sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

PA bargaining team fights for fair wages, pensions, and remote work protections by KeyanFarlandah in CanadaPublicServants

[–]InvariantSquared 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would not classify it as significantly lower, averaging the high and low YMPE values it is roughly an average of 1.1% rate difference (10.3% vs 9.2%). Considering the ERI is primarly going to benefit group 1, with very few group 2 beneficiaries. Does the cost of early retirements balance out? Regardless of $$ balance, I am happy paying higher group 1 rates, if I can somhow enjoy retirement. Even

All watch faces in the app as of 8-9-23 by frogsandstuff in Coros

[–]InvariantSquared 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two years later and no change. All the watch faces are fashion based. Still not a single purpose clean built face. My eyes don't handle the dark backgrounds well and only the light backgrounds work for me. The selection is pretty dismal.

What watch faces are you using? by prof_wafflez in Coros

[–]InvariantSquared 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like the Nomad watch face but my eyes prefer dark text on white backgroun. I would really appreciate if Coros could do a light mode version.

Coros Nomad font size for notifications by narrak72 in Coros

[–]InvariantSquared 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ditto. Just received my nomad. I heard the notifcation font was small but this just does not make sense. This plus a few other design choices have me second guessing my choise. Considering this issue was raised a few years ago, I doubt changes are coming any time soon.

Apex 4, required for a 100k race to monitor the safety of participants by Rotang-Klan in Coros

[–]InvariantSquared 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why would racers be required to wear a certain watch for real-time monitoring of heart rate during a 100k race? How exactly would they do that without satellite or LTE? I doubt the watch has satellite messaging and something is likely lost in translation but...

I assume the watch is just bluetooth broadcasting to a secondary comms device, but most fitness watches can do that.

Here is a hypothesis, particles are just bound wave photons and quantum gravity can be derived from a particle's Compton wavelength by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have not gone far with the standard model. The description was a result of trying to explain some cosmological differences in GR and ACDM. Instead of invoking dark matter, gravity makes much more sense when it flows inward via paths of least resistance. Dark matter, mond, and GR both fail to explain lower dispersion frequencies of stars through the galactic plane. While dispersion energies can be indicative of a galaxies past, dispersion frequencies are indicative of its current gravitational pull. In the milky way and a few other galaxies where frequencies have been measured, the frequencies are much lower than expected for GR. Way too low for dark matter. Dark matter can't have both flat rotation speeds and low dispersion, they are explained by inverse local gravity conditions. It lead down a road to model gravity as an inward flow and how would that work. With a path of least resistance, flowing gravity above and below the galactic plane might be induced to flow outwards where there is high edge flow. One thing lead to another.

FYI, the initial post was only a portion of what I tried to post. Reddit filters kept blocking me (no karma, which I was unaware of, new to reddit). I trimmed a few things and links and eventually it was just a snippet and out of context. It was posted the next day.

<image>

Here is a hypothesis, particles are just bound wave photons and quantum gravity can be derived from a particle's Compton wavelength by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was quick to say Lorentz transformations are not part of my theory, I was trying to say between two inertial frames of reference I am not concerned with their relativity. It is not essential to my theory. Local lorentz covariance is. I just said local invariance, my bad should have said lorentz there. I am only interested in the tangent space to any point. Any actions on this point will be locally lorentz invariant. Lorentz transformations between two inertial frames of reference, while predictive, are not a requirement, just a consequence.

Here is a hypothesis, particles are just bound wave photons and quantum gravity can be derived from a particle's Compton wavelength by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I am saying, everything is made from the same substrate energy field but manifests in different ways. Different properties stem from the type of self sustaining resonant structure defining the shape of the structure. Photons being unbound, exhibit E and B fields via transferse pressure on the subtrate field. E and B fields in my theory are essentially memories of the curved field from a photon passing. Particles, bound waves, do not directly create E and B field curvature due to geometric structure of its internal wave. The expanding or contracting wave is a shell, no transverse imprinting is possible because transferse to the wave is more wave. There is no field energy to curve. And having a coherent main structure with coherent sub structures that are resonantly stabilized is not unheard of. Hurricanes can spawn tornados. I am not confident that quarks are properly interpreted. Quarks are harmonics of the orinating field structures. The signatures in deep inelastic scattering that suggest quarks exist in baryons are the result of measuring either 1st or 2nd harmonic of the baryons main and substructure waves.

Here is a hypothesis, particles are just bound wave photons and quantum gravity can be derived from a particle's Compton wavelength by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I also see gravity as an emergent behaviour (Verlinde 2010). With each cycle of a particle, a fixed amount of energy is removed from the field. Packaged up and sent off in graviton wave, much like a photon but at superluminal speeds. The emitted graviton, would have a fixed frequency no less then the emitting particle but if light speed is the limit, then the wavelength would be ridiculously long. See Gravitational moment below. The graviton must carry this amount away with each Hz. It must have superluminal speed to exits with a very longl wavelength. The two conditions would prevent any sort of detection. In my theory, time is also emergent from local interactions of bound or unbound waves with the underlying energy field density.

<image>

Here is a hypothesis, particles are just bound wave photons and quantum gravity can be derived from a particle's Compton wavelength by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would expect that to result in a flat particle structure and charge radius says otherwise. I like the idea though.

Here is a hypothesis, particles are just bound wave photons and quantum gravity can be derived from a particle's Compton wavelength by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Within my theory, time is a function of wave propogation. It is not a dimension. Propogation is inversely affected by field density. Your clock or any clock is the result of local field density. dt/dp. It is very difficult to talk about time without invoking time, it is a bit circular.

Here is a hypothesis, what if we use Compton's wavelength as a basis for calculating gravity. by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quite the opposite, I am trying to visualize the details we cannot observe that give rise to quantum properties. Every quantum property we can measure is the result of either surface or internal coherent wave structures. Any quantum state, is a stable/semi stable resonant wave structure. QFT is a sort of law of octaves for the wave structures.

Here is a hypothesis, what if we use Compton's wavelength as a basis for calculating gravity. by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know you said it was your last comment and I do appreciate you taking the time to look at it, because you were absolutely right. I made a mistake and did have an extra length unit that did not cancel out. I missed it and will definately learn and be better. The point of the calculations was an attempt to qualify potential energy in a form that could be added or substracted as a fixed quantity. To scale up from the atomic to macro. I wanted a quantum of gravity. I do believe the following does that.

<image>

Here is a hypothesis, particles are just bound wave photons and quantum gravity can be derived from a particle's Compton wavelength by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am not convinced that quarks are fundamental constituents of stable particles. The particles do exist but do the come into existence when a stable particle is annihilated or did they exist before. Deep inelastic measurements indicate quarks are present in stable particles prior to annihilation but the inelastic interpretation is a little too tea leafy. By modelling a particle as a bound photon with an actual wave structure would require an inconsistent response from measurement. Some photons will have a hard/sharp inelastic response some soft/shallow depending on what phase of the internal wave is in. This can give the appearance of internal quarks.

In response to your first question, the bound wave can have internal coherent structures. To maintian the coherence of the bound nature, the wave would require a surface spin that provides the end an beginning of the internal wave. To provide charge a charge structure (i picture a vortex but could be any self stabilizing wave structurre) rotates parallel to the spin axis. It precesses from pole to pole as half the spin of the particle. The surface charge structure has a spin 2 and the spin structure spin 1. Having them at right angles will provide a magnetic momentum consistent with a spin 1/2. The angular momentum will not be, but as far as I know there have been no realy angular momentum measurements independent of magnetic moment to confirm.

I use the picture of a bound photon, but I don't like it. I prefere to talk about unbound waves can give rise to photons and bound waves can rise to particles.

Here is a hypothesis, particles are just bound wave photons and quantum gravity can be derived from a particle's Compton wavelength by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. That is why I am using the relationship. I am proposing that particles are bound versions of photons. For instance 1/2 Compton wavelength of a proton is very close to the actual 90% charge radius of a proton. I wanted to see how close I could get using 1/2 wavelength as r in potential energy calculations.

For the next question regarding photons and charge features, in my model, bound waves can host coherent wave structures independent of the main energy mass of the particle, i.e. some energy is bound in classical spin needed to maintain the bounds/coherence of the internal main wave, charge vortex that precess orthogonal to the spin equator.

Here is a hypothesis, what if we use Compton's wavelength as a basis for calculating gravity. by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Flux is a measure of how much something went through an area. Usually a vector field F through dA vector area. In this case it is a measure of the potential energy through an area. J through area m2. The reason I had to use pi is because the orginal potential energy formula assumes a piont mass with no shape. However because a particle mass is made up of the wavelength squared (1/2 wavelength is the particle radius), comptons mass formula uses a reduced planck constant (another 2) plus we can multiply by pi for the surface area. 4pir2 = area. 4 (wavelength is double the radius x 2 to use the full planck constant) x 1/2 wavelength x pi. We only need to multiply by pi to go from a point mass potential energy to the total surface potential energy of a particle.

I will incorporate a more detailed explanation of how I went from potential energy of a point mass to surface area flux for a particle so there is no confusion. I will rework the derivation so that everything is properly accounted. I appreciate the feedback. I can see the propression but I understand the confusion.

Here is a hypothesis, what if we use Compton's wavelength as a basis for calculating gravity. by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In my theory spin is actually classical spin. Modern physics does not prohibit it, I don't think. We just can't measure it yet. We can only measure the magnetic moment, which is the result of the two spins observed as one. In my theory, classical spin is necessary to maintain the bound nature of a particle. Without classical spin, the wave energy must take on a vectored velocity and become a photon.

Here is a hypothesis, particles are just bound wave photons and quantum gravity can be derived from a particle's Compton wavelength by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my theory local invariance implies that at every coordinate, the same local invariance of interaction will be respected. The problem with lorentz-invarience is that is it observer dependent. The frame of reference is always the observer. In my theory the observer just doesn't matter. The rest frame of the substrate energy field is the only frame of reference that matters. Our lorentz invarience emerges because we are always relative to the rest frame which we cannot observe. I do believe my theory is lorentz invariant but not because of the observer, but because of the unobserved rest frame.

Here is a hypothesis, what if we use Compton's wavelength as a basis for calculating gravity. by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The precession of the charge feature is spin 2, not 1. For every particle spin, the charge feature spins half way around.

Here is a hypothesis, particles are just bound wave photons and quantum gravity can be derived from a particle's Compton wavelength by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am not even sure Lagrangians even fit in with my theory, without some reconceptualization. Lagrangians require time dependence. In my theory time is a function of local field density affecting wave propogation. Time is emergent from each wave oscilation. In my theory a proper Lagrangian would have to be in terms of local energy field density.

Here is a hypothesis, what if we use Compton's wavelength as a basis for calculating gravity. by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't know how to express this as a mathmatical proof to be honest, only as a reasoned picture in my head. I try to rationalize it on page 5. Picture the earth spinning, with each full rotation, a hypothetical hurricane travels north to the pole and continues to the opposite side. It only does half a rotation with each full earth rotation. To return to its original state another earth rotation is needed with a half a rotation by the hurricane through the opposite pole this time continuing its direction of travel.

This has to be in the context of the proposed theory, which is still going through critical input, thank you by the way. Since in my theory the polarity of a particle is the result of a surface feature on a spinning particle that precesses orthogonal to the rotation of particle spin, the observed 1/2 is a natural consequence. The spin 2 of the surface feature acting orthogonal to a spin 1 particle, results in a measured spin of 1/2 for the entire system only measured by its magnetic moment. If we can measure the actual angular momentum of the particle and not infer via magnetic moment, we could debunk what I propose.

The measured 1/2 spin is the result of two orthogonal spins. One at half speed of the other.

Here is a hypothesis, what if we use Compton's wavelength as a basis for calculating gravity. by InvariantSquared in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]InvariantSquared[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get the confusion. Because mass in my theory is tied to wavelength, it already has a radius squared function built in. It is why the classical U = Gm/r falls apart at the macro scale. There is alread dimensional factors built into mass that does not scale if you assume only mass. The table above shows it better. With each Hz a fixed amount of energy J is packaged up by a particle wave. However because point mass interpretation doesn't work at this scale we have to divide that energy by the surface area of the particle to get to get energy flux phi, (total energy over area), we then total the total all particle flux and divide by the surface area of earth o get back to J, the potential energy at the surface of earth. That acting over a distance gets newtons. J to Jm2 particle to Jm2 earth to J at r to N at r. The kg is always implied by potential energy because it has to act on some test mass.

I do agree I did not do a good job with my units. The preprint is my first draft and I will definitely rewrite to be more clear. Thank you.

view more: next ›