It’s been about three weeks since my last post and while I’m gradually getting closer to the final solution, it seems that I’m stuck in a Zeno's paradox. I’ve very clearly stated that the only way the Theory of Everything can be understood is with continuous reflection. My problem is that the equations that I’ve written thus far have been topological, i.e. describing the shape of the orbital of the elementary particles of energy (dots), but not really the physical. That is, the shape of the orbitals, as described in my latest equations, don’t yet follow continuous reflection.
I’ve been struggling to convert these half-qualitative, half-quantitative equations to ones that actually describe particles moving at the speed of light and reflecting around two axes.
At the moment my equations (of one half of the orbitals) look like this:
While there are three axes depicted in the equations, not all axes are created equal. The position along the z-axis is the so-called starting point. With φ = 0, the value of z is R plus a bit. The equations depict dots moving around the origin (coordinates x = y = z = 0). In these equations I chose to have the dot start (roughly) along the z axis, but this is just a choice. I could well have chosen the x or y axes.
With φ = 0 the dot is moving along the y axis but is being reflected along a plane defined by the x and z axes. The first reflection is along a sphere with a radius of R, the second reflection along a sphere with a radius of
and the third reflection along a sphere with a radius of 1, because I’ve normalized the equations. The actual radius of the third reflection might be the Planck length, but I really don’t know for sure.
The dot turns only one turn along the third sphere of reflection, two turns around the second sphere of reflection and four times around the first sphere of reflection.
The rather complicated terms
Depict the variability of the refraction around x axis. Similarly, the terms
Depict the variability of the refraction around y axis. With φ = 0, both terms for x become one, and the terms for y become 2 and 4. This means that the dot moves twice as fast around the secondary sphere of reflection parallel to the direction of the movement of the dots compared to the perpendicular reflection (don’t ask me to explain any more simply). Similarly, this means that the dot moves four times as fast around the tertiary sphere of reflection parallel to the direction of the movement of the dots compared to the perpendicular reflection. That is, unless I’m mistaken.
This is what the projections of the location of the dots look like in x-z and y-z projection.
Don’t be fooled by the apparent clarity of the image. If my equations were correct, the dots would be each located at y = 0 in the left image and at x = 0 in the right image. However, this isn’t the case yet.
Also, the x-y projection still looks a bit dodgy:
I can’t be 100 % sure that it’s wrong. However, I have an intuition that the equations still require corrections.
It seems that the only thing I can do is gradually analyze the equations and the plots and find the errors that are left.
If any one of you, who’s reading this, wishes to take a crack at the problem, feel free to do so. I'll add an excel file of just one of the iterations that I’m working on when I've freed up space from the server: I've used my 500 MB of memory at WIX.
The important thing to understand is that if the equations depict something that cannot be explained by reflections, the equations aren’t correct. This is one of the major reasons why I’m not posting as much. The improvements at the moment are so small that it’s hard to write compelling posts on them. I might be one day away from the final solution or several months away. It’s extremely hard to say for sure.
And a completely different reason why I’m not posting as much is that I’m making good progress in applying the Theory of Everything into practice with LignoSphere Company. I’m designing different kinds of adhesives and coating based on colloidal lignin particles that seem to be working well enough to compete with current petrochemical products. One of the coolest products is a coating that makes wood basically non-burning. Below left, you see a non-treated wood over a Bunsen flame (actually flame has been shut, but the piece is still burning), while the middle image shows an identical piece of wood coated with colloidal lignin coating withstanding the flame without catching flame. On the right, you see that the piece is glowing red, but not burning.
I was about to share my hypothesis on the effect but realized that it would require a whole new post, talking about the nature of heat and thermal movement.
The point is that after a long pause I finally need to put some cognitive effort into work, which directly reflects how much capacity I have left after a full day in the lab. I seem to be thinking more about chemistry nowadays.
So, if anyone is interested in trying to solve this puzzle, let me know. I wouldn’t mind not being the only one working on this.
Comments