An Explanation. Let's Discuss

Does this help at all?

E_binding = ((E_light*E_sound) + (E_sound*E_light) - (E_sound*E_light^2)*(E_light*E_sound^2))E_light^2


BE = (Zmp + Nmn - MA)c^2
Where:

BE is the binding energy is E_binding
Z is the number of protons is E_light
mp is the mass of a proton is E_sound
N is the number of neutrons is E_sound
mn is the mass of a neutron is E_light
MA is the mass of the nucleus is (E_sound*E_light^2)*(E_light*E_sound^2)
c is the speed of light is E_light^2

E_total = (E_sound*E_light^2)*(E_light*E_sound^2)*E_binding*(E_electric*E_magnetic)

Because my equation is not using mass to calculate energy.

This would be the "mass" as a wave interference:
(E_sound*E_light^2)*(E_light*E_sound^2)

Energy of the nucleus:
E_binding

And the electromagnetic field:
E_electric*E_magnetic


It needs to be used with the change and gravity equations in order to match observable data

The energy of light is the energy of a photon, which is a particle of light. The square of the energy of sound is the energy of a sound wave, which is a wave of pressure that travels through a medium. The binding energy is the energy that holds together the particles of an atom or molecule. The product of the electric field strength and the magnetic field strength is the energy of an electromagnetic field.

The total energy equation can be used to calculate the total energy of a system, such as an atom, a molecule, or a star. The total energy of a system can be used to understand how the system behaves and to predict how the system will change over time.

The equations for the energy of sound, light, electricity, and magnetism are all based on the principles of physics. The equation for the calculated gravity of an object is based on the law of universal gravitation. The equation for the change in a system is based on the principles of thermodynamics.

a reply to: IAMUnification

The square of the energy of sound is the energy of a sound wave, which is a wave of pressure that travels through a medium.

Question: Does sound actually exist?

I'd argue that there is a case that it does not. Unlike light which has the photon, sound is merely a result of the transformation of energy when other atomic interactions occur.

In simple terms, if a tree falls in the woods but nobody is there to hear it did it make a sound, the answer is yes, those interactions between the atomic components occurred and the energy transformations did take place resulting in sound. But, if a tree falls in a vacuum there are no such atomic interactions or energy transformations and therefore no sound.

Also to the view of the wider whole:

The total energy of a system can be used to understand how the system behaves and to predict how the system will change over time.

I find this a very odd statement ... The Total energy of 2 entirely disparate systems can be the same so knowing that value alone is entirely meaningless, it is a static viewed through a singular plane.

Maybe I'm over simplifying things, maybe this is just a level of fundamental or theoretical science that I just don't understand or possibly you're trying to create pieces to join a puzzle when those pieces simply don't belong or exist.

What do I know I still can't fathom if you're real or not, many things I see point to you being some type of program but I'm also a bit odd myself and know many people who are even odder.

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

I like the question of does sound exist. But it is very philosophical. If I were to humor it I would say you could see it either way. One view you can see them as separate entities of light and sound. Another way to see could be that sound is a reflection of light. I like to see it as an uneven möbius strip(uneven because sound is generally slower than light)

If you were to calculate the total energy of two systems and pit them in motion with the change equation and their calculated forces(including gravity) you will be able to see how they would interact. This is what lets the equation calculate orbits of bodies.

Man... I promise I'm as real as the next person for whatever that's worth.

originally posted by: IAMUnification
Does this help at all?

E_binding = ((E_light*E_sound) + (E_sound*E_light) - (E_sound*E_light^2)*(E_light*E_sound^2))E_light^2


BE = (Zmp + Nmn - MA)c^2
Where:

BE is the binding energy is E_binding
Z is the number of protons is E_light
mp is the mass of a proton is E_sound
N is the number of neutrons is E_sound
mn is the mass of a neutron is E_light
MA is the mass of the nucleus is (E_sound*E_light^2)*(E_light*E_sound^2)
c is the speed of light is E_light^2

Why is MA expressed this way instead of simply E_sound^3*E_light^3 ... or is my maths wrong?

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

It can be simplified. I left it as it was so you can see the relationship as a wave interference. I am trying not to hide where the values come from.

a reply to: IAMUnification

OK, but I'm still struggling to understand how you believe you can declare an equivalency between sound and light, just because both are typically represented by wave forms doesn't mean they are in any way related.

In my simple noggin:
Light causes waveforms as the photon particle traverses across the magnetosphere.
Sound is the by-product of the oscillation created as physical atomic interactions result in energy transference.

You can build a simple oscillation device - a speaker if you will - and if you change the frequency of the oscillation you change the pitch of the resultant sound but as far as I know there is no possibility to create photons (and therefore light energy) instead of sound no matter how high you drive the oscillating frequency.

Ordinarily you could write the above example off by saying that the structural atomic constraints of the oscillating surface would not be capable achieving the necessary frequencies but that's just an engineering problem - in a total vacuum there'd be no resistance on the movement (there'd be no sound either) and therefore no limit to the frequency yet the only way it could produce light would be through input losses being converted to electron state change and not the waveform of the oscillation itself.

I had a quick look for something to back this logic up or draw a parallel and I came across this:

Follow-Up #2: sound vs. light
Q: It is true that sound and light are alike only to the extent that they are both waves. They are inherently different on the basis that light is electromagnetic radiation. It requires no medium and can therefore can propagate through both extremely sparse - space, upper atmosphere - and extremely dense - plastics, water - environments. Sound however, requires sufficient medium. It is required to have the interaction of molecules of the medium with other molecules of the medium. This is why, upon interrupting the medium with dense objects like foam, the interaction of molecules on one side of the interrupter can not transfer to those on the other side of the interrupter and can even be absorbed by the interrupter. One might say that light can be blocked as well, and they would be right. A leaf of an oak tree does absorb light and reflect light. Forests are darker than standing on a rooftop on a cloudless day. But the propagation of sound being in a medium of air, means that it relies on its own medium to transmit its propagation to somewhere else. Because light does not have a medium, it can transmit through objects in a way that sound cannot. SOUND REQUIRES MEDIUM.
- Wilson (age 19)
Charlotte, NC
A: What you say is true.

Follow-Up #3: hearing Tesla resonators
Q: Okay, so we know sound requires a medium and light does not. Forget that for a moment and consider the following: Tesla resonators for example. It emits electromagnetic energy of its resonant frequency usually in the high RF spectrum. What if the resonant frequency was, say, 500Hz. Would you HEAR it when it resonates? What if the resonant frequency was 4*10^6Hz? Would it emit color since after all light is electromagnetic energy and the resonator is emitting that EM energy at a visible frequency?
- Harrison (age 22)
Bloomfield, MI, US

A: If I understand right, a Tesla resonator is a type of electromagnetic waveguide. Although you would not directly hear the electromagnetic wave, you might hear some ordinary sound waves created by stresses and strains in the resonator as the EM wave traveled through it. If the EM wave was at 500 Hz, the lowest frequency sound would be at 1000 Hz, since the stress from the EM fields is the same if you flip their direction. To get 500 Hz sound out you'd need to drive some sort of element other than the Tesla resonator. Any sort of loudspeaker would do.
4*106 Hz is far below the visible frequency range. If you do make a waveguide for visible light, say with fiber optics, you can of course see the light that comes out. I don't see a good way to make that sort of waveguide with Tesla resonator, especially when there are such better alternatives.

Source

I'm still trying to absorb the basics of your whole hypothesis and work out its purpose ... Does it relate to your 'device' that the MIB type crew had on the desk? or is it a more theological construct analogous to how existence relates to particle physics?

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

Not exactly related to my work from years ago. But that work helped me along.
Im not saying it is correct as theory, im saying it is my hypothesis and trying to share it so people discuss it.

The applications for the equation are wide open, I think it could be explored in many contexts.this morning I was running it with isotopes and determining decay rates without half-life or a decay constant. You can use it to see how the earth and sun balance orbits based on their exchange of energy. To be honest I dont know what its limitations are if it is correct.

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

The comparison from what you looked up is difficult to connect. I am explaining that each atom is a system that works with other systems. And that the atom is a wave interference not matter. Yes it does oscillate, because it is a standing wave.

I am not removing electromagnetism...
If you want to see light from sound, I reccomend exploring Sonoluminescence

a reply to: IAMUnification

Sorry for the piecemeal responses, im distracted by work.

You are correct, no density = no sound. The light you are perceiving is only when the energy excites the density.

Though interestingly you can use your membrane speaker example to see the waveforms with cymatics

Why hurt your brain by cramming it with so much useless information? Everything in this fishbowl is inherently flawed. It keeps you swimming in circles.

a reply to: socialmediaclown



I want to break the fishbowl

a reply to: IAMUnification

Good luck, I'd give anything to see it shatter.

Thank you to anyone who engaged, I'll check the thread on occasion if anybody has questions.