Replication Theory:: Fractal Resonance

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In my electronics book W/Q = E....<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In this equation, "W" is work, which is a form of energy, and "E" represent potential. In your string of equations, you are using "U" to represent potential, and E for energy. If you want to string equations together, you must first replace any incompatible symbols. Change "W/Q = E" to "E/Q = U"; then you can say, "E = QU", for example.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">im trying to figure out how many
volts are in a Joule<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You might as well ask, "How many apples are in 100 proof?" Mixing symbols, as explained above, has gotten you barking up the wrong tree. You should know that a Joule is energy and a Volt is potential; 1 Volt = 1 Joule per Coulomb.



Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Perhaps, as a group, we can discuss at least one part of this in terms of getting nearer to a speed of gravity. i do take the point that dimensional analysis is important but even its most ardent admirers admit that it's a it like watching paint dry.

I see science boards as being a faculty pubs, to ounce ideas around. Stuff like dimensional analysis should be for p.m s and actual written up papers, if only to stop discussions becoming totally bogged down. Having said that, I think we are always going to have problems with written maths expressions involving calculus. Perhaps we could have those dreaded little "d"s in another colour?

Righto, eV = 1 / 2 mv^2 kinetic energy. So,v = sqrt(2eV / m) Momentum = mv = sqrt(2emV)

Lambda = h / momentum = h / sqrt(2emV)
i.e. Lambda is proportional to 1 / sqrt V

Now let's look at the lorentzian in the horrible way it seems to be presented these days in terms of momentum. We have
M_r = E / c^2 This gives us
M_0 = sqrt(E^2 /c^4 - p^2 / c^2) I think that's ugly and we should rather write
M_r = sqrt(M_0 + p^2 / c^2)

Here M_r is relativistic mass and M_0 is rest mass.

If we put in a speed of gravity i place of the c^2 and put in the sqrt(2emV)squared for p, then we can perhaps gain a few insights into the true speed of gravity.

With my speed of gravity h = c^2 / b^2 where b is the speed of gravity, if the mass changes at light speed, it changes to half the reciprocal of the rest mass. Huge but infinite. However, the neutron doesn't appear to have a charge, yet it does have a slight magnetic field, so that suggests that charge can be masked. Change the voltage then?

I think I should make a few extra points here. In the equation lambda = h / mc I used the compton wavelength of an electron, that's a soft gamma ray. For lambda = h / sqrt(2emV) that's an electron as a wave.

Now we've got e.m wavelengths which we are all used to but what about gravitational wavelengths? We have
c = lambda v
c = 1 / sqrt(epsilon mu
c^2 = k_e / k_m

I want to hold the frequency for anything going faster than light but Cosmicsurfer favours upping the frequency. So b = lambda v The frequency of an electron is about 1.2E 20 Divide into c and we get about 2.4E-12 divide it into the speed of gravity and we get about 1E 5 metres, wow!

Here's an image of the cosine of the natural log of the lorentzian. A frequency modulated particle. If we added a load of harmonics to it then we could drop a particle into one of these now box shaped troughs. It's momentum would be off the scale in a little box. Note that if we alter the group velocity, one peak, at t =1 stays put but the phase velocity goes very fast one way, in the direction of pos t but more slowly the other way, toward the origin. A bec in other words. Negative refractive index is pretty strange but it's perfectly logical.

Does it have fractal properties? Has to but the pattern, I suspect, is going to involve the Reimann conjecture, which is a bit of a sod!!

I think the strong force is the HFTL Graviton wraping through and around Proton torus, and the strong force actually increases strength during 'Proton Bag' stretching or during quark ejections the force does not fall off but increases as per square of the distance rule. So, maybe as Stoat was suggesting that the 'hidden negative refractions' is the higher frequencies that operate above light from the graviton capture process. These gyroscopes are all alligned with the gravity well, so antigraviton ejections must take place at the center of the protons and maintain the vertical axis. While the gravitons maintain the horizontal axis and provide the fuel in this extreme motion (3.3 trillion x per second-B Sub s Meson flipping rate) polarity reversals that are taking place at the cores of protons that return the energy back towards reverse time. These wave motions must cross over one another forming an FTL release of energy in a Feynman type time diagram. John

<b>[Stoat] Perhaps, as a group, we can discuss at least one part of this in terms of getting nearer to a speed of gravity. i do take the point that dimensional analysis is important but even its most ardent admirers admit that it's a bit like watching paint dry. </b>

Actually, dimensional analysis is the part of investigation that is most interesting (if your goal is to understand what you are investigating). It is the part that connects random thoughts to the physical world. It is what separates science from magic.

It is also a big part of why science is hard and fantasy is easy. Of course for those who enjoy science, hard is equal to fun. More fun in fact than fantasy.



<b>[Stoat] I see science boards as being a faculty pubs, to bounce ideas around. Stuff like dimensional analysis should be for p.m s and actual written up papers, if only to stop discussions becoming totally bogged down.</b>

Units sometimes need to be explicitly called out. Other times they can be implied or even ignored. The difference has nothing to do with whether your idea is going to be published or bounced around on a forum.

Using units when they are needed improves the flow, rather than "bogging things down". Not using them, when needed, is what bogs things down. Your presentations suffer from this defect frequently.

===

Here is a question that might help you understand this. Consider the following list of ten numbers:
<ul>
<li>1
</li><li>2
</li><li>2
</li><li>2
</li><li>3.14159
</li><li>137
</li><li>137
</li><li>186,000
</li><li>299,000,000
</li><li>11,784,960,000
</li></ul>
Each of them is the actual or approximate value for a physical constant, but the units have been left off. Can you tell me which physical constant it is?

3.14159 looks like pi
299,000,000 looks like the area of the speed of light

"dimensional analysis is the part of investigation that is most interesting"

I would have to agree that is a good way to know the laws that your working with,
and in searching for new insights

that's why that equation chain is really a good start in the search for a deeper meaning

I will go threw the equations again to make sure I get the capacitance and
inductance right... which are my main concern is the resonance motions

then I will lead in to a device that will use 6 sided electromagnetic-waves that cancal
out in specific areas at certain times in the process so that when electrons and positrons are sent into the box they do not annihilate each other but are suspended at the proper propagation, so that when the 6 sided electromagnetic waves are programed to lock in resonance each of the 7 layers of the synthetic proton.

very exciting indeed!

MARX