New Equivalence Principles?

[Vmedvil2]

This is because the particle is moving at relativistic speeds proportional to the length contraction it's already experienced when condensing from light, any charge manifesting from it is uncontracting that length as it's frame gets dragged across a decompacted photon medium

 

In this case, you are correct it is going across a compacted medium which is the time-space being warped by the BH, the velocity also is changing the space as well compacting which hints the equation. In many ways like you say it is being double compacted but charge has nothing to do with it, the charge is still constant as the Flavour field is still intact making the same charges, but the quarks which carry the charge may have odd orbitals because of the change in time-space's geometry.

Edited July 21, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Vmedvil2]

 

How did you get these equations?

 

 

The length contraction of the gravitational radius is simply:

 

[math]R = \frac{R_0}{\gamma}[/math]

 

Remember though, the contraction is on the apparent size of the sphere, for anything else, things get dilated in the direction of motion.

 

 

I plugged Length contract into Schwarzchild radius and Schwarzchild radius into Length Contraction across C² Because V_B = C being that C² constant.

Edited July 21, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Vmedvil2]

Do it in steps and explain to me. But the formula that you would seek is a lot more simple, as you can see above. 

 

Yes, but that only takes account the gravitational length contraction and not the movement, basically, I just reverse solved it for C² then plugged it in dubbel, which takes account for the velocity of the object and gravitational length contaction.

[Vmedvil2]

Well, 2GM/R = C²  then L' = L0 (1- (V²/C²))^1/2  which makes  L' = L₀(1-((V_o²R_s)/(2GM_B)))^1/2  then solve it the other way around for the other version.

[Vmedvil2]

You not explaining everything in a clear way. Those equations are fine I understand those, but how did you get these?:

 

''V_o²/((L'/L_o)² - 1) = C² 

 

Then

 

R_s = -2GM_B((L'/L_o)² - 1)/V_o^{2 ''}

 

Solved for C² in L' = L₀ (1- (V²/C²))^1/2 then plugged that into the Schwarzchild radius equation R_s = 2GM/C² making R_s = -2GM_B((L'/L_o)² - 1)/V_o² 

Edited July 22, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Super Polymath]

 

 

file:///C:/Users/Gareth/Downloads/Farias_et_al-2017-SciRep.pdf

They hid it

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/79/meta

[Shustaire]

I would also examine the above with gravitattional redshift equations.

 

If I get you the particle number density formulas for bosons and fermions under QFT would you be interested ? they use the Klein Gordon and Dirac equations so already include SR. The Boltzmann applications are also included with the aforementioned

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

You've setup the perfect basis in which to utilize my E8. If you plot it I swear to God all of my conjectures on dark flow, non-BB cyclic cosmology, sub planck particles, & ESP would be confirmed.

 

Unfortunately I've envisioned the behavior of this particular cellular automaton to form my conjectures, but it would take years of calculus to acquire the extensive vocabulary needed to plot that E8, & as-of-yet theoretical forms of computation. Just managing to use the cellular automaton to create such types of computing necessary to plot it's own behavior (retrospectively forming an extension to the periodic table of elements to the point of becoming universal, without any uncertainties in it's particle's positions & momenta) would equate to physically detecting tachyons. That's what Einstein's potential unified field oscillations were supposed to be able do to our cosmological model. But the Philadelphia Experiment must have failed to use ESP signalling to achieve UFOs to make the presence of Navy Destroyers & comm channels completely undetectable to the enemy.

 

I cannot stress the kind of scientific break-though such a new elementary physics would lead to!

Edited July 23, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Super you do not have a grasp of E8... If I can barely understand symmetry relations of group theory, I doubt you have a clear model of anything --- I mean, how could you anyway? You admitted to me that you don't have the necessary knowledge to write your theory in math, but somehow you ''have a working model.'' And no I am not being rude or harsh... Here's some advice...

 

 

1) Do not be hypnotised by buzzwords, then just place them in a way that satisfies your own knowledge of physics, which let's face it, has to be limited without a working idea of the math or the real idea's behind them.

 

2)  Always make sure you understand your own theory before you present it. That isn't about contradictions, it's about duplicitous nature or disingenuous continuation of your own theory in other peoples threads.

 

3) - for that matter, keep your own theory in your own thread, PLEASE. How many times have I asked you this? I've tried to be kind but it doesn't seem to be sinking in, so I am being more stern. Cut it out!

There's enough information in that thread for someone well-versed in calculus to manipulate 3D objects with mathematica at least up to the electron/neutrino/positron

 

You don't need calc to envision the geometric machinery of an elegant array of cosmic systems, just a keen visuospatial prefrontal cortex.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

I'll bet you understand more than you realize particularly if your familiar with inner and outer products....

 

... If I can barely understand symmetry relations of group theory,

 

[Super Polymath]

Look I couldn't give two ****s about what you think about anything - just stick to a rule that everyone else seems to just... get on with, and that is, stop hijacking other peoples threads. It is not much to ask, because why else do it other than to be a dik-head. 

You might think I'm trying to be a dikhead but in reality I need a translator. You & Mordred were on par above the rest in calc on sci.net but here on sci.com you're peerless, even moreso than Mordred you seem to have a prodigious comprehension of some of the axioms involved in what I've envisioned.

[Super Polymath]

Imagine calculus is Japanese, and I only know French. Our comprehension of the UFT's geometry may be on par, but you are the only one who can explain it to mathematica or 3D graphing programs that only register Japanese texts.

[Super Polymath]

Look I can tell English is not your first language, but look... poly, there are more issues here than just... translation... 

I know, the complexity of the E8 is a *****

[Super Polymath]

It would be FAR more expedient for you to decipher that thread than for me to retake MAT - 170 trig + ALL of pre-calc a forth time & then 4 more calculus courses with physics on the side whilst trying to decipher my own thread

Edited July 25, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

I know, the complexity of the E8 is a *****

& I know it doesn't help that my countless corrections were all over the place, sloppily hyperlinked to dozens of other threads. It took two years for me to get it but you are one of the few who has the slightest idea of where my conjectures emerged as they evolved

Edited July 25, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

To put this into perspective for anyone viewing this thread, the particular E8 in my thread I've suggested for Gareth to model is way more complex than an Octonion, it's not an 8 but a graham's numberian that turns into a cellular automaton involving 4 adjacent photons to create an electron that evolves into a neutrino, that evolves into a positron which can describe the behavior of our expanding universe on a scale far exceeding our cosmic event horizon.

 

If he can do that, he'd be widely as the greatest mathematician EVER.

[Vmedvil2]

Polymath, Dubbel is right you have no idea what you are talking about it is definitely not a E8, E8 would have 248 root systems, I would imagine that your model has far less than 248 root systems thus cannot be called a E8 math equation unlike mine which has at-least 248 root systems to take into account. Here is about E8 math (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)) and lesser mathematical models cannot compose them they are nearly perfect and take in the full complexity of the universe, you are missing a few dimensions of complexity, There is far more to the universe then what you have composed in your model. Also, is your model isomorphic I doubt seriously that it is can it be placed on any point of space and fully detail all interaction of the system, I highly doubt you are close to that level of perfect modeling. No offense but the truth hurts you need to literally detail every interaction of the universe that is known or unknown in your model to be called E8 it has to work in every occasion. 

 

How many dimensions does your model have? it is probably a simple lie group or with a complexity of F4 or E6 max. Read about symmetric space, if you want to actually compose a E8 and Reimannian Algebra along with differential Geometry.  

Edited July 27, 2018 by VictorMedvil