I was told to come to this board.
My bread is.
https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/2126184.html#2452017
This is basically the Lorentz transformation in graphic form 2D, By changing the angle of what I called the light square from 45 degrees. See https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/2126184.html#2463036
Each expansion of the square can be viewed as the fold to the 3D and the view of the side of cube as well.
Nice. The circle rotated. ArcTriangle
Each factor might be used as a dimension or axis
Well Well Lookie at that.
You forgot the torque angle, in non perfect squares) created by the tensors rotating the central tensor square. Note the area lost in moving to a rectangle is converted to area in Z axis.
opps better torque picture.
3D 30 degree shift of cube,shifted from 45 degree, Blue is cube, red is tensor lines, and black is 2D.
Link Mandelbrot to Euclidean?
Tetrahedrons? 4 isosceles triangles to find center of next larger circle and 3 of the smaller circles. Note these 2X circles are shifted 1/2 radius of 1X circles to the right. Mandelbrot has both scale shift and shift of self similar pattern like this diagram.
Look at your grid lines and tell me they don't look like triangles and there are circles thrown in there too.
Picture Representation of scale shift R to 2R and self similar shift to +1/2R.
The golden mean is also a shift in scale. Se the full circles not just the arcs.
The grid shifts dimensional angles from what I have seen.
Like this picture of the Golden Mean with every square as a plane shifted at 45 degree angles.
30 to 45 to 60 degree interaction?
Then Factors.
The 30,45,60 and 90 are all factors of 15 so break all those out into 15 degree rectangles in a new geometric plane and view. Then 15 has factors of 3 and 5 so you can break 3 and 5 out into a new geometric plane and plot those. Are you seeing my self similar geometric progression here? I place all planes at 0,0,0 for symmetry and so I don't wind up with something like the Mandelbrot.
Interesting.
The slider thing up to the 3D definitely follows the sin and cos wave functions. After that since the dimensional origin area starts poking back into the the lower dimensions. Thus the Hopf sphere. Sorry second picture is EM but basically shows Cos as X axis and Sin as Y axis.
Note area of each cube plane will remain the same.
Opps I think I got that wrong.
45 Degrees same velocity, 30 degrees slower velocity, and 60 degrees faster relative velocity.
wrong attachment
I noticed my Naked Wave Axis were a little too warped to understand real well so I cleaned them up - probably loosing mathematical precision.
Random Gravity research.
Finished the calculations on Gravity tensor creating a 100 unit radius deviation symmetrically.
gravity asymmetry point 100 degree not 90
Well I noticed in reviewing the original stuff that it looked like diagonals reaching away in space that would make triangles (and squares) or dimension shifts. I notice everyone treating them like points or lines but not connecting the different points.
If those two calculations are connected on the line, you could connect the tetrahedrons and it would be a significant shift in axis and scale..
Linear shift of the points. Draw the lines different and it becomes also a rotational shift.
I will happily pick your brain on this as sin and cos are the answer (ie wave axis), this is what I am working on right now. The basic gravity deviation of Einstein tensor that would create a symmetrical 100 unit space time deviation and how it might relate to sub 4D dimensions. One anomaly is the 100 degree angle and 50.73 length. Still working on below 4D line measurements and angles.
And when you change angles across dimensions it changes the line length via Lorentz.
Also note when you create a square you also create a grid in a new dimension.
I get your process. It is like when I rotate around the axis a set (form) You are rotating - remember to calculate the angle rotated.
You are right I read it wrong and then went on.
But when you do switch dimensions remember there is two angles the one on the plane, the one to the new dimension and then the angles related on the new dimension. Plane, Plane shift Then new plane
I guess I was thinking plane shift angle sorry
Finished the calculations below 4D line. Note the triangles below 4D line are spun and define the 10 degree shift noted inside the 4D sphere.
Question where have I seen this figure before?
Corrected triangle math - sorry
just below 4D line is this.
Rotation angle of triangle is 10 degrees and changes the top angle from 90 to 80
Off Topic But…..
Last night in bed it occurred to me that the 90 degree dimensional shift can be seen as an arc moving from grid plane to new point outside grid plane. The arcangle of the arc will define the perspective from the original plane and the graph area from the original 4D plane. The non graph area of the new triangle/square will be in the imaginary plane. The angle of the arc/curve close to 45 will give a high graphable area; An angle closer to 0 or 90 will give a very small graphable area (or I may have that reversed).
Second iteration of mandelbrot in Euclid - my interpretation. See
https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/2126184.html#2658736
hi
A quantum wave return is the solid evidence seen. it is the matter or physical evidence that shows something is 'real'. The quantum wave is all possibilities that exist for that query. Which is real as the first is just a probability?
I guess I cannot prove it. What thread? Basically what I see VQC is that question - the quantum wave and what I have seen shown is basically a multi dimensional grid that had diagonals and rarely some circle components (the early stuff) when graphed. My stuff I am trying to see if anons can figure the pattern of that multidimensional grid as I think it is the answer to the TOE. Why do I think that I think that the graphing in that manner will pass Einstein and show that fractal and Euclidean connect and give us the pattern of how space time works in toto. What thread should that be in?
I will give it a read.
I did that in general Q and no one gets it.
https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/2126184.html#2662114
my shit doesn't quite fit in anywhere
it
You must have two known values of the right triangle to figure out all the other parts, angles and lengths.
opps incircle
it looks like the innercircle center will be at the bisector point of the 45 degree bisector of the right triangle. And thus the radius would be half the outer radius intuitively working on proving it for you as the numbers are at a 45 degree angle from x and y
Ok got it - to get the center of the inner circle it takes first drawing the perpendicular to the 45 degree angle radius of outside circle. Then if you bisect the small middle triangle using the 30 and 60 degree rectangle vertexes you find the center of the inner circle.
This finishes off the inner circle finishing the squares to the perimeter (orange).
if you were looking for this innercircle the center is 29.2 by 29.2 and hypotenuse is 41.2 the radius. To prove that I would have to bisect the inner square the other direction and then drop bisectors from the 30 and 60 degree angle lines crossing that square bisector. Then to complete confirmation square the 1st quadrant of the circle to check the numbers. Like the first example.
so essentially you are using the sin for the y axis and cos for the x axis to move the square bisector to the origin of the inner circle and finishing the 1st quadrant square to confirm the hypotenuse of that square is the radius.
The perpendiculars 30 and 60 degree added so it makes more sense.
No 33 56 65 is not a right triangle, not sure what you are trying to do but it might be like the rotated triangle problem I ran into.
The best way I know to solve for a non right triangle is to make a right triangle where you have overlap of angles and then calculate the difference in angles to thus calculate the non right triangle angles that will total to 180. For example the rotated angle below the hemisphere plane changed to 80 from 90 and I had to find all the angles totaling to 360 at the crossing of the right and rotated triangle to determine the 10 degree shift of the rotated triangle.
Completely ignore this Post I punched it in the calculator wrong they are both right triangles.
Saw this and wondered if it was connected at all to vqc
link to animated gif:
http://theoryofeverything.org/theToE/tags/math/
Do these Lie 8 group numbers correspond with the numbers found in vqc?
I am looking at the Lie 8 Group and it just reminded me a lot of some of the early stuff on this board. I have no idea if it fits, just that it is a set of 246 dimensions based on a 8 dimensional spirial - rather complex
If that pattern of Lie 8 is correct it could completely change our physics and lots of advances
>>2707873 (You)
>>2707996 (You)
Geometric projection of Lie 8 group onto a higher dimensional manifold (ie hopf sphere - the Hydrogen atom electron field) will cause the scale shifts seen in the Mandelbrot set as the flat plane curls in and out on itself.
Can some please check my MATH - something is wrong.
I am digging nuclear fission verses actual documented energy in nucleus and think I found a discrepancy. The strongest and majority of force in a nucleus is the Strong Nuclear force. So trying to compare the Strong Nuclear Force Energy to the Energy of Fission.
Strong Nuclear Force
The strong force acts between quarks. Unlike all other forces (electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational), the strong force does not diminish in strength with increasing distance between pairs of quarks. After a limiting distance (about the size of a hadron) has been reached, it remains at a strength of about 10,000 newtons (N), no matter how much farther the distance between the quarks.[5]
Fission
Typical fission events release about two hundred million eV (200 MeV) of energy, the equivalent of roughly >2 trillion Kelvin, for each fission event.
Size of Nucleus:
The size (diameter) of the nucleus is between 1.6 fm (10−15 m) (for a proton in light hydrogen) to about 15 fm (for the heaviest atoms, such as uranium).
10,000/(15*10^-15)=.000000000000666 and that converts to 4.15684331565551 MeV.
and
200MeV converts to 0.0000000000320435 Newton meters.
There is an order difference of 4,800 times more energy in the fission reaction than the strong nuclear force.in Newton Meters and it appears 48.1 order of difference in MeV.
I must have done something wrong.
Well I am a newbie to your theory basically from the plots I have seen it is Lorentz transforms with a few other geographic figures in different planes. I guess I would need a solid spreadsheet to stare at for a while and see what jumped out to my geometry skills.
And that the original square to larger square minus the outer little square is basically the inner circle of the square.
Have you guys considered a lot of these numbers would fit nicely into a Lie Group and would take you to the Quantum level? Manifolds flat curved and warped can then be applied, then you will discover the breaking of symmetry that Higgs did that appears to create mass. The geometry of that is important to further advancement of humanity IMO.
I am looking into Lie groups this is one learning video watch the first 2 min and see if it fits.
you all are better at math than me. i just am good at patterns and stuff.
At the 12:15 point this guy gets to your even and odd stuff.
For example this guy points out that multiplication is a zoom in or out.
at about the 18 min mark in that video the is fundamentally showing dimensional shifts and how they shadow in 2D - personally i never knew that was the exponent value until now.
At about 19:30 he is explaining that the circle of i (imaginary plane) is the circle equivalent to the Y axis. That i is an axis that is Y equivalent shadowed onto 2 D.
his next video is pretty but I don't get it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0NjbwqlYw
got it thanks
all i (imaginary numbers) are a set of the unit circle 90 degrees from x and y. And that is how string was born probably.
so essentially group theory is the rotation of the axis around the 'group' and seeing how that 'changes' the group.
Opps all red is =2(nd)-2(ed) or if you want just one arm don't multiply by two.
possibly two close circle rotations around x and Y and all the others are diagonal at a lower scale - maybe. The first circle rotation is about 8 degrees and then is spins into 3d and warps into ellipses is what I see.
I know this is off topic as it is about my discovery that even physics say 99 percent of mass is not matter but binding energy. But I need a better math fag than I am. I basically want to figure out the energy per meter of a proton. Here is my feeble attempt:
How big is the proton?
Because protons are not fundamental particles, they possess a physical size, though not a definite one; the root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm or0.84×10−15 to0.87×10−15 m.
Mass of Proton
Mass
1.672621898X. 10−27 kg[1]
938.2720813(58) MeV/c2[2]
the speed of light =
299 792 458 m / s
E=mc^2
EProton= 1. 672621898 X10^-27 Kg* (299 792 458 m / s)^2
= 1. 672621898e-27 Kg* 8.987551787e+16
=1.50327759289610516349668072e-10 Kgm/s
How big is the proton?
Because protons are not fundamental particles, they possess a physical size, though not a definite one; the root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm or0.84×10−15 to0.87×10−15 m.
Thus the Energy per meter area is:
The energy of Proton / the area of the proton
1.50327759289610516349668072e-10 Kgm/s / 0.85e-15m=
= 176856.18739954178394078596705882 Kg/s
Option 2:
Ratio of area of proton to c^2=
0.85e-15 m / 8.987551787e+16 m/s=
=9.4575254768431856157937707803052e-33 seconds
This is the area of energy the proton contains.
If you then divide the EProton by the ratio of area of proton to c^2=
15895041431120167484788.273385791 kgm
I have been looking at the figure - looks more like a spiral spun in 3 or 4 d. Do you have a higher res picture?