Once again, I'm breaking my promises. In my last post over a week ago I said:
Perhaps now is the best time to repeat the promise I made a while ago. I’m going to pause posting new posts until I have the equations for at least one unit sphere of reflection perfect.
However, I was forced to break this promise, as working on the theory I realized that while the theory wasn’t necessarily wrong, I had omitted a mathematical principle that should make the theory much easier to understand. This principle states that two unit spheres of flyby are connected to each other with a circular ‘looking glass’ of reflection that reflects three of the elementary particles of energy (kaus), but passes one through without reflection. The two kaus passing the ‘looking glass’ closest to the non-reflecting kau are being reflected with an angle that half that of the reflection of the kau on the opposite side of the ‘looking glass’
This means that one can draw bicones from the center of one unit sphere of flyby to the next with the direction of tilting of the two neighboring bicones are at a 90-degree angle to each other. A mostly correct idea of the reflection looks like this:
It is of note that because of the partial symmetry of reflection, there are probably more connections between kaus (illustrated with vectors) at the than shown in the model, but currently it’s too much of a hassle for me to correct the above model.
When the two unit spheres of flyby are combined to a unit sphere of reflection, there are eight nodes altogether on the surface: six nodes of reflection and two nodes of non-reflection. These are split into two temporal groups: i.e. there are only two kaus on the circular ‘looking glass’ at a reflection event. Almost as soon as I created the above model, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. One set of four kaus occupies a single circular plane along the unit sphere, whereas one set of four kaus is split onto two circular planes.
This geometrical realization should help me write the correct equations for reflection, but it seems that I’m just about clever enough to figure these things out, but not clever enough to solve these problems fast. But I guess this goes counter to what we are led to believe. If you’re slow, you should let someone faster do what you’re doing. But fast people can be too impatient. It could be that the mathematics would be very easy for someone with an actual degree on the field. But if the impatient person sees that their first idea was wrong, they might not have the patience to come up with ideas until they’re right.
Or more specifically, I haven’t bothered to try and find physicists and/or mathematicians to try to help me solve the problem, because when I was wrong, my ideas weren’t interesting enough. Now that I’m at least less wrong, I don’t really like to put the effort in to find somebody to share the discovery with. If someone found me through this blog and offered help, I would gladly welcome it, but it’s too late for me to go looking for help.
Knowing how slow I am, I don’t want to make any guesses about how long it will take for me to finalize the core of the theory. It might take long, or it might be ready soon.
However, on a completely different note, I’m considering the option that I won’t submit the theory as a separate article, but as a part of a mathematical explanation on the behavior of solvents as ‘quantum bubbles’, submitted as a supplementary information to my new article on room-temperature lignin adhesives. I haven’t really been talking about the work that I’ve been doing in my day job, but it has related to this theoretical work. You see, I’ve been applying my theory into making an adhesive using spherical lignin particles. I’m not the first person at all to have been trying to make an adhesive with lignin. Far from it: it’s been attempted for over a century. But I am first in making and adhesive with lignin that truly works at room temperature. I can’t reveal any details on how, but a major part of it relates to me treating each and every part of the adhesive through the lens of this new theory.
And the good part about putting the theory into the supplementary information of a respectable and verifiable experimental article is that just as long as the mathematics relates to the article, there is no way that it will be rejected from peer-review.
Comments