Black Hole Theory of The Universe-New Developing Theory

[cj5511]

Hi. I developing the following theory.

All forces in the universe are electromagnetic in origin. They are differentiated only by their total energy content limited to multiples of c and interactions limited to multiples of h. Light= c; matter = c2, gravity defined as total energy content of the universe = c3 and the vacuum energy field = - c. These energy states have inertial mass and when interacting, conserve their inertial mass by exchanging energy and emitting the net excess. The net excess or “rate of exchange” produces the force in multiples of h.

All matter and energy are created not by chaotic random thermal collisions, but according to Huygens’s principle of wave interference under intense pressure at centers of stars, planets and black hole horizons. Crossing electromagnetic energy waves create superpositions of energy velocities of c6 to c8 when confined and under pressure at Planck’s dimension of 10-33 cm. At these velocities, electromagnetic energy collapses into point particles, defined by Bohr as electromagnetic cavity radiation. The vacuum density field of the Schwarzhield lattice solution of 2r< 0 is the negative background energy field that provides the material support or field of all atomic particle interactions.

The Schwarzschild vacuum solution shows that instead of a big bang, the universe started as a black hole of collapsed fused solid-state
electromagnetic energy into a unitary two dimensional Schwarzschild black hole that precludes a singularity. The universe of today is the “lighting up” of the black hole universe as energy is increased producing flows of energy and matter in spiraling intersecting motion based on the lattice solutions of Schwarzschild. Around these lattice energy flows, new black holes collapse centrally producing space and light forming new spiraling galaxies.

The “frozen” negative lattice energy vibrates and oscillates sound waves as its torques under the pressure of positively flowing energy of light and matter. It is the angular momentum of energy that produces temporary inertial density within the lattice radiated field. The oscillations of the lattice produces the the signature harmonics of the vacuum field which has been momentarily torqued through angular momentum of crossing energy flows. The lattice is formed from monopolar in-flowing and out-flowing energy perpendicular to each other creating a singular arterial system of vibrating negative and positive energy.

This provides a new model for nuclear fusion. Atomic particles fuse through symmetry breaking under the immense energy superpositions of c6 to c8 which may be mathematically determined. The black hole model of the universe also provides that space and time are expanding exponentially at the speed of light from every point in the universe explaining many physical paradoxes observed in the present universe, including “non-local” interactions. Implicit also is the inevitable conclusion that organic life cycles are based on the speed of light evolving over time at the rate of Planck’s constant.

http://www.afinelightopera.com/Final_stage.pdf

[Fortis]

Hi. I developing the following theory.

All forces in the universe are electromagnetic in origin. They are differentiated only by their total energy content limited to multiples of c and interactions limited to multiples of h. Light= c; matter = c2, gravity defined as total energy content of the universe = c3 and the vacuum energy field = - c.

c is in units of velocity, not energy, so nothing can have a total energy content in multiples of c.

These energy states have inertial mass and when interacting, conserve their inertial mass by exchanging energy and emitting the net excess. The net excess or “rate of exchange” produces the force in multiples of h.

h is in units of action (J.s, or N.m.s) and hence force can never be in multiples of h.

I'll have a look at the rest of your post later, but I'm afraid that you haven't got off to a good start.

[cj5511]

I was using content = to velocity. All inertial mass is its total velocity or total energy content. However, I can easily change that. Also, Panck's constant incorporates j in its equation, in other words h= 6.67 10-34j , or am I wrong. If I am correct me.

[Fortis]

I was using content = to velocity. All inertial mass is its total velocity or total energy content.

Mass does not equal velocity. Mass has units of Kg. Velocity has units of m/s. Energy has units of Joules (J), which can be decomposed into Kg.m²/s².

However, I can easily change that. Also, Panck's constant incorporates j in its equation, in other words h= 6.67 10-34j , or am I wrong. If I am correct me.

Planck's constant has units of Joules-seconds. This is not the unit of energy, and it is not the unit of force.

[Tensor]

Hi cj5511, Welcome to the board. Since Fortis is working on one part, I'll start in on another.

This provides a new model for nuclear fusion. Atomic particles fuse through symmetry breaking under the immense energy superpositions of c6 to c8 which may be mathematically determined.

Which groups do these symmetries belong to and are the groups Abelian or Non-Abelian? Can you show how to derive the Lagrangian for this?

The black hole model of the universe also provides that space and time are expanding exponentially at the speed of light

What does this mean? Is this X^c or is does this mean Xⁿ= c? Where X is space or time, c is the speed of light and n is some number raising X exponentially.

from every point in the universe explaining many physical paradoxes observed in the present universe, including “non-local” interactions.

What non-local interactions?

Implicit also is the inevitable conclusion that organic life cycles are based on the speed of light evolving over time at the rate of Planck’s constant.

Exactly how does the speed of light evolve over time and if so, how do you explain the Oklo natural reactor or the element lines in the spectra that are the same now and from galaxies that we find much earlier in the Universe? Since the location of those lines (or the operation of the reactor)is determined by alpha, the fine structure constant, which has c as a constant. If c was changing, then those spectra and the daughter elements of the reactor would be different.

[cj5511]

Q.1. Which groups do these symmetries belong to and are the groups Abelian or Non-Abelian? Can you show how to derive the Lagrangian for this?

Answer 1. The symmetries are non Abelian. The Lagrangian is comparable to Schrödinger equation.
The conserved quantity is .

The Lagrangian is basically the mirrored opposite of Schrödinger’s Equation which shows that over time energy is conserved through energy production. Schrödinger’s Equation is ∆ t + ∆e = h.

Q.2 What does this mean? Is this Xc or is does this mean Xn= c? Where X is space or time, c is the speed of light and n is some number raising X exponentially

Answer 2. It means Xn= c.
Negative Schwarzschild lattice 2mr < O
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ∆ x + ∆ p = h/ 2
Schrödinger’s Equation ∆ t + ∆e = h

These equations show that matter and time are created by light. It is the "lighting up:" of the universe that creates time and matter moving in a forward direction against the backward direction of the black hole universe's fused electromagnetic energy. Negative Schwarzschild lattice r < O shows the energy of the universe is a net - o at its quantum state. Therefore there is always a pulse in a forward spin and a contraction in a backward direction, causing the entire universe to torque which drives all motion.
Heisenberg uncertainly equation shows until a particle is created by having both a position and motion (spin) through space at the rate of h, no such particle exists and is absent until "lit up”.

Schrodinger's equation shows that time is dependent on the movement of energy at the rate of h.

The above shows that space-time is dependent on the speed of light, and may be better defined as “space-time -light.”

Q.3. What non-local interactions?

Answer 3. This means that a supernova explosion-black hole collapse in one galaxy will cause an energy increase in another galaxy which may be a companion super nova explosion-black hole collapse.

Clausius equation S universe > O provides the entropy of the universe is always greater than 0. This means the universe is a “closed” system. According to Newton’s first law of thermodynamics, the energy in the closed system universe remains constant. In the universe, energy flows to lower energetic regions when possible. If not possible, the universe collapses quantumly over time to produce massive black holes and stars. Boyles law that provides the constant of PV=k for a closed system dictates that the black hole universe remains at a constant steady state of matter proportional to its vacuum.

Under such pressure, the interior of the black hole universe must conserve energy by either expanding or collapsing energy. It is the interplay between expansion and contraction that produce the initial energy condition for the interior black hole universe to collapse into smaller black hole centered galaxies surrounded by galaxy formations in the white hole exterior vacuum.
Therefore, whenever there is a “collapse” under pressure of a new black hole, it creates an equal proportional white hole exterior creating outwardly spiraling vacuum space around smaller black holes. In this way, the black hole universe interior walls are expanding as fused energy collapses into the interior white hole vacuum space like energy expands through a pressure valve.

It also explains the EPR paradox. Related particles shot a universe apart will respond instantaneously at Planck time. Each particle is attached to a corresponding lattice energy grid with an intersection or vertices at Planck dimension. Like a string, pulling one end of a string of energy will instantaneously flip the vertically interacting companion string of energy and all particles along the string at Planck time.

Q.4. Exactly how does the speed of light evolve over time and if so, how do you explain the Oklo natural reactor or the element lines in the spectra that are the same now and from galaxies that we find much earlier in the Universe? Since the location of those lines (or the operation of the reactor)is determined by alpha, the fine structure constant, which has c as a constant. If c was changing, then those spectra and the daughter elements of the reactor would be different.

Answer 4. See answer to 2. C never changes its velocity. It is a constant. Space-time expands proporiionaly over time with a 25% matter to 75% vacuum. If everything is expanding at the speed of light from every point in the universe, then all phenomenons remain at a constant distance away relative to everything else. This includes all galaxies. It has been proposed that the receding galaxies will recede at the speed of light out of sight. As long as the galaxies exist, the “photon” light, will expand outwardly never faster that light production. The only time we would lose sight of a receding galaxy is in the event the galaxy blew up, destroying the source of the light.

[cj5511]

Mass does not equal velocity. Mass has units of Kg. Velocity has units of m/s. Energy has units of Joules (J), which can be decomposed into Kg.m²/s².

Answer 1. I believe you are getting lost in the minutia. Two Phd physicists looked at my abstract and not one of them disagreed with my terminology. One is a published book author on Schrodinger. But I will respond one more time to your objections.

Mass is written in terms of units of velocity.

Classical Physics Definitions.

Mass is the measure of inertia.
Inertia is the property of resisting changes in velocity.

So kg (units of velocity) =m2/s2

g=s/c2

Second, the terminology of “total energy content” is traditionally used to describe a system, which defines the universe.

The sentence that all quantum energy exchanges are limited to multiples of h is a quote from Bohr, Heisenberg and David Bohm, so most advanced physicist would recognize that part of my proposition as being already proven. Planck is the “rate of energy exchange between two particles that produce the force in “multiples of h” or at the rate of h. The difference is that I propose that Newtonian G is also based on h, or the foree of gravity is limited to multiples of h. The Gravity is 1/3 the rate of exchange of h. The reduction in rate is due the to the quadrupolar configuration of atoms on the lattice vertices. giving the atoms as a group a torsion capacity of two transversal axies so that it can absorb more energy before emitting the net excess. This only makes sense since all matter is composed of atoms firing of energy at Planck constant. Atoms quuantum state cannot exceed h. So if the earth is composed of atoms that transition between rest and quantum state, then the rate of exchange producing the force between two objects composed of atoms must be proportional to the maximum quantum states of all their atoms. G is proportional to h based on it capacity to absorb more energy before firing of an emission of energy.

This also explains why the speed of light is always a constant speed relative to matter. Matter is C2 and so has double the capacity to absorb energy quantumly before emitting the net excess at the rate of c. If it exceeds the rate of c, the matter explodes. That is why matter can never catch up with light that emitts phtons at the rate of c.

Quote:Planck's constant has units of Joules-seconds. This is not the unit of energy, and it is not the unit of force.

Answer 2. Exactly, a particle will emit energy in joules at the rate of Planck. Planck is a constant just like C2 and G. Energy cannot be produced faster than h. When a particle emits a photon at the rate of h it produces a force based on the relative mass of the particles. Hence the following equation.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ∆ x ∆ p = h/ 2 --(producing a force and light)
M1-m2=e/c2
g=s/c2

[Fortis]

Answer 2. Exactly, a particle will emit energy in joules at the rate of Planck. Planck is a constant just like C2 and G. Energy cannot be produced faster than h.

The units of Planck's constant are Js. The units for a rate of energy production are Watts, or J/s. So h is not a rate of energy production, be it some upper limit, or otherwise.

Any comment?

[cj5511]

The units of Planck's constant are Js. The units for a rate of energy production are Watts, or J/s. So h is not a rate of energy production, be it some upper limit, or otherwise.

Any comment?

Wikipedia definition. “The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power, equal to one joule of energy per second. It measures a rate of energy conversion.” We are arguing how many angels can stand on a needle head. You don’t speak of particle interactions in terms of “watts” but in terms of h, which also indicates a flux of energy or a joule. Watts are used only when discussing electrical systems and energy conversion into power. E=h/c is another form of writing the SI of a watt. I would be laughed around the block to say particles exchange their energy at 1 watt instead of using the proper term h. Neither you nor I can change the terminology customary to quantum field theory. However, this discussion has been fun because it got me thinking.

[Fortis]

The units of Planck's constant are Js. The units for a rate of energy production are Watts, or J/s. So h is not a rate of energy production, be it some upper limit, or otherwise.

Any comment?

Wikipedia definition. “The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power, equal to one joule of energy per second. It measures a rate of energy conversion.” We are arguing how many angels can stand on a needle head. You don’t speak of particle interactions in terms of “watts” but in terms of h, which also indicates a flux of energy or a joule. Watts are used only when discussing electrical systems and energy conversion into power.

Wrong. What units, (or Watt units ) do you think the rate of production of energy should be in? Js or J/s?

This isn't the first time that a poster in ATM has been confused by dimensional analysis, and I suspect that it won't be the last.

E=h/c is another form of writing the SI of a watt.

This is meaningless. h/c is not in units of energy, or power. Check it yourself.

I would be laughed around the block to say particles exchange their energy at 1 watt instead of using the proper term h.

The Watt is the SI unit of energy appropriate to a rate of exchange of energy. h is not a rate of energy production or exchange.

Neither you nor I can change the terminology customary to quantum field theory. However, this discussion has been fun because it got me thinking.

I used to do QFT. This is not the terminology that is used. We usually get the units or the dimensions correct.

[Tensor]

Q.1. Which groups do these symmetries belong to and are the groups Abelian or Non-Abelian? Can you show how to derive the Lagrangian for this?
Answer 1. The symmetries are non Abelian. The Lagrangian is comparable to Schrödinger equation.
The conserved quantity is .

I notice you didn't mention the group the symmetries belong to and you seemed to end your sentence before stating the conserved quantity. So, what group do the symmetries belong to? What is the conserved quantity? As for your claim that the Lagrangian is comparable to the Schrodinger equation, I didn't ask for a description of it, I asked specifically for you to provide the derivation for it. Can you provide the derivation?

The Lagrangian is basically the mirrored opposite of Schrödinger’s Equation which shows that over time energy is conserved through energy production.

It is? That is an entirely new definition of the Lagrangian and Schrodinger's equations, at least as far as I've learned them. Perhaps you can show this mathematically.

Q.2 What does this mean? Is this Xc or is does this mean Xn= c? Where X is space or time, c is the speed of light and n is some number raising X exponentially
Answer 2. It means Xn= c.

You changed my question. I asked if Xⁿ = c. Not if Xn = c . In your original statement, you claimed that space and time were expanding exponentially as c. Xn=c is not exponential.

Negative Schwarzschild lattice 2mr < O

Is that a zero or the letter O on the right side?

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ∆ x + ∆ p = h/ 2

That is not the HUP. The HUP is ∆x ∆p ≥ h-bar/ 2. And what exactly do you claim the the delta symbols represent?

Schrödinger’s Equation ∆ t + ∆e = h

This is not Schrödinger’s Equation. Schrödinger’s Equation is:

i(h-bar)∂/∂t ψ(r,t) = Hψ(r,t)

where ψ(r,t) is the wavefunction (the probability distribution), H is the Hamiltonian operator, r is the position and t is the time.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Robertson-Schrodinger relation. This is a relation of two Hermitan Operators with a system in a state ψ and gives the probability distributions for two measurements A, B . with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle a special case. Even if this is what you were talking about, the relation between time and energy is ∆t ∆e =≈ h-bar/2, not ∆ t + ∆e = h.

These equations show that matter and time are created by light. It is the "lighting up:" of the universe that creates time and matter moving in a forward direction against the backward direction of the black hole universe's fused electromagnetic energy. Negative Schwarzschild lattice r < O shows the energy of the universe is a net - o at its quantum state. Therefore there is always a pulse in a forward spin and a contraction in a backward direction, causing the entire universe to torque which drives all motion.

This is a loverly bunch of word salad, that really makes no sense. For instance, in Schwartzchild coordinates, r is a point, r cannot be less than zero.

Heisenberg uncertainly equation shows until a particle is created by having both a position and motion (spin) through space at the rate of h, no such particle exists and is absent until "lit up".

It does no such thing. It simply give you the limits of measurements of one variable, given the measurement of another variable.

Schrodinger's equation shows that time is dependent on the movement of energy at the rate of h.

Again, that's not what that equation shows. Besides, as I pointed out, the equation you gave is not any kind of real equation. How does this affect your idea?

Q.3. What non-local interactions?
Answer 3. This means that a supernova explosion-black hole collapse in one galaxy will cause an energy increase in another galaxy which may be a companion super nova explosion-black hole collapse.

This violates Relativity. Do you have some experimental evidence to show violations of relativity are possible? If not, do you have the state equations showing what you claim is possible?

Clausius equation S universe > O provides the entropy of the universe is always greater than 0. This means the universe is a "closed" system. According to Newton’s first law of thermodynamics, the energy in the closed system universe remains constant.

While you have the first law correct, Newton was not the one that formulated it.

It also explains the EPR paradox. Related particles shot a universe apart will respond instantaneously at Planck time. Each particle is attached to a corresponding lattice energy grid with an intersection or vertices at Planck dimension. Like a string, pulling one end of a string of energy will instantaneously flip the vertically interacting companion string of energy and all particles along the string at Planck time.

You do realize that there is no EPR paradox? Using Bell's inequalities, Alain Aspect et al ran experiments that showed that the EPR paradox was false, as there was no "hidden variables". Quatum Field Theory explains the apparent Faster than Light effect quite well.

Q.4. Exactly how does the speed of light evolve over time and if so, how do you explain the Oklo natural reactor or the element lines in the spectra that are the same now and from galaxies that we find much earlier in the Universe? Since the location of those lines (or the operation of the reactor)is determined by alpha, the fine structure constant, which has c as a constant. If c was changing, then those spectra and the daughter elements of the reactor would be different.
Answer 4. See answer to 2. C never changes its velocity. It is a constant.

Here is your statement:

Implicit also is the inevitable conclusion that organic life cycles are based on the speed of light evolving over time at the rate of Planck’s constant.

Note the bold. If c never changes, then it doesn't evolve over time. It can't be a constant if it evolves over time. So what is it, does it evolve over time, or is it a constant?

Space-time expands proporiionaly over time with a 25% matter to 75% vacuum.

What exactly do these percentages correspond to? How many grams vs how many cc's?

If everything is expanding at the speed of light from every point in the universe, then all phenomenons remain at a constant distance away relative to everything else.

How do you reconcile this with the measured expansion rate of ~70 Kms/Mpc for the Hubble constant? Also, how does this explain the measured recession rates of galaxies that are less than c or, for that matter, the measured rates of approach of some galaxies?

[cj5511]

[QUOTE=Fortis;1423016][QUOTE=cj5511;1422956]The units of Planck's constant are Js. The units for a rate of energy production are Watts, or J/s. So h is not a rate of energy production, be it some upper limit, or otherwise.

Any comment?

Wikipedia definition. “The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power, equal to one joule of energy per second. It measures a rate of energy conversion.” We are arguing how many angels can stand on a needle head. You don’t speak of particle interactions in terms of “watts” but in terms of h, which also indicates a flux of energy or a joule. Watts are used only when discussing electrical systems and energy conversion into power.[\quote]
Wrong. What units, (or Watt units ) do you think the rate of production of energy should be in? Js or J/s?

This isn't the first time that a poster in ATM has been confused by dimensional analysis, and I suspect that it won't be the last.
[quote]
E=h/c is another form of writing the SI of a watt.[\quote]
This is meaningless. h/c is not in units of energy, or power. Check it yourself.

I would be laughed around the block to say particles exchange their energy at 1 watt instead of using the proper term h.
[\quote]
The Watt is the SI unit of energy appropriate to a rate of exchange of energy. h is not a rate of energy production or exchange.

I used to do QFT. This is not the terminology that is used. We usually get the units or the dimensions correct.

[Fortis]

[QUOTE=cj5511;1423128][QUOTE=Fortis;1423016][QUOTE=cj5511;1422956]The units of Planck's constant are Js. The units for a rate of energy production are Watts, or J/s. So h is not a rate of energy production, be it some upper limit, or otherwise.

Any comment?

Wikipedia definition. “The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power, equal to one joule of energy per second. It measures a rate of energy conversion.” We are arguing how many angels can stand on a needle head. You don’t speak of particle interactions in terms of “watts” but in terms of h, which also indicates a flux of energy or a joule. Watts are used only when discussing electrical systems and energy conversion into power.[\quote]
Wrong. What units, (or Watt units ) do you think the rate of production of energy should be in? Js or J/s?

This isn't the first time that a poster in ATM has been confused by dimensional analysis, and I suspect that it won't be the last.

E=h/c is another form of writing the SI of a watt.[\quote]
This is meaningless. h/c is not in units of energy, or power. Check it yourself.

If you go back to my post I've fixed the tags to make it more readable.

[cj5511]

I give…I give…I give. I'll just do all my particle equations in terms of watt, a unit of "work" instead off h. This is a serious question:Would it better to say that all force production is limited to multiples of h time? I am asking seriously because I would like to state it more clearly. What is the purpose for h but a measure of energy production over time. Tell me what you think h is if its not = energy produced per second. No energy or force can be produced at rates faster than h unit of time. What energy system produces energy at a rate faster than than h? h is the threshold of energy production. I guess Bohr, Schrödinger, and Bohm were wrong when they used the teim "all particle interactions are limited to multiples of h." Funny a NASA physicist that reviewed the abstract didn’t catch your obviously brilliant critique. Funny how gottcha pleases you so much instead of reading the theory which is particularly timely now that NASA has discovered black holes form before galaxies. In any event, I will rely on the opinion of someone I think has more credibility than you, unless you happen to be Schrödinger and then I'll defer. So let’s be clear. unless you want to give some positive feedback such as answering my first question in this post, I give up the point so I don't have to spend my time with such silly stuff.

[captain swoop]

Keep things pleasant, as far as I can see Fortis has given the correct term and explained why. If you want to dispute why not start a seperate thread to discuss it otherwise a simple concession would be more appropriate.

[Fortis]

Tell me what you think h is if its not energy produced per second.

h has the value, in SI units, of roughly 6.626068x10^-34 Js. If it was a value of energy produced per second the units would surely be J/s.

I guess Bohr, Schrödinger, and Bohm were wrong when they used the teim "all particle interactions are limited to multiples of h."

Do you have a reference for that? For Bohr it was angular momentum that was quantised in units of h_bar, or h/(2.Pi). Electromagnetic radiation comes in discrete packets, or quanta, called photons which possess the energy h.f, where f is the frequency of the radiation. None of the claimed that energy was quantised in units of h, or that energy production could be quantised in units of h.

Funny a NASA physicist that reviewed the abstract didn’t catch your obviously brilliant critique.

Did your abstract mention your claim about quantisation? Did he tell you that there was no problem with your abstract?

Funny how gottcha pleases you so much instead of reading the theory which is particularly timely now that NASA has discovered black holes form before galaxies.

When components of your theory are inherently wrong (what you are talking about is akin to claiming that the temperature of a bowl of water is fish), why should we address the parts of your theory that are built on these errors? It would be like checking to see if there were enough napkins in the dining room of the Titanic.

In any event, I will rely on the opinion of someone I think has more credibility than you, unless you happen to be Schrödinger and then I'll defer.

Please provide me with a refernce that shows that you are correct and I will both be shocked and will reconsider my position.

So let’s be clear. I give up the point so I don't have to spend my time with such silly stuff. Point, game match to Fortis.

So do you accept that your claim that

Energy cannot be produced faster than h

is wrong?
Do you also accept that your claim that

The net excess or “rate of exchange” produces the force in multiples of h.

is also wrong, because h is not in units of force?

[Fortis]

Q This is not Schrödinger’s Equation. Schrödinger’s Equation is:

i(h-bar)∂/∂t ψ(r,t) = Hψ(r,t)

where ψ(r,t) is the wavefunction (the probability distribution), H is the Hamiltonian operator, r is the position and t is the time.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Robertson-Schrodinger relation. This is a relation of two Hermitan Operators with a system in a state ψ and gives the probability distributions for two measurements A, B . with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle a special case. Even if this is what you were talking about, the relation between time and energy is ∆t ∆e =≈ h-bar/2, not ∆ t + ∆e = h
A. Right on. Any way, the equation shows unequivocally that time and space are dependent or constrained by h. Neither time or space can expand faster than h and are light dependent

You continue to have problems with dimensional analysis. What would be an appropriate unit to describe the rate of expansion of space? Would it be m/s, or Js?

I'm afraid that this has the look and feel of cargo cult science.

[cj5511]

I notice you didn't mention the group the symmetries belong to and you seemed to end your sentence before stating the conserved quantity. So, what group do the symmetries belong to? What is the conserved quantity? As for your claim that the Lagrangian is comparable to the Schrodinger equation, I didn't ask for a description of it, I asked specifically for you to provide the derivation for it. Can you provide the derivation?

Answer:Guage symmetries E8lie geometry

It is? That is an entirely new definition of the Lagrangian and Schrodinger's equations, at least as far as I've learned them. Perhaps you can show this mathematically.

Answer:The time integral of the Lagrangian is S action.
S=∫ Ldt
And incorporating space time to get the following action.
S│pi│=∫ L │pi(x) │d4 x

The Lagrangian density for a Dirac field applies also and is:
L = ψ(ih-bar P –mc2)ψ
Cyclic system Lagranian also applies, any action in differentiable symmetry is conserved the principle action of least action.
L=T-V
P1:=∂L/∂qi p2 :=∂L/∂qi
L (q1,q2q3q4…q1q2q3q4…’t)
I believe the above show similarities to Schrödinger’s time equation:
E→ i∂/∂t p → i∂/∂x and the following: m(x→) +VdelV=0.



You changed my question. I asked if Xⁿ = c. Not if Xn = c . In your original statement, you claimed that space and time were expanding exponentially as c. Xn=c is not exponential.

Answer:c spirals outward from a wave superposition in space according to Huygen’s principle. The earth is a superposition in space. My theory is that our universe is expanding at the rate of c from every point in space outwardly. That is what I meant.



Is that a zero or the letter O on the right side?

Answer:No comment

That is not the HUP. The HUP is ∆x ∆p ≥ h-bar/ 2. And what exactly do you claim the the delta symbols represent?



This is not Schrödinger’s Equation. Schrödinger’s Equation is:

i(h-bar)∂/∂t ψ(r,t) = Hψ(r,t)

where ψ(r,t) is the wavefunction (the probability distribution), H is the Hamiltonian operator, r is the position and t is the time.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Robertson-Schrodinger relation. This is a relation of two Hermitan Operators with a system in a state ψ and gives the probability distributions for two measurements A, B . with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle a special case. Even if this is what you were talking about, the relation between time and energy is ∆t ∆e =≈ h-bar/2, not ∆ t + ∆e = h.

Answer:Right on. Any way, the equation shows unequivocally that time and space are dependent or constrained by h. Neither time or space can expand faster than h and are light dependent



This is a loverly bunch of word salad, that really makes no sense. For instance, in Schwartzchild coordinates, r is a point, r cannot be less than zero.

Answer:I meant r > rs The Schwarzchild vacuum solution provides concentric spheres have a produce a vacuum white hole surrounding central black hole. I proposed That the universe is such and the quantum vacuum density is equal to Casmir Energy ρo = .046ћc/(4π/3)R4 .

It does no such thing. It simply give you the limits of measurements of one variable, given the measurement of another variable.

Answer: We disagree. Particles could not exist unless there is light production or photons. Time would not exist except for measuring particle‘s momentum over time. Your logic is circular. This variable is measuring that variable is measuring that variable . A variable has to be measure against something and without light no variable could be measured. . I know you will respond, that space-time is the non variable but I contend that the third variable creates the non-variable. Like electromagnetism being two sides of the same coin, I believe space time must incorporate C as a triumvirate of one unitary concept. Space time has no meaning except using the measurement of c. Unless a point in space waves in a direction, it can’t be measured. Without motion and light production time does not move forward. There could be no time without measuring the momentum of a point in space against the speed of light over


Again, that's not what that equation shows. Besides, as I pointed out, the equation you gave is not any kind of real equation. How does this affect your idea?
Answer:See answer above discussion of Lagrangian, including your Robertson-Schrodinger relation


Answer:This violates Relativity. Do you have some experimental evidence to show violations of relativity are possible? If not, do you have the state equations showing what you claim is possible?

Answer:My entire theory is that our universe is a white hole surrounding a black hole center and the white hole expand as it lights up through conserving energy through different energy states by collapsing smaller black hole of matter and matter and light. NASA just announces that black holes form before galaxies which would definitely indicate that a black hole must have some fundamental role in creating galaxies. Also, the idea that matter is created through huge super passion causing a collapse or symmetry breaking of light into particles has experimental coundation with the recent announcement that Seth Putterman at UCLA has produced protons by shooting high energy lasers through crystal. Crystal, a highly symmetric lattice, would produce symmetric wave interference producing superposition high energy, which based on Huygens principle would be the sum of the crossing multiples of c. I use Scharshild equations and Krusckal geomety based on 24 lattice field.


While you have the first law correct, Newton was not the one that formulated it.

Answer:I stand corrected

You do realize that there is no EPR paradox? Using Bell's inequalities, Alain Aspect et al ran experiments that showed that the EPR paradox was false, as there was no "hidden variables". Quatum Field Theory explains the apparent Faster than Light effect quite well.

Answer:It may or may not. It still does not explain virtual particle appearing and disappearing in a vacuum. And don’t use circular logic on me that so and so explains this quite well because everything can be explained by some experimentally unverified theory such as the big bang theory. My theory of the universe being a unitary system explains more phenomena that the big bang which can’t explain such as isotropic flat geometry of the universe. It can’t explain the constant syemtric energy redistribution of continuous energy through pulse an contraction of spinning particle torquing through space. Torque and spin can only be explained by using a closed system model of the universe. The black hole model explains dark energy and dark matter which is matter and energy yet fused with photon producing visible matter. Dark energy + dark matter =Black hole walls of the universe bouding the white hole interior of our universe. A closed system also show why nuclear reaction are so stable and inveariant. It explains why all energy interaction are based on inverse proportion due to the geometry of the expanding universe…. And on and on.


Here is your statement:



Note the bold. If c never changes, then it doesn't evolve over time. It can't be a constant if it evolves over time. So what is it, does it evolve over time, or is it a constant?

Answer:C never changes its speed or rate. The “light” of the universe is expanding at the rate of C, which can be characterized as space-time=light. Light used in this context mean a lighting up of space by photon and matter production emerging out of the fused electromagnetic energy of the black hole universe. I will rewrite that to make it clearer




What exactly do these percentages correspond to? How many grams vs how many cc's?

Answer:Based on the percentage of matter to space of the present universe which is approximately 25 energy density (matter, dark matter and light) to 75% vacuum. Based on Heisenbergs unvertay principle and Boyles law of a closed system, When matter is created, an equal vacuum is created at the same time, or Schwarzschild lattice solution of concentric white hole (vacuum) surrounding a black hole sphere.



How do you reconcile this with the measured expansion rate of ~70 Kms/Mpc for the Hubble constant? Also, how does this explain the measured recession rates of galaxies that are less than c or, for that matter, the measured rates of approach of some galaxies?

Answer:Galaxies expand and are receding at the rate of c. But as I explained before, matter composed of c2 has greater capacity for energy absorption and so expands at a constant rate proportional rate tt c. Hubbles constant is net energy change at every point in the universe as it recedes away from us. The fact that some galaxies are approaching us does not contradict this because galaxies, according to my theory based on Schwarzhield lattice, orbit radially in a flat geometric spherical universe. So some galaxies, like the moon orbiting the earth, approach while other galaxies recede and visa versa. Earth is a wave superposition from which all energy flows outward from a central point. Therefore, from earth all energy redshifts away from us in every direction. Hubbles constant is the net energy emitted at every wave superposition at every point in the universe. Every expanding point produces a red shift since it is expanding outwardly from a a central point in the direction of time away from its original position centrally. Hubbles constant is still tied to the speed of light but represents the net difference of energy emmision between four interacting energy waves conserving their linear momemtum. My theory is the qudrupolar interacting energy waves are based on C3..The four waves are e c(em)+c2(matter)+-c (vaccum)

[Hornblower]

Answer:Galaxies expand and are receding at the rate of c. But as I explained before, matter composed of c2 has greater capacity for energy absorption and so expands at a constant rate proportional rate tt c. Hubbles constant is net energy change at every point in the universe as it recedes away from us. The fact that some galaxies are approaching us does not contradict this because galaxies, according to my theory based on Schwarzhield lattice, orbit radially in a flat geometric spherical universe. So some galaxies, like the moon orbiting the earth, approach while other galaxies recede and visa versa. Earth is a wave superposition from which all energy flows outward from a central point. Therefore, from earth all energy redshifts away from us in every direction. Hubbles constant is the net energy emitted at every wave superposition at every point in the universe. Every expanding point produces a red shift since it is expanding outwardly from a a central point in the direction of time away from its original position centrally. Hubbles constant is still tied to the speed of light but represents the net difference of energy emmision between four interacting energy waves conserving their linear momemtum. My theory is the qudrupolar interacting energy waves are based on C3..The four waves are e c(em)+c2(matter)+-c (vaccum)

Please translate "proportional rate tt c" into plain English.

Please explain, in appropriate mathematical detail, why you think Hubble's constant is a quantity of energy.

Please tell us, in appropriate mathematical detail, what an expanding point is.

[cj5511]

h has the value, in SI units, of roughly 6.626068x10^-34 Js. If it was a value of energy produced per second the units would surely be J/s.

ANSWER: So are you saying that I should state my theory in terms of j/s rather tha h.

Do you have a reference for that? For Bohr it was angular momentum that was quantised in units of h_bar, or h/(2.Pi). Electromagnetic radiation comes in discrete packets, or quanta, called photons which possess the energy h.f, where f is the frequency of the radiation. None of the claimed that energy was quantised in units of h, or that energy production could be quantised in units of h.

ANSWER: We agree and disagree. The photon radiates is a standing outwardly directed radiated light into the vacuum of the white hole. The photon is produced only when an electron conserves its linear momentum through angular momentum. When it reaches its quantum state or maximum energy absorption, the ruptures and produces a photon conserving its inertial mass. The only difference is the equality of charges Both the electron and the photon are electromagnetic in character. A photon in and of its self does not produce a force, but radiates electromagnetic energy until once again acted on and an exchange of energy occurs in multiples of h. is a consequence of the energy rate of exchange which produces flux. After the photon is emitted, until it is acted on by another particle, it has no force but emit continuous electromagnetic radiation. Here is a quote from David Bohm using the “multiples of h” statement when discussing energy wave function.

“ Our basic problem is to propose some direct physical interpretation of the function , S which appear in the place of the wave function as ( w = R c2) and which is, according to our theory, also the transformation function defining the basic constants of motion; for if we are to explain the change S around a circuit is restricted to multiples of h we must evidently assume that S is somehow related to some physical system, in such as way that eis/h cannot be other than a single value.” David Bohm Wholeness and the Implicate Order, pg. 122-123 Routledge London 1980. So would agree if I said that all forces derived from a wave phase change or “flux” is limited to quantum multiples of h.

Did your abstract mention your claim about quantisation? Did he tell you that there was no problem with your abstract?

ANSWER:

A. To be specific, he was an ex-NASA physicist, and no he did not. Let’s be clear my theory is based on electromagnetic waves interfering with each other and producing particles coalescing around the vertices of the negative energy loattice. There is no quantization, but only electromagnetic frozen lattice energy that occilates in both the positive and negative direction; em linear momentum waves, and particle defined as “spherical cavity radiation” with infinite angular momentum moving radially around the quadrupolar lattice which incorporates the Dirac spinorS.

pdf/awarded/1988/prigogine_geheniau_gunzig_nardone.pdf,

When components of your theory are inherently wrong (what you are talking about is akin to claiming that the temperature of a bowl of water is fish), why should we address the parts of your theory that are built on these errors? It would be like checking to see if there were enough napkins in the dining room of the Titanic.

ANSWER: A. I am not the only one who have proposed the black hole universe. Do a google search and plenty of scholarly papers proposing the math supportin the role of black holes in creating universe. My only contribution is to provide a theoretical framework that makes this understandable. There are others who have greater ability than I who have already done the math. My theory differs in that I blend it with the vacuum lattice and propose the fourth missing field of the vacuum that provides tor the stability of quantum interactions. In an open universe these quantum interactos would simply fly apart. There would be nothing holding particles together. Like waking off the edge of ships sailing over the edge of the earth into a great abys, quantum interactions and partivles would have disappeared long before the formation of the earth.

Please provide me with a refernce that shows that you are correct and I will both be shocked and will reconsider my position.

ANSWER: See above discussion about Von Laue stating that Planck came up with “cavity radiation” character of the electron and David Bohms statement. I will correct it in my abstract.

So do you accept that your claim that

is wrong?
Do you also accept that your claim that

is also wrong, because h is not in units of force?

ANSWER: Again, we come from different world views, both supported by different schools of thought. However, I am proposing that the “new” idea that that it is the negative energy field of the vacuum that produces the stability of particle in a field, and not the radiated quantization of the particles themselves. I think we are talking about the same thing when you used

[gzhpcu]

What is the purpose for h but a measure of energy production over time. Tell me what you think h is if its not = energy produced per second. No energy or force can be produced at rates faster than h unit of time. What energy system produces energy at a rate faster than than h? h is the threshold of energy production. I guess Bohr, Schrödinger, and Bohm were wrong when they used the teim "all particle interactions are limited to multiples of h."

The Planck constant is not in units of energy per second. It is energy times second, which is not the same thing.

It is the relation between the energy of a photon and its frequency, as described by the equation.

The multiples are of hv, not h!

[tusenfem]

Funny a NASA physicist that reviewed the abstract didn’t catch your obviously brilliant critique.

I can hardly believe that a "NASA physicist" had no comments on your abstract, as it is basically your OP, which is full of mistakes, already pointed out by Fortis. Did you perhaps consider "no answer" from this person as a "confirmation" of your ideas?

[Fortis]

Originally Posted by Fortis
h has the value, in SI units, of roughly 6.626068x10-34 Js. If it was a value of energy produced per second the units would surely be J/s.

ANSWER: So are you saying that I should state my theory in terms of j/s rather tha h.

Yes and no. You can use h as part of an equation if you like, but h does not have the correct dimensions to be a a quantity of "rate of energy production", or similar. Hence your claim regarding Plancks constant, h, e.g. "Energy cannot be produced faster than h" is inherently wrong. This is not wrong because the mainstream is claiming that energy can be produced faster than h. It is wrong in the same way that claiming that "energy cannot be produced faster than lemon" is wrong.

Do you have a reference for that? For Bohr it was angular momentum that was quantised in units of h_bar, or h/(2.Pi). Electromagnetic radiation comes in discrete packets, or quanta, called photons which possess the energy h.f, where f is the frequency of the radiation. None of the claimed that energy was quantised in units of h, or that energy production could be quantised in units of h.

ANSWER: We agree and disagree. The photon radiates is a standing outwardly directed radiated light into the vacuum of the white hole. The photon is produced only when an electron conserves its linear momentum through angular momentum. When it reaches its quantum state or maximum energy absorption, the ruptures and produces a photon conserving its inertial mass. The only difference is the equality of charges Both the electron and the photon are electromagnetic in character. A photon in and of its self does not produce a force, but radiates electromagnetic energy until once again acted on and an exchange of energy occurs in multiples of h. is a consequence of the energy rate of exchange which produces flux. After the photon is emitted, until it is acted on by another particle, it has no force but emit continuous electromagnetic radiation. Here is a quote from David Bohm using the “multiples of h” statement when discussing energy wave function.

“ Our basic problem is to propose some direct physical interpretation of the function , S which appear in the place of the wave function as ( w = R c2) and which is, according to our theory, also the transformation function defining the basic constants of motion; for if we are to explain the change S around a circuit is restricted to multiples of h we must evidently assume that S is somehow related to some physical system, in such as way that eis/h cannot be other than a single value.” David Bohm Wholeness and the Implicate Order, pg. 122-123 Routledge London 1980. So would agree if I said that all forces derived from a wave phase change or “flux” is limited to quantum multiples of h.

Bohm is talking here about the quantisation of "action". Guess what the SI units of action are? They are Js, the same as the SI units for h. He is not talking about rates of energy production, which you were. I'm afraid that this quote does not help you.

Can I ask if you obtained this quote just by Googling, or was this something that you were already aware of before I asked my question?

Did your abstract mention your claim about quantisation? Did he tell you that there was no problem with your abstract?

ANSWER:

A. To be specific, he was an ex-NASA physicist, and no he did not.

Just to be clear he did not say that there was no problem with your abstract, i.e. he didn't say that your abstract was OK? Did he say anything about your abstract?

When components of your theory are inherently wrong (what you are talking about is akin to claiming that the temperature of a bowl of water is fish), why should we address the parts of your theory that are built on these errors? It would be like checking to see if there were enough napkins in the dining room of the Titanic.

ANSWER: A. I am not the only one who have proposed the black hole universe. Do a google search and plenty of scholarly papers proposing the math supportin the role of black holes in creating universe. My only contribution is to provide a theoretical framework that makes this understandable. There are others who have greater ability than I who have already done the math. My theory differs in that I blend it with the vacuum lattice and propose the fourth missing field of the vacuum that provides tor the stability of quantum interactions. In an open universe these quantum interactos would simply fly apart. There would be nothing holding particles together. Like waking off the edge of ships sailing over the edge of the earth into a great abys, quantum interactions and partivles would have disappeared long before the formation of the earth.

My point is that the foundation of your theory is inherently wrong (see my earlier posts). Let's say I was looking to buy a house. If I see that it is built on a foundation of jelly (or Jello if you are from the other side of the pond ), I wouldn't bother even walking through the front door. If you can convince me that h is in the correct units to describe a rate of energy production then I would be happy to consider the rest of your theory. Until then, I really don't see the point.

Please provide me with a refernce that shows that you are correct and I will both be shocked and will reconsider my position.

ANSWER: See above discussion about Von Laue stating that Planck came up with “cavity radiation” character of the electron and David Bohms statement. I will correct it in my abstract.

I'm afraid I can't see any discussion about von Laue, and your quote from Bohm does not back up your claim (see above.)

So do you accept that your claim that

is wrong?
Do you also accept that your claim that



ANSWER: Again, we come from different world views, both supported by different schools of thought. However, I am proposing that the “new” idea that that it is the negative energy field of the vacuum that produces the stability of particle in a field, and not the radiated quantization of the particles themselves. I think we are talking about the same thing when you used

Does your different world view allow you to make statements, such as "my car can travel as fast as pink"? These claims are inherently wrong.

Please read up on dimensional analysis, for example on this page, and hopefully you will gain a better understanding of why you are wrong.

[gzhpcu]

ANSWER: Again, we come from different world views, both supported by different schools of thought.

Concretely, what other schools of thought are you referring to?

[Fortis]

cj5511, the following may make the problem more concrete.

You claim that

Energy cannot be produced faster than h"

Planck's constant, h, has the value 6.626068 × 10^-34 Js.
In 1 second, what is the maximum amount of energy that can be produced, if the maximum rate of energy production is h?
Please provide the units for your answer.

[cj5511]

The Planck constant is not in units of energy per second. It is energy times second, which is not the same thing.

It is the relation between the energy of a photon and its frequency, as described by the equation.

The multiples are of hv, not h!

ANSWERebroglie equations
P=h/w
W =wave length
P=e/c
E=hv=hc/w so p=h=hc/cw =h/w w=h/p
E=hc/w so P=h/w

Heisenberg uncertainty principle
∆x∆p = h-bar

I don't disagree. But two interacting particles producing a force cannot exceed h. One particle Radiating non force producing energy is e=hv. See David Bohm statement below.

[cj5511]

I can hardly believe that a "NASA physicist" had no comments on your abstract, as it is basically your OP, which is full of mistakes, already pointed out by Fortis. Did you perhaps consider "no answer" from this person as a "confirmation" of your ideas?

Answer: I said he had no comment about the quantisation raised by Fortis

[cj5511]

Yes and no. You can use h as part of an equation if you like, but h does not have the correct dimensions to be a a quantity of "rate of energy production", or similar. Hence your claim regarding Plancks constant, h, e.g. "Energy cannot be produced faster than h" is inherently wrong. This is not wrong because the mainstream is claiming that energy can be produced faster than h. It is wrong in the same way that claiming that "energy cannot be produced faster than lemon" is wrong.

Bohm is talking here about the quantisation of "action". Guess what the SI units of action are? They are Js, the same as the SI units for h. He is not talking about rates of energy production, which you were. I'm afraid that this quote does not help you.

Can I ask if you obtained this quote just by Googling, or was this something that you were already aware of before I asked my question?

Just to be clear he did not say that there was no problem with your abstract, i.e. he didn't say that your abstract was OK? Did he say anything about your abstract?

My point is that the foundation of your theory is inherently wrong (see my earlier posts). Let's say I was looking to buy a house. If I see that it is built on a foundation of jelly (or Jello if you are from the other side of the pond ), I wouldn't bother even walking through the front door. If you can convince me that h is in the correct units to describe a rate of energy production then I would be happy to consider the rest of your theory. Until then, I really don't see the point.

I'm afraid I can't see any discussion about von Laue, and your quote from Bohm does not back up your claim (see above.)

Does your different world view allow you to make statements, such as "my car can travel as fast as pink"? These claims are inherently wrong.

Please read up on dimensional analysis, for example on this page, and hopefully you will gain a better understanding of why you are wrong.

Answer: I am using Bohm's definition of "action" between two energy states, or "interACTION' of two energy particle limited to the time-rate of h. I have been saying that all alon.. The interaction between two particel produces a "quanta" or a flux of energy. This is and has always been my meaning.

[cj5511]

Concretely, what other schools of thought are you referring to?

The school of Enstein and Schrodinger who believed all fields were electromagentic in origin.

[Fortis]

Answer: I am using Bohm's definition of "action" between two energy states,

Action has a well understood definition in physics which is different to the common usage. It is not energy.

or "interACTION' of two energy particle limited to the time-rate of h.

What does the "time-rate of h" mean?

I have been saying that all alon..

No. You have said things like "Energy cannot be produced faster than h", and clearly that is wrong for all the reasons that I have previously given.

The interaction between two particel produces a "quanta" or a flux of energy. This is and has always been my meaning.

Flux of energy, sounds like a flow of energy, which presumably be measured in J/s. h is in units of Js. These are completely different.

Can you answer my previous question?

Planck's constant, h, has the value 6.626068 × 10-34 Js.
In 1 second, what is the maximum amount of energy that can be produced, if the maximum rate of energy production is h, as per your claim?
Please provide the units for your answer.

This is a direct question.