left it uncertain and each relationship becomes important factor within the symmetry

it needs to quantise time as well

Edited January 31, 2014 by sheever

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

 

correct,now apply high number volume to this and causality will show you falling apart.

 

Good morning.

 

I expressed myself badly with Ef = (tp r²) + (tp √r). What I wrote mean nothing. The full expression is: ΩΛ = ơ8Ωb * Aeh/t²

I wanted to associate the vector QA QB or (√QA)+(-QB²) to Aeh

 

 

 

untill your measure seperate objects it works but will turn into complex variables again if you measure units and the assymetry is based on seperate timelines you can not apply this nor quantize.nature solved this problem beautifully with left it uncertain and each relationship becomes important factor within the symmetry it needs to quantise time as well

 

 

My diagram below easily show how I separate physical time x-y-z, to the rest..

 

I also have a slightly modified universal unifier below:

.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

[sheever]

Time is summing value. I see less potential in the latest visual. Anyway good luck to your work. Cheers

Regards

Joseph

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Time is summing value. I see less potential in the latest visual. Anyway good luck to your work. Cheers

Regards

Joseph

 

I should take my very first post I made here -> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70425-quanta/

 

It simply explains what I try to explain.

 

The sum of all step position of the ray propagation must be taken into each rond sequence account (QA QB).

The graph below simply depicts the total time spent of the linear step ray propagation, into the non-linear sequence from the source bound by the Q vector position.

 

What the probability was, Becomes now certainty.

 

Edited February 7, 2014 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Andrea.

 

I think I asked you this originally. But there has been a lot of discussion about it on your thread.

 

For me. ..?

 

-------------------------------

 

Could you write your idea in six short sentences ( Important just at the moment . NO DIAGRAM . NO MATHS )

 

What your proposition is ?

 

 

----------------------------

 

Mike

Edited April 6, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

A l’heur actuel, il est très difficile de pouvoir interpréter mathématiquement un lien relatif entre l’infiniment grand et l’infiniment petit. La mécanique que je décris, tente donc d’instaurer cette dernière du plus petit au plus grand. Le but de cette requête étant de mieux pouvoir répondre par des moyens mathématiques innovent, de l’existence d’une “certaine” cohérence entre la réalitée des phénomènes observés, et l’unique mécanique qui pourrait les constituer.

 

 

 

I have a problèmes with my computer

I try latter to thé traduction

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Translation:- per google translate .:- o.k

 

1. At present happiness, it is very difficult to mathematically interpret a relative link between the infinitely large and the infinitely small. Mechanics I describe, so try to establish this.

 

2. .?...

 

Mike

 

Ok. Your first sentence is you are trying to handle the quantum - gravity problem , between the very small and the very large . Doing it by mechanics . Is that what you mean

Edited April 6, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU,

 

Your posts were hidden because advertising external websites is against the forum rules.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Translation:- per google translate .:- o.k

 

1. At present happiness, it is very difficult to mathematically interpret a relative link between the infinitely large and the infinitely small. Mechanics I describe, so try to establish this.

 

Ok. Your first sentence isI think? You are trying to handle the quantum - gravity problem , between the very small and the very large .? Doing it by mechanics ?. Is that what you mean ?

 

1. At present happiness, it is very difficult to mathematically interpret a relative link between the infinitely large and the infinitely small.

Mechanics I describe, so try to establish this. ( google translation )

 

2. .?...

3. ..?

4...?

5. ..?

6.... ?

 

Mike

Edited April 6, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Yes, this is good news.

But I confess to not always follow you. I not understand why you told me that you're happy.

The correct translation is:

"At present time, it is very difficult to mathematically interpret a relative link between the infinitely large and the infinitely small.
Mechanics I describe here, therefore attempts to introduce it from smallest to largest. The purpose of this request is, to better respond by mathematical means innovate, of the existence of some reality consistency between the observed phenomena and the only mechanism that might be."

Mike, If I open this thread, it's for graphs and math.

The problem is that I have already written in all France. But nobody has ever understood what I meant. Just like here. Nobody ever knew.

Yet everyone can understand now in the second. It is very simple.
Just type in a search engine: "Feynman diagrams obsolete"

Here is my idea.

.

.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Andrea.

 

I think I asked you this originally. But there has been a lot of discussion about it on your thread.

 

For me. ..?

 

-------------------------------

......

...

..

...

 

I never knew !

What ?

 

Can you give me just one example ?

I Am curious to see what you want mean Mikea

 

1. .?...

 

2. ..?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I never knew !

 

What ?

 

Can you give me just one example ?

 

I Am curious to see what you want mean Mikea

 

1. .?...

 

2. ..?

Ok. You have asked me , so I will respond. This is not a criticism ! . All , , ( although fairly fundamental) , I was asking ANTON , for my sake, and maybe others ,:-

 

Could you describe 6 individual simple , English , statements , as to what your theory is ? Just six sentences in English , no more , no diagrams , just words . It is probably brilliant , but I cannot quite understand it. It's something about everything coming from one particle ?

 

I have looked at your web site , and I have looked at your thread. It looks very impressive, BUT I DO NOT REALLY UNDERSTAND IT , IN THE FORM YOU HAVE PRESENTED IT( that is at the moment ) . If you explained it in six simple sentences , I might THEN , well understand all the diagrams.

 

Mike

Edited May 6, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU have discovered a ....

 

You appear to have copied this entire text from here: http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/

 

You have changed the first sentence to suggest that you discovered this.

 

This is (a) copyright infringement, (b) plagiarism and © grossly dishonest.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

• Do not cut'n'paste entire articles.
• Always clearly delineate work which is not your own and provide links, citations and acknowledgements.
• Never change another's work to alter the meaning or import without making this patently obvious to the reader.

I have hidden your offending post - but anyone wishing to read the original article can follow the link in Strange's post above.

 

Any response to this moderation posted in the thread will be hidden. You can report this post if you wish to complain.

 

 

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

 

 

So keep your Akeldama (quagmire) ; And see what's next.