Waveform Emergent Mass Theory.

  • 87 Views
  • Last Post 18 hours ago
Apoc posted this 3 days ago

I didn't know where to put this but I wanted to put it somewhere anyway because I think its important.

Basically I used ChatGPT to talk about how quantum entanglement works, and started thinking about resonance. I was thinking what if somehow entanglement works by the attributes of the particles resonating together.

Thing is then I started thinking about this and wondered, could it be possible that gravity and at the same time mass are just waveforms that warp spacetime to create what we call gravity and mass?

The thought experiment I played in my mind was comparing 3d space to that of a 2dimensional surface of a pond with raindrops hitting it, the larger the rain drop the bigger the wave pattern in the pond when it hits its surface, the smaller raindrop the smaller the wave pattern.

Ok so I had a visual to kind of explain it, next I delved into the math of it (with chatGPT's help because I'm terrible at math). I used chatGPT to check this theory (chatGPT math could be wrong) but anyway I've been trying to check its math and failing miserably because of the kinds of numbers I'm dealing with (talking decimal places in the trillionths).

Long story short, I had chatGPT run the numbers using the frequencies of subatomic particles and calculated them for Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, Carbon, Iron, and Uranium. Using my method of calculating the frequencies when compared with the known atomic masses on the periodic table every element I tried ended up having a less than 1% error from the actual atomic masses we know versus my emergent mass via waveform concept.

I even went as far as to scale up iron to compare it to 1gram of iron versus calculating the emergent mass of 1 supposed gram of iron and it still held a less than 1% error. I also did it for hydrogen and it was almost exactly the same. So not only does it work at atomic scales like the atomic masses but it can be scaled up to macroscopic scales such as Grams and Kilograms and maybe even further.

My main problem right now is I'm so bad at math entering these ridiculous numbers with ridiculous exponents into a calculator so makes it very hard for me to fact check ChatGPT's calculations. But the fact that basically any elemental atom I feed it, its always able to get a result that's almost exactly the same as that elements atomic mass.


If this can all be checked it has very profound implications to the world of physics and could even unite the standard model with quantum mechanics, and who knows what else this could help discover if it ends up being true.

  • Liked by
  • Fighter
  • Inception
Apoc posted this 3 days ago

I didn't know where to put this but I wanted to put it somewhere anyway because I think its important.

Basically I used ChatGPT to talk about how quantum entanglement works, and started thinking about resonance. I was thinking what if somehow entanglement works by the attributes of the particles resonating together.

Thing is then I started thinking about this and wondered, could it be possible that gravity and at the same time mass are just waveforms that warp spacetime to create what we call gravity and mass?

The thought experiment I played in my mind was comparing 3d space to that of a 2dimensional surface of a pond with raindrops hitting it, the larger the rain drop the bigger the wave pattern in the pond when it hits its surface, the smaller raindrop the smaller the wave pattern.

Ok so I had a visual to kind of explain it, next I delved into the math of it (with chatGPT's help because I'm terrible at math). I used chatGPT to check this theory (chatGPT math could be wrong) but anyway I've been trying to check its math and failing miserably because of the kinds of numbers I'm dealing with (talking decimal places in the trillionths).

Long story short, I had chatGPT run the numbers using the frequencies of subatomic particles and calculated them for Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, Carbon, Iron, and Uranium. Using my method of calculating the frequencies when compared with the known atomic masses on the periodic table every element I tried ended up having a less than 1% error from the actual atomic masses we know versus my emergent mass via waveform concept.

I even went as far as to scale up iron to compare it to 1gram of iron versus calculating the emergent mass of 1 supposed gram of iron and it still held a less than 1% error. I also did it for hydrogen and it was almost exactly the same. So not only does it work at atomic scales like the atomic masses but it can be scaled up to macroscopic scales such as Grams and Kilograms and maybe even further.

My main problem right now is I'm so bad at math entering these ridiculous numbers with ridiculous exponents into a calculator so makes it very hard for me to fact check ChatGPT's calculations. But the fact that basically any elemental atom I feed it, its always able to get a result that's almost exactly the same as that elements atomic mass.


If this can all be checked it has very profound implications to the world of physics and could even unite the standard model with quantum mechanics, and who knows what else this could help discover if it ends up being true.

  • Liked by
  • Fighter
  • Inception
Atti posted this 18 hours ago

I even went as far as to scale up iron to compare it to 1gram of iron versus calculating the emergent mass of 1 supposed gram of iron and it still held a less than 1% error. I also did it for hydrogen and it was almost exactly the same. So not only does it work at atomic scales like the atomic masses but it can be scaled up to macroscopic scales such as Grams and Kilograms and maybe even further.

 

 

Hi Apoc.

 

This person was using a lead ball, cut in half and suspended, as a measurement.
The theory is very complicated. I'm not sure the measurement is quite right. 

But like everywhere else, if you don't try, you won't know.

45:50 Gravity telescope.

 

Another way to measure a gravitational wave.8:20.

 

 

 

 

Another description from 210.

 

on the translation option.
A gravity telescope is different from an optical telescope. Not just because of the optical refraction.
I won't go into it because I don't know anything about it.

Sorry, but there is a lot of theory and uncertain measurements. If you're interested, look it all up. 


In any case, anyone who's into it should hang up their pants.

 

 

Just briefly.

Sincerely.Atti

 

  • Liked by
  • Fighter
  • Inception
Close