Well done. Notably, a lot of this is beyond me but I appreciate it when a little bit of insight reduces everything to something simple and consistent. That's usually a good sign.
Wonderful to find that you are still broadcasting, Lori. You unlocked Angular Momentum for me, then the AnoMagMo/FStruConst relation. You critically forwarded my discoveries in Spheric Geometry. I consider you a unique rational physicist on youTube, the very best. You also tipped me to K Wheeler, whose book I rewrote (so it can be *read*). Alas, Ken is too paranoid now to consider Spheric Geometry. Quite sad! My own 650 video series ended this week for Sabbatical, but I intend to contact Alexander Unzicker, who also needs Spheric Geometry. Thank you, Dr. Gardi, you are a rare inspiration to true Scientists!
I would like to see her do a video on Crowley's unicursal symbol. The geometry of that symbol shows up in quantum computing grids and neural networks. Definitely significant
The choice between using h vs h-bar is not open to debate. h-bar is just an orthographic convenience used in equations that involve h/2pi. Using h-bar instead of h/2pi is like using “Mr.” instead of “Mister”.
I think you are missing the point. The question is, WHEN do we use h and WHEN do we use h/2pi? After years of research, I have come to the following conclusion: we use non-reduced Planck's constant (h) when we are in using cyclic frequency, f, with units cycles per second in the equations and use non-reduced Planck's constant, h-bar (h/2pi), when are using angular frequency, w, with unit radians per second in the equations. It is as simple as that. The reason physicist prefer radians is because the calculators/computers usually default to radian in the sine and cosine functions. There is no sine and cosine function on the calculator/computer that is calibrated in terms of cycle, although I could easily write a computer function that does this. The equation E = hf is calibrated to the cycle. The equation E = h-bar w is calibrated to the radian. The radian is not special. The radian is the angle such that the arc length is equal to the radius of the circle. The cycle (2pi radians, 360 degrees) is the angle such that the arc length is equal to the CIRCUMFERENCE of the circle. That is the difference. The circumference of the circle is physically special. The arc length that equals the radius of the circle has no special physical meaning. One radian is equal to ~57 degrees. The radian doesn't even divide evenly into one cycle. In this sense, the degree would be better because it DOES divide evenly into one cycle. Radians is merely convenient because our calculators/computers default to radian in the sine and cosine function. People use h/2pi because they want to report frequency in terms of radians so they can do all of their sine and cosine function using radians. I use h because I want to report frequency in terms of cycles. Cycle has a better physical meaning in my opinion and... since I am trying to understand the "physic-al" universe, I find it better to use cycle instead of radian in all the equations of physics.
ruclips.net/video/Bf7_8m7sYUo/видео.htmlsi=VU2amqcYiI66ZOl0 This video covers the first part of the paper "On Physical Lines of Force", titled "The Theory of Molecular Vortices Applied to Magnetic Phenomena." To aid in understanding Maxwell's concepts, the video includes additional illustrations and equations. I hope you like it.
Thanks for sharing this video. It is very cool. I'm assuming it was AI generated? Yes, my model is exactly based on and inspired by Maxwell's molecular vortices. If I were to publish a paper on my work, I would definitely have to reference his work. That said, I don't think I will ever be able to publish a paper that uses the Yin Yang symbol as a schematic for the model, and this is a very important feature of my work.
@@FractalWoman Yes, I used AI software in the part where Maxwell talk and for voices. I made this video because it is generally difficult to read Maxwell. I hope this can make more people to try to understand Maxwell’s original papers directly. I will study your intersting work. Thank you very much!
Planck's constant is a constant of action, and that action is the complete rotation of a sphere having Plank length radius. Hbar is considered "quantized" because the allowed radii must be multiples of Planck length, but what hbar represents in and of itself is somewhat abstract. It still has to be multiplied by 2pi to get the energy value for a complete rotation. Point being, hbar *is* useful *if* we remember why and when to use it.
Here is what I found. When we use cyclic frequency with units [cycles/second] then we need to use h. When we use angular frequency with units [radians/second] then we need to use h-bar. Also, the difference between using h and h-bar in the Planck natural unit calculations is the SQUARE ROOT of 2pi, not 2pi directly. In other words, the difference between reduced Planck length and non-reduced Planck length is the square root of 2pi. This is where we run into a problem. In terms of quantization, h-bar is quantized (quantified) by the radian and h is quantized (quantified) by the cycle (once complete cycle). In this manner, one is not better than the other in terms of quantization. They are just quantized by a different quantity. "Planck's constant is a constant of action, and that action is the complete rotation of a sphere having Plank length radius." In theOMparticle model, Planck's constant is the "action" of complete rotation of a sphere with a circumference of non-reduced Planck length and a radius of non-reduced Planck length divided by 2pi. That is how I "quantify" my system. This works out great and I am very happy with the results I am getting. Reduced Planck constant, h-bar, has no place in my cosmology as I am calibrated to the CYCLE and not the RADIAN.
@@dbz5808 In Planck natural units, the square root is taken so that the units work out to be correct. For example, for Planck length, the units must work out to be the meter. If I don't take the square root, then the units of the formula would be meters squared. I don't generally take the square root of Planck's constant directly.
This is a solid topological and mathematical fusion of particle physics to contemporary computer sciences. Superfluid Universe old RUclips video has great animation that aligns to the rigorous calculations you've assessed / defined.
Studies of nuclear forces indicate that nucleons and atoms are highly repulsive at close radius. Newton thought that this was due to the ether condensed around matter vs out and away from regular natter in the vacuum, where the vacuum is devoid of matter. Studies using the Schwarzschild math and flux density indicate that sunspots should produce a so-called singularity. However, it has been shown that sunspots subject to such a condensed state of storage, results in and over pressure and ejection of the magnetic flux from the plasmoid or sunspot and a mass ejection from the chromosphere. This is consistent with the idea that the ether particles (according to Newton are condensed around matter) become highly repulsive when condensed into a confined space, also per the Casimir effect, and the result is relativistic jets and the ejection of a pure Poynting flux, just like from the galactic core, tokamaks, and Herbig-Haros. So, by experiment and observation, a singularity cannot form, else an over pressure will result and prevent such singularity, nor can a Big Bang have ever manifested as the origin of the Universe, let alone explain how matter was created from nothing in any proposed beginning of the Universe, or matter, via the expansion model.
Ether particles are repulsive. Ether repels Ether. When matter comes into being (at the big phase transition, a.k.a. the big bang), Ether SURROUNDS matter. This is what we perceive as the electric field (first order force) and the gravitational field (second order force).At the Planck scale, these two forces are equal.
I only have a few videos up here. I have some shorts of some of my experiments where I saw these vortex shapes. I also have one with a video with a blue laser where you can see the way light flip-flops inside out, but I also catch this shot of a perfect vortex shape that is very radical. The top of the vortex is curved halfway down the stem of the vortex making a dramatic U shape. It also has lines that get closer toward the bottom of the vortex. I did these experiments trying to replicate some experiments I saw Roger Spurr over on Mudfossil university doing. You might find his picture of photons in laser beams helpful too. They obviously exhibit your om particles. He makes lots of videos about it. The green pictures show them clearest. One last thing, I interpret the yin yang as two tornadoes trapped in a sphere with the small ends feeding into the center of the big ends moving in the direction of the small side of the tornadoes. You and Mr. Macken have the real theory of everything! ❤️
Thanks. I also like the work of Roger Spurr and his electron flood theory. I would like to replicate his experiments but I need more information as to how the images are captured and he doesn't seem to want to talk to me. Are you able to replicate his results?
@@FractalWoman I can't get singular photons like he has because I keep buying galaxy s3 phones for the cmos camera and they are broke or garbage when I get them, but I can get effects just like he shows. It's all about squeezing the light through an opening smaller than the beam. I think about it like breaking the beam. Sharp corners on strong magnets and different materials like thread, wire or bubbles. Instead of two slits just make one. II've been doing it with magnets that are attracting but not touching or smashed together repelljng, and it's amazing what I can make happen, but very hard to get on camera. The best stuff I have on camera is up here on RUclips and I write about this stuff frequently on X and the stack. If you check out my videos, look at the shapes the "lense flares" make and how they behave. Roger is a great guy. We speak fairly frequently.
@@billschwandt1 I don't think Roger likes me very much. I offered to help him many times but he kept ignoring me. So I called him out on it, but his responds wasn't that great. Maybe you could put in a good word for me. On second thought, maybe I'm better off just doing my own thing.
@@FractalWoman I get it. He is very old 😂 I sent your videos to him, and he usually at least checks out what I send him so we will see. I think you are going to be fine either way. I look at this theory of everything stuff constantly and this is the best I have ever seen. Keep up the great work!!! 🫡
Hi Lori, fantastic work as always.....On page 15 of your paper you note an interesting relationship between the Electrons Compton radius and its Schwarzchild radius in terms of the Surface area of the Planck Soliton. Just wondering if the Planck soliton, Schwarzchild electron , electron , proton etc. are simply the natural stable harmonic conditions of the Aether and that the differences in Harmonic states is simply a function of the Planck soliton?
That is exactly what I am thinking. In the livestream with John Macken, we talked a bit about heterodyning. These three soliton scales may in fact be heterodynes of each other. But I don't have proof for that...yet.
@@drake_sterling I don't know how you figure that out, but swarzschild is German, schwarz meaning black and schild meaning shield. Like rothschild is derived from rot schild meaning red shield from family coat of arms.
Excellent insights!! If I am to understand this, what you are proposing is that at every point in space and at every moment in time there is a force (AUM) expanding at the speed of light in all directions that moves all objects! What this suggests is that this is the source of all forces and the source of all neural signal and neural patterns (our thoughts). Am I correct?
Regarding expansion, this is not what I am saying. The universe may be expanding, and if it is, it is happening in the fractal sense. The universe is "expanding" because the smallest measuring stick is shrinking. You may want to check out the work of Blair Macdonald: vixra.org/author/blair_d_macdonald IN particular, this paper: Fractal Geometry a Possible Explanation to the Accelerating Expansion of the Universe and Other Standard ΛCDM Model Anomalies
@@FractalWoman Thanks for clarifying. When I say expanding, it visually appears to me to be having this effect on objects. It becomes to me a visual illusion and in effect has a different property.
Thank you for encouraging me to follow through and start posting videos with my own thoughts. I have just uploaded my first one today introducing myself, titled “Why I Began Researching the Origin of the Universe”
I just had a quick look and he did say something in this video (ruclips.net/video/UvqDUDSsunw/видео.html) that was really interesting. He said that electrons and positrons co-exist in the atom but the electron is going forward in time and the positron is going backward in time and so they can never annihilate because they can never meet up. Now I'm not so sure about the "forward in time" and "backward in time" terminology. I would prefer to say "forward in phase" and "backward in phase". That way, there is no contradiction. Interestingly, I have often referred the "Yin Yang" model as an electron-positron pair and so there might be some similarities to what Gavin is saying and what I am saying.
@@FractalWoman I find his theories and your theories interesting. I'm also a never big bang type. It just never sat well with me and now the the JWST is showing larges galaxies further back and closer to the so called beginning, the new math keeps adapting and theories keep changing in an effort to preserve the dogma of big bang. Gavin has some long format movies. That 1/137 comes up with the electron orbital around a hydrogen atom is such that the ground state of hydrogen may not be the true ground state by Randell Mill in his Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics which is 2 or 3 levels above my ability.
lol...sending you a tip bc I just realized how deep this concept has affected me I want to encurage you bc I feel like you are onto something...what triggered that thought was the relationship between pulsars and black holes I can't described it but I was trying imagine what it would look if like there was some kind of way to deliberate an equivilence that would allow an observer to in one frame to observe a pulsar while an observer in a different frame might observe a black hole instead lol...if that even makes sense...I get a little spacey when I try to imagine this stuff but content like yours makes me feel slightly less looney
Was wondering if you could do a video on Crowley's unicursal symbol. It appears in quantum computing grids and neural networks. I consider it to be a significant geometric structure in quantum technology coming online
Google couldn't give me a good answer to this, Why is the planck length set to 1.616255×10−35 m? What drove max planck to come up with that specific number? Maybe somebody here could help. It would be greatly appreciated
Planck length is the square root of (Planck's constant times the Gravitational constant divided by the the speed of light cubed), sqrt(hG/c^3). Some people use h in these calculations and some people use h-bar. When you use h-bar, you get the value that you show. When you use h, you get the value 4.0513505432348780 x 10-35. These two values are different by the square root of 2pi. The mainstream language uses h-bar in all the calculations. When you replace h-bar with h in all the calculations, you get the values that I report in my document. I wanted to see what would happen if I used h instead of h-bar in the calculations for Planck units. What came out of that is theOMparticle model that I talk about in this video. The reason Planck units (like Planck length) were even proposed had to do with unit analysis. When you take formula sqrt(hG/c^3) and do unit analysis, you end up with the units of the meter [m]. That is why they call it Planck's length. A similar thing happens with Planck time, Planck mass and Planck charge. Hope this helps.
"The use of h instead of hbar in the same equation may be the reason why Macken's calculation is out by a factor of 2" No. Well, kinda. It's because lp^2/rc = GM/c^2 by definition. The compton wavelenght is defined in terms of h, while planck length in terms of hbar. You've simply described one quantity in terms of other, less physically justified quantities, i dont see any breakthrough
@@FractalWoman here's what you did in the paper. You took the common Planck units, which are defined in terms of G, M and c and other constants, replaced them with other units where h is used instead of hbar (which simply amounts to rescaling them by 2pi), postulated some physical entity having properties based on these units, then derived the schwarzschild radius of an electron using those units. But the units are DEFINED in terms of the relationship between G M and c. You scaled them by 2pi, so no wonder you get the S.R. also scaled by 2 (well not quite, since a square is involved, and then you have to manually add back in the pi). It's going around in circles. There is no deep meaning to any of this. Besides, this model does not describe a proton, which is a composite particle; it doesn't describe at all the variety of particles we see. It doesn't even give any reason why the Planck units are what they are.
@@FunkyDexter I didnt say there was deep meaning. The breakthrough was that I was able to do what John Macken was trying to do in a slightly different way without an unexplained factor of 2.
Well done. Notably, a lot of this is beyond me but I appreciate it when a little bit of insight reduces everything to something simple and consistent. That's usually a good sign.
Wonderful to find that you are still broadcasting, Lori.
You unlocked Angular Momentum for me, then the AnoMagMo/FStruConst relation.
You critically forwarded my discoveries in Spheric Geometry.
I consider you a unique rational physicist on youTube, the very best.
You also tipped me to K Wheeler, whose book I rewrote (so it can be *read*).
Alas, Ken is too paranoid now to consider Spheric Geometry. Quite sad!
My own 650 video series ended this week for Sabbatical, but I intend
to contact Alexander Unzicker, who also needs Spheric Geometry.
Thank you, Dr. Gardi, you are a rare inspiration to true Scientists!
I would like to see her do a video on Crowley's unicursal symbol. The geometry of that symbol shows up in quantum computing grids and neural networks. Definitely significant
@@kevinkinnu341 Trolls agree: you should do y'rse'f a "bald figlet", nothing-for-butte.
@@drake_sterling
Crowley's unicursal is real science. With an occult tinge
@@kevinkinnu341 So are occult trolls
The choice between using h vs h-bar is not open to debate. h-bar is just an orthographic convenience used in equations that involve h/2pi. Using h-bar instead of h/2pi is like using “Mr.” instead of “Mister”.
I think you are missing the point. The question is, WHEN do we use h and WHEN do we use h/2pi? After years of research, I have come to the following conclusion: we use non-reduced Planck's constant (h) when we are in using cyclic frequency, f, with units cycles per second in the equations and use non-reduced Planck's constant, h-bar (h/2pi), when are using angular frequency, w, with unit radians per second in the equations. It is as simple as that. The reason physicist prefer radians is because the calculators/computers usually default to radian in the sine and cosine functions. There is no sine and cosine function on the calculator/computer that is calibrated in terms of cycle, although I could easily write a computer function that does this. The equation E = hf is calibrated to the cycle. The equation E = h-bar w is calibrated to the radian. The radian is not special. The radian is the angle such that the arc length is equal to the radius of the circle. The cycle (2pi radians, 360 degrees) is the angle such that the arc length is equal to the CIRCUMFERENCE of the circle. That is the difference. The circumference of the circle is physically special. The arc length that equals the radius of the circle has no special physical meaning. One radian is equal to ~57 degrees. The radian doesn't even divide evenly into one cycle. In this sense, the degree would be better because it DOES divide evenly into one cycle. Radians is merely convenient because our calculators/computers default to radian in the sine and cosine function. People use h/2pi because they want to report frequency in terms of radians so they can do all of their sine and cosine function using radians. I use h because I want to report frequency in terms of cycles. Cycle has a better physical meaning in my opinion and... since I am trying to understand the "physic-al" universe, I find it better to use cycle instead of radian in all the equations of physics.
To understand what I am saying better, you might want to watch this video: ruclips.net/video/a6z1eqekX44/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/Bf7_8m7sYUo/видео.htmlsi=VU2amqcYiI66ZOl0
This video covers the first part of the paper "On Physical Lines of Force", titled "The Theory of Molecular Vortices Applied to Magnetic Phenomena."
To aid in understanding Maxwell's concepts, the video includes additional illustrations and equations. I hope you like it.
Thanks for sharing this video. It is very cool. I'm assuming it was AI generated? Yes, my model is exactly based on and inspired by Maxwell's molecular vortices. If I were to publish a paper on my work, I would definitely have to reference his work. That said, I don't think I will ever be able to publish a paper that uses the Yin Yang symbol as a schematic for the model, and this is a very important feature of my work.
@@FractalWoman Yes, I used AI software in the part where Maxwell talk and for voices. I made this video because it is generally difficult to read Maxwell. I hope this can make more people to try to understand Maxwell’s original papers directly.
I will study your intersting work.
Thank you very much!
@@profhalimboutayeb Can you tell me what AI software you used to generate this? I would like to be able to do this too. So cool. Great job.
Planck's constant is a constant of action, and that action is the complete rotation of a sphere having Plank length radius. Hbar is considered "quantized" because the allowed radii must be multiples of Planck length, but what hbar represents in and of itself is somewhat abstract. It still has to be multiplied by 2pi to get the energy value for a complete rotation.
Point being, hbar *is* useful *if* we remember why and when to use it.
Here is what I found. When we use cyclic frequency with units [cycles/second] then we need to use h. When we use angular frequency with units [radians/second] then we need to use h-bar. Also, the difference between using h and h-bar in the Planck natural unit calculations is the SQUARE ROOT of 2pi, not 2pi directly. In other words, the difference between reduced Planck length and non-reduced Planck length is the square root of 2pi. This is where we run into a problem. In terms of quantization, h-bar is quantized (quantified) by the radian and h is quantized (quantified) by the cycle (once complete cycle). In this manner, one is not better than the other in terms of quantization. They are just quantized by a different quantity.
"Planck's constant is a constant of action, and that action is the complete rotation of a sphere having Plank length radius."
In theOMparticle model, Planck's constant is the "action" of complete rotation of a sphere with a circumference of non-reduced Planck length and a radius of non-reduced Planck length divided by 2pi. That is how I "quantify" my system. This works out great and I am very happy with the results I am getting. Reduced Planck constant, h-bar, has no place in my cosmology as I am calibrated to the CYCLE and not the RADIAN.
Hbar is just h/2pi. Why would you take the square root?
@@dbz5808 In Planck natural units, the square root is taken so that the units work out to be correct. For example, for Planck length, the units must work out to be the meter. If I don't take the square root, then the units of the formula would be meters squared. I don't generally take the square root of Planck's constant directly.
@@FractalWoman That sounds suspiciously like a normalization problem. The operation to go from h to hbar should be consistent across unit systems.
This is a solid topological and mathematical fusion of particle physics to contemporary computer sciences. Superfluid Universe old RUclips video has great animation that aligns to the rigorous calculations you've assessed / defined.
Studies of nuclear forces indicate that nucleons and atoms are highly repulsive at close radius.
Newton thought that this was due to the ether condensed around matter vs out and away from regular natter in the vacuum, where the vacuum is devoid of matter.
Studies using the Schwarzschild math and flux density indicate that sunspots should produce a so-called singularity.
However, it has been shown that sunspots subject to such a condensed state of storage, results in and over pressure and ejection of the magnetic flux from the plasmoid or sunspot and a mass ejection from the chromosphere.
This is consistent with the idea that the ether particles (according to Newton are condensed around matter) become highly repulsive when condensed into a confined space, also per the Casimir effect, and the result is relativistic jets and the ejection of a pure Poynting flux, just like from the galactic core, tokamaks, and Herbig-Haros.
So, by experiment and observation, a singularity cannot form, else an over pressure will result and prevent such singularity, nor can a Big Bang have ever manifested as the origin of the Universe, let alone explain how matter was created from nothing in any proposed beginning of the Universe, or matter, via the expansion model.
Ether particles are repulsive. Ether repels Ether. When matter comes into being (at the big phase transition, a.k.a. the big bang), Ether SURROUNDS matter. This is what we perceive as the electric field (first order force) and the gravitational field (second order force).At the Planck scale, these two forces are equal.
I only have a few videos up here. I have some shorts of some of my experiments where I saw these vortex shapes. I also have one with a video with a blue laser where you can see the way light flip-flops inside out, but I also catch this shot of a perfect vortex shape that is very radical. The top of the vortex is curved halfway down the stem of the vortex making a dramatic U shape. It also has lines that get closer toward the bottom of the vortex. I did these experiments trying to replicate some experiments I saw Roger Spurr over on Mudfossil university doing. You might find his picture of photons in laser beams helpful too. They obviously exhibit your om particles. He makes lots of videos about it. The green pictures show them clearest. One last thing, I interpret the yin yang as two tornadoes trapped in a sphere with the small ends feeding into the center of the big ends moving in the direction of the small side of the tornadoes. You and Mr. Macken have the real theory of everything! ❤️
Thanks. I also like the work of Roger Spurr and his electron flood theory. I would like to replicate his experiments but I need more information as to how the images are captured and he doesn't seem to want to talk to me. Are you able to replicate his results?
@@FractalWoman I can't get singular photons like he has because I keep buying galaxy s3 phones for the cmos camera and they are broke or garbage when I get them, but I can get effects just like he shows. It's all about squeezing the light through an opening smaller than the beam. I think about it like breaking the beam. Sharp corners on strong magnets and different materials like thread, wire or bubbles. Instead of two slits just make one. II've been doing it with magnets that are attracting but not touching or smashed together repelljng, and it's amazing what I can make happen, but very hard to get on camera. The best stuff I have on camera is up here on RUclips and I write about this stuff frequently on X and the stack. If you check out my videos, look at the shapes the "lense flares" make and how they behave. Roger is a great guy. We speak fairly frequently.
@@billschwandt1 I don't think Roger likes me very much. I offered to help him many times but he kept ignoring me. So I called him out on it, but his responds wasn't that great. Maybe you could put in a good word for me. On second thought, maybe I'm better off just doing my own thing.
@@FractalWoman I get it. He is very old 😂 I sent your videos to him, and he usually at least checks out what I send him so we will see. I think you are going to be fine either way. I look at this theory of everything stuff constantly and this is the best I have ever seen. Keep up the great work!!! 🫡
Hi Lori, fantastic work as always.....On page 15 of your paper you note an interesting relationship between the Electrons Compton radius and its Schwarzchild radius in terms of the Surface area of the Planck Soliton. Just wondering if the Planck soliton, Schwarzchild electron , electron , proton etc. are simply the natural stable harmonic conditions of the Aether and that the differences in Harmonic states is simply a function of the Planck soliton?
That is exactly what I am thinking. In the livestream with John Macken, we talked a bit about heterodyning. These three soliton scales may in fact be heterodynes of each other. But I don't have proof for that...yet.
That is really cool.
Thanks for making this vid, hope you do more interview vids in the future too as you have time.
Nice work. Interesting how this applies to talk of an electron being a black hole, is that what I heard, and Swarzschild literally means black shield.
It means "Pole".
@@drake_sterling I don't know how you figure that out, but swarzschild is German, schwarz meaning black and schild meaning shield. Like rothschild is derived from rot schild meaning red shield from family coat of arms.
@@areyouavinalaff yes, it was a poor joke
Excellent insights!! If I am to understand this, what you are proposing is that at every point in space and at every moment in time there is a force (AUM) expanding at the speed of light in all directions that moves all objects! What this suggests is that this is the source of all forces and the source of all neural signal and neural patterns (our thoughts). Am I correct?
Regarding expansion, this is not what I am saying. The universe may be expanding, and if it is, it is happening in the fractal sense. The universe is "expanding" because the smallest measuring stick is shrinking. You may want to check out the work of Blair Macdonald: vixra.org/author/blair_d_macdonald
IN particular, this paper: Fractal Geometry a Possible Explanation to the Accelerating Expansion of the Universe and Other Standard ΛCDM Model Anomalies
@@FractalWoman Thanks for clarifying. When I say expanding, it visually appears to me to be having this effect on objects. It becomes to me a visual illusion and in effect has a different property.
can i please interview you?
I consider myself a Yin-Yang individual. Also a Cancer. ♋
As if there were other kinds of individuals anywhere
Thank you for encouraging me to follow through and start posting videos with my own thoughts. I have just uploaded my first one today introducing myself, titled “Why I Began Researching the Origin of the Universe”
Cool. Thanks for sharing.
Have you seen Gavin Wince's videos?
I just had a quick look and he did say something in this video (ruclips.net/video/UvqDUDSsunw/видео.html) that was really interesting. He said that electrons and positrons co-exist in the atom but the electron is going forward in time and the positron is going backward in time and so they can never annihilate because they can never meet up. Now I'm not so sure about the "forward in time" and "backward in time" terminology. I would prefer to say "forward in phase" and "backward in phase". That way, there is no contradiction. Interestingly, I have often referred the "Yin Yang" model as an electron-positron pair and so there might be some similarities to what Gavin is saying and what I am saying.
@@FractalWoman I find his theories and your theories interesting. I'm also a never big bang type. It just never sat well with me and now the the JWST is showing larges galaxies further back and closer to the so called beginning, the new math keeps adapting and theories keep changing in an effort to preserve the dogma of big bang. Gavin has some long format movies. That 1/137 comes up with the electron orbital around a hydrogen atom is such that the ground state of hydrogen may not be the true ground state by Randell Mill in his Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics which is 2 or 3 levels above my ability.
Aight I'm excited to watch!!
Great work! Keep investigating!
More breakthroughs coming.
@@FractalWoman Amazing! Can’t wait! So fascinating!
lol...sending you a tip bc I just realized how deep this concept has affected me
I want to encurage you bc I feel like you are onto something...what triggered that thought was the relationship between pulsars and black holes
I can't described it but I was trying imagine what it would look if like there was some kind of way to deliberate an equivilence that would allow an observer to in one frame to observe a pulsar while an observer in a different frame might observe a black hole instead
lol...if that even makes sense...I get a little spacey when I try to imagine this stuff but content like yours makes me feel slightly less looney
@@memegazer you sound a little bit like my son. Another deep thinker.
You are right…. Whatever you said.🌟✅
LOL
Isnt a soliton a torus?
A soliton is related to the torus, yes.
Nice Lori
Thanks.
Was wondering if you could do a video on Crowley's unicursal symbol. It appears in quantum computing grids and neural networks. I consider it to be a significant geometric structure in quantum technology coming online
Or a Ferris-wheel fer yer bumme
@@drake_sterling
Very trollish response
@@drake_sterling
Nothing like denying real science is there
@@kevinkinnu341 rubber-ducky time for you
Google couldn't give me a good answer to this,
Why is the planck length set to 1.616255×10−35 m?
What drove max planck to come up with that specific number?
Maybe somebody here could help.
It would be greatly appreciated
Planck length is the square root of (Planck's constant times the Gravitational constant divided by the the speed of light cubed), sqrt(hG/c^3). Some people use h in these calculations and some people use h-bar. When you use h-bar, you get the value that you show. When you use h, you get the value 4.0513505432348780 x 10-35. These two values are different by the square root of 2pi. The mainstream language uses h-bar in all the calculations. When you replace h-bar with h in all the calculations, you get the values that I report in my document. I wanted to see what would happen if I used h instead of h-bar in the calculations for Planck units. What came out of that is theOMparticle model that I talk about in this video.
The reason Planck units (like Planck length) were even proposed had to do with unit analysis. When you take formula sqrt(hG/c^3) and do unit analysis, you end up with the units of the meter [m]. That is why they call it Planck's length. A similar thing happens with Planck time, Planck mass and Planck charge. Hope this helps.
@@FractalWoman thanks, it would help if I was smart enough to understand any of it
"The use of h instead of hbar in the same equation may be the reason why Macken's calculation is out by a factor of 2"
No. Well, kinda. It's because lp^2/rc = GM/c^2 by definition. The compton wavelenght is defined in terms of h, while planck length in terms of hbar. You've simply described one quantity in terms of other, less physically justified quantities, i dont see any breakthrough
@@FunkyDexter the breakthrough was me finding the solution that John was looking for that is not out by a factor of 2.
@@FractalWoman here's what you did in the paper. You took the common Planck units, which are defined in terms of G, M and c and other constants, replaced them with other units where h is used instead of hbar (which simply amounts to rescaling them by 2pi), postulated some physical entity having properties based on these units, then derived the schwarzschild radius of an electron using those units. But the units are DEFINED in terms of the relationship between G M and c. You scaled them by 2pi, so no wonder you get the S.R. also scaled by 2 (well not quite, since a square is involved, and then you have to manually add back in the pi). It's going around in circles. There is no deep meaning to any of this. Besides, this model does not describe a proton, which is a composite particle; it doesn't describe at all the variety of particles we see. It doesn't even give any reason why the Planck units are what they are.
@@FunkyDexter I didnt say there was deep meaning. The breakthrough was that I was able to do what John Macken was trying to do in a slightly different way without an unexplained factor of 2.
☯️
☯️😎