This thread is in response to an allegation that I follow a numerological pattern that happens to track observed measurements. As far as I know this may be correct but for whatever reason I can not see the argument. That being said I have come across a few equations that may prove their point except that I need somebody to articulate why. . First let me start out by saying that this example will be based on something I refer to as the macro-verse. The concept behind the macro-verse is fairly easy to understand. It starts by assuming that the universe is flat over large scales. This has been literally translated to show that the distance between an observer and the "edge" of the visible horizon is equal to 180 degrees or the single angle from which a triangle becomes a line (1=180, +1<180, -1>180). What the macro-verse does is break 180 degrees down into relative angles of time and space. The triangle that is depicted can be explained through the first two principals of universality (as I jokingly refer to them). . 1) Every point in the visible universe rests on the origin of the big bang. 2) The space between two points is relative to an angle off of the origin. . By comparing the change in the base angles through time over the increasing distance between two points we can find the recession velocity of space. I get a value of 71.33747547 km per mega parsec if the universe were exactly 13.7Gyr old. The main difference between the macro-verse and the micro-verse is that they have different "degrees of freedom" (macro having two and micro having four). I want to make this as easy as possible so if the universe were 13.7Gyr old then: . uA1(m) = 1.389711426e-24 uA1(kg) = 1.389711426e-24 cubed . Note: My phone limits me to 2048 characters (spaces included) so could a Mod tie my next post to this one? If you see no need then that's fine too.
On to the points of contention. Let's start with choosing a unit of measurement for a base angle. I selected the SI units of meter, second and kilogram (uA1(m), uA1(sec) and uA1(kg) repectfully) It really doesn't matter what units you use to define space and time. The only thing the base angles do is convert a unit into the system then back out again as any other unit that you choose. Applying a different unit for mass gets a little more complicated and may vary well fall under the lable of numerology. . 180(1 / uA1(m)) = 180/uA1(m) = radius of the visible universe. 1 / uA1(m)squared = uA1(m) / uA1(kg) = macro gravitational "F angle" or meter to kilogram relationship. 180(1 / uA1(m) cubed) = 180 / uA1(kg) = macro mass. . Here the mass of the macro-verse is far to large. I have found that uA1(kg) acts more like a micro-angle and I don't fully understand all of the implications of dividing a macro-angle by a micro-angle (gravitational and electrostatic attraction allow it). In this case I am using uA1(kg) as a midpoint to find two ratios. One is the macro mass (180/uA1(kg)) the other being the micro mass ("zero degrees"/uA1(kg)). Now that I've gotten through the background I can finally get to what I wanted to show. . We can use the radius of the visible universe to determine its spherical volume. Mass divided by volume equals density. What we find is that the density of the macro-verse never changes with time (7.368284403e-6 kilograms per meter cubed which is also to large). What I don't understand is: . the square root of (density * pi * 4/3) = 1/180 . What is this constant density (mathematiclly speaking) and why does it transform into 1/180 like this? It must have something to do with uA1(m) cubed equaling uA1(kg). This means that the macro mass divided by the macro density will always equal the spherical volume of the visible universe.
The reason this constant density transforms into 1/180 is a simple matter of reducing the equation: . Macro mass = 180/uA1(kg) Volume = (180/uA1(m))cubed * pi * 4/3 Density = Mass/Volume . uA1(kg) cancels out uA1(m) cubed and 180 reduces 180 cubed to 180 squared. Everything that is left can be found in the denominator position so we have: . 1/(180sq * pi * 4/3) = Density . The only thing that this shows with any certainty is the limit to which I can expect to receive input from this sight. Thank you for reinforcing my suspicions.
Well, I guess I could address the other point of contention. Dimensional and dimensionless constants. According to Answers dot com, a dimensional constant is a physical quantity whose numerical value depends on the units chosen for fundamental quantities but not on the system being considered. Examples of dimensional constants are the speed of light (space over time) and planck's constant (energy over time). A dimensionless quantity is a quantity without any physical units and thus a pure number. Such a number is typically defined as a product or ratio of quantites which do have units, in such a way that all the units cancel out. Examples of dimensionless constants include the fine structure constant (alpha = 7.2973525376e-3) and the proton to electron mass ratio (1836.15267247). A mass ratio is something called a dimensionless proportion because it has the same value regardless of the measurement units used to calculate it whether it be SI, imperial or whatnot. Whereas the value of physical constants do not depend on the unit system used, the numerical values of dimensionful physical constants do depend on the unit used. Therefore, these numerical values are not values that a theory of physics can be expected to perdict. Ratios of like-dimensioned physical constants do not depend of unit systems in this way so they are pure (dimensionless) numbers whose values a future theory of physics could conceivably hope to predict. All equations describing laws of ohysics can be expressed without dimensional physical constants via a process known as nondimensionalisation but the dimensionless constants will remain. . Once again, the above text is paraphrased from Answers dot com and believe me or not, I do understand what it says. I believe that this system can represent both types of constants. The example I have lined up will put me over my text limit so give me a moment to type the next post.
The best example I have that shows how said system uses both types of numbers is through the mass of an electron (MeuA) and its' atomic units as viewed through the micro-verse (because the micro-verse is where all the action's at). Here are all the base dimensionful angles (largest to smallest) that are needed to find the dimensionless ratios: . @13.7Gy uA1(kg) = 1.389711426e-24 cubed uA1(J) = 3.102492113e-30 cubed uA1(Volt) = 2.123037228e-36 cubed uA1(eV) = 1.685055763e-36 cubed uA1(Tesla) = 6.518284817e-38 cubed uA1(1/m) = 1.810240921e-38 cubed uA1(Hz) = 2.70476462e-41 cubed uA1(h-bar) = 1.465782461e-41 cubed . MeuA = 1.347165448e-34 cubed . This means: MeuA / uA1(kg) = mass in kg MeuA / uA1(J) = mass in Joules MeuA / uA1(eV) = mass in eV MeuA / uA1(1/m)= compton wavelength MeuA / uA1(h-bar) = natural unit of time . Dimensionless ratios appear as: (MeuA * alpha sq) / uA1(E) = atomic energy (2 * MeuA * alpha sq) / uA1(Volt) = atomic electric potential alpha sq * (MeuA / 2) / uA1(Tesla) = atomic mag. flux density (2pi * MeuA * alpha sq) / uA1(Hz) = atomic time (2pi * MeuA * alpha) / uA1(1/m) = atomic length ((2pi * MeuA) / alpha) / uA1(1/m) = classical radius ((2 * MeuA) / c) / uA1(1/m) = quantum circulation ... and on and on it goes. . These equations are expressed like this to show that the electron is being "manipulated" by the dimensionless ratios to produce the measured unit. You could just as easily multiply the measured unit by the base angle (aka. derived angle or XuA) then divide that into MeuA to find one or more dimensionless ratio. According to the definition above can MeuA be considered dimensionless even though uA1(x) is dimensionful or is MeuA just a part of some nondimensionalisation process? And how exactly does this constitute numerology?
As fate would have it, I received a Thomas and Finney 9th edition text book (part 1) as a white elephant x-mas gift. I've started at the beginning and hope to learn something by years end. If I can learn the methods behind calculus then maybe I could better explain how my numbers result in a viable expanding universe. As I went through the preliminaries of the book I kept thinking about how my numbers show a series of points which constitutes the beginning of the universe as it flows into its current form. Hopefully my new text book will allow me to properly describe this sequence of events. As for now, my creation story goes a little something like this. . In the beginning there was a single point (A) who's uA value was equal to "zero degrees". The "1st event" took place with the first division of the unified field. This separated point (A) into two points (A and BC) and, while retaining a uA value of "zero degrees", set-off a sequence of events (2-6) that allowed for the formation of space-time (events 7-9). It was during this time frame when point (BC) divided into two points (AB and AC). This should show that both points continue to hold their pre space-time orientation to point (A). From here on out points (AB and AC) will always be separated by a uA value of 180 degrees. If you were to move one of these points (AB) closer to the other (AC) then point (A) would become separated. This createa a third point (A, B and C) which reveals an angle that is equal to the time/distance between ppoints (B and C). So now the closer points (B and C) are to each other, the closer their uA value gets to "zero degrees". It's a little more involved than this but still, this is the general idea. . So, does it sound like I have a snowballs chance in hell at explaining any of this using calculus? If not then please save me the time and effort.
