It’s been over a week since my last post. In it I presented a revised saint Hannes knot:
The shape consists of two entangled strings of elementary particles of energy (dots, not shown in the above image) refracting of each other, forming a knotted saint Hannes cross (⌘).
While the shape is logical, I noted that it was asymmetrical. I used the phrase “If you look very closely, you notice an asymmetry in the two knots in the knot made with vertical arcs the helices of dots touch with a ++ pattern, whereas in the knot made with horizontal arcs the helices of dots touch with a xx pattern.” I already knew that it’s almost impossible to notice this asymmetricity without showing the spherical dots.
I was already about to explain the above sentence, until I realized that it tried to explain something that doesn’t exist, so forget about what I said in my last post.
Rather, if I don’t begin at a zero-degree angle, I don’t have to explain two different kinds of pattern. With a starting angle of minus 22.5 degrees (a quarter of a straight angle), the opposite side will be at an angle of plus 22.5 degrees. This way when visualized as a projection the arrangement of dots on opposite sides are the mirror images of each other:
When visualized in Excel, the shape of the two orbitals looks like this:
And just because I can, here the angles of refraction are presented in an animation:
In the above animation the dots aren’t moving. In real life the dots are moving in opposite directions upon impact and being caused to rotate around several axes. However, to properly explain what’s going on, I’ll still need to study this phenomenon.
But what is sure is that the impact at these two locations cause part of the momentum of individual dots to be refracted into rotational momentum. I was almost about to talk about the force imparted at these two locations, but was hesitant to talk about force in relation to elementary particles of energy (dots). At least according to Wikipedia:
In physics, a force is an influence that can cause an object to change its velocity, i.e., to accelerate
Except, there is a way to incorporate force into dots. According to Newton’s laws of motion:
1. A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, except insofar as it is acted upon by a force.
2. The net force on a body is equal to the body's instantaneous acceleration multiplied by its instantaneous mass or, equivalently, the rate at which the body's momentum changes with time.
3. If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces have the same magnitude but opposite directions.
According to the first law of motion, the dots must be acted by a force to cause them to refract. According to the second law of motion, the force must be the mass of the dot times the acceleration of the dot. While there is no ‘true’ acceleration of the dots, if one discounts the direction of their movement, refraction causes a constant negative acceleration, or deceleration. So, refraction is a decelerative force. We can ignore the third law of motion for now, but it will probably become important as well.
I’ll leave this for now, but I think I only scratched at the surface of this idea. Once again, I think I discovered something new while not exactly looking for it. And this time it might be very important. Before now I’ve ignored the concept of force, which isn’t what physicists would do. But because I’m not a (traditional) physicist, I could ignore force for as long as I saw fit. I was sure it would emerge from the mathematics eventually.
Comments