In my last post on my quest to explain the Theory of Everything with the reflection of elementary particles of energy (dots), I started to rebuild my model of reflection based on several sorts of rings. However, in the post I stated that the new model is still qualitative in some respects and that some of the red rings of reflection are clearly ‘wrong’, or at least misleading. But I thought I’d let you see the model while still inaccurate, as a sneak peek.
In today’s post I’ve identified the error (or at an error) in the sneak peek model. You see, the model consisted of six dots. In the post I explained how the locations of four of these dots are exact by definition, as their location is defined by the angle between the two circular planes of reflection depicted in the model. Of course, the angle is chosen arbitrarily, but the math applies whatever the angle is. However, there are also two dots in the model that are located at a distance of two radii of a dot (2r) from the dot it is being reflected from (obviously by definition).
This doesn’t limit the options too much. If this was the only criterion, I would need to draw a reflection sphere with a radius of 2r and try to hope to find the exact location of the dot on this sphere by some other means. In my last post I had some idea of where these two dots would be located, but the main concept was flawed. You see, I though that the two dots would be located somewhere on the horizontal plane of the y-z projection. Somehow this had seemed logical the first time I was devising the model.
But this assumption was in contradiction to the path of the dots with which the two dots with unknown location would be reflected by. You see, this path was not fully vertical but tilted. This means that the reflection tetracones must also be tilted. And not going too much into details, this means that the circular plane of possible locations of the dots must also be tilted. And why a circular plane? Well, the dots must be located at the midpoint of the path of the two central dots (where this distance is slightly higher than √2r) but offset at a distance of slightly less than √2r from the center of this purple path vector, so that the length of the of diagonal connection vector is exactly 2r. This is how the y-z projection looks like:
Looking at the above projection, you might ask “what are the rings on the top right and bottom left?”. Well, these are the same reflection rings drawn around the right and left reflection vectors for the top and bottom dots. Unfortunately, these aren’t as accurate as the central red reflection ring, as I haven’t yet figured out how to define the accurate location of the reflection ring vector.
This doesn’t mean that I don’t have any idea how to determine the reflection vectors. On the contrary, the reflection rings should be very helpful. For instance, here in the x-z projection you can clearly see where the six dots are located along the three red reflection rings. While the four dots at the top and bottom are already accurate, the location of the two central red dots might need to shift along the red reflection ring. Similarly, the angles of tilt of the top and bottom red reflection ring might need to shift, so that the reflection vector drawn from the central dot to the center of the reflection ring is perpendicular to the ring. Exactly how I can determine these, I don’t yet know.
And also, to help in determining the equations for these dots and vectors, here is the x-y projection:
I’m not sure what to say about this projection. What I know is that for the reflection vectors to be accurate, the shape must be logical in all projections. And me not knowing what to say about this projection is a good indication that I need to go deeper into the theory to find the solutions.
And here is the model rotating:
You might be asking why the radius of the cones in the tetracones is much smaller than in my previous posts. I guess the most honest answer is that I don’t know the radius of the tetracone at this point. In the above model the cones are more of an indication, or a placemark, of the eventual cones of the true tetracone of reflection. I’ve had to ignore a lot of what I’ve told in my previous posts to make today’s model logical. The next thing that I need to do is to integrate today’s insights into all of the insights of my previous posts and I might get something that isn’t just roughly right, but actually exactly how things are in nature. I can’t make any promises how long this will take, though.
Yorumlar