3D Masses Versus 4D Masses
Since nobody complained or demanded a better explanation, this little mistake lived a long time.
It wasn't' until I had to calculate the masses of everything that I realized that the correct paradigm for 3D Masses and 4D Masses is 4D Volume overlap as opposed to 3D Projection...:)
The correct paradigm is explained below:
a) The 3D Shock Wave Universe which is very thin along the radial direction should be thought as a 4D Shock-Wave nevertheless and not as a 3D hypersphere... This was an approximation that I used to make people more comfortable. It just clashes with the way the dilators interact with each other. They interact with each other in this very thin, but still four-dimensional shock-wave.
b) From my prior statement it should become clear that 3DMass is actually the observed (in physical contact - overlap- with the very thin 4D Fabric of Space) dilator 4D volume overlapping with the 4D Shock-Wave Universe or 4D Fabric of Space.
c) Thus the paradigm for the so called 3D Mass should be one of an intersection between the 4D Dilator and the 4D Shock-Wave Universe or 4D Fabric of Space..:)
This means that if you think about the particles as very thin pizza pies, as soon as they rotate a little, the overlap of their rotated state with the original state gets small very fast. For the case of particles this is really fast. 3D Mass (this above mentioned overlap) is extremely dependent upon the angle of spinning.
That said, it everything should be easier to understand.
A dilator shape shifts from a small pie to a large pie and rotates. One can only perceive the pie when it is flat on the table...:) As soon as it rotates, one cannot see a pie...:)
This simple explanation and the fact that the unification of forces made use of zero phase dilaton interference patterns - Quantum Lagrangian Principle- make it easy to understand the pseudo-quantization of time. Interaction only happens when the pie is on the table or when the dilator lies flat on the very thin 4D Fabric of Space or Shock-Wave Universe. This is covered on the Meaning of Material Existence.
Cheers,
MP
4 comments:
Their is a God beyond the fact that you will get to beg your way to completion.
___________________________
please Read the Last Page of a "MOment in Time"
___________________________
I would challenge your Theory but not on the web---for fear of becoming the Man who knew to Much?
___________________________
Einstein was remembered for his insigthful thougths moreso than his incomplete mathematical Universe.Just as unlikely that his e=mc2 would apply to molecular Physic's ,and the atom yours more so..I congradulate you - -Now you must figure out where it really applies ....keeping in mind that --most everyone hasn't figure out the true meaning of Gravity- - and Instinct is Geniuos --Read Einstien it's all in their
____________________________
oh! and did I mention ? did you ever see a UFO
Dear Bob,
That "There is a God" comment was a rhetorical one. I have no interest in discussing God in this blog..:) I am sure you understand.
As for looking like the Man Who Knew Too Much, please do. As long as you direct your comments without any mention to a Creator...:) your comments and readership will always be extremely appreciated.
With respect to the non-religious scope, you have to remember that this is a site I created to discuss science... and more specifically my theory...
If you want to discuss God, I will be happy to create another just for that...:)
Which respect to how Einstein will be remembered, that is not important in this blog. Different people will remember different things.
Since chemical reactions release very little energy, it is difficult to measure any mass accretion or diminution. That doesn't mean they are not there.
There is nothing unlikely in physics. Things are either there or not...(w.r.t. scientific results).
If you had read my blog and associated papers, you would had realized that I figure out the true meaning of Gravity...:)
Cheers,
MP
ps- this is not a UFO site either...:)
By the way, I published theory in the web to be challenged...:)
Only through intellectual scrutiny one can improve one's thought process...:)
Cheers,
MP
This is not a Beauty contest..:)
Please do express your disagreements (with the theory not with me...:))
Cheers,
MP
Post a Comment