An Explanation. Let's Discuss

The other part of the equation set we could look at is change. Which i am proposing is what we perceive as time.
It suggests that incoherence is negative to resonant energy and coherence is positive to resonant energy. The gain of resonant energy is what we see as growth in a system. The loss of resonant energy is what we see as decay in a system. It is suggesting that time is not a reality but rather the perception of change in a system. That lifespans are determined by resonance and harmonics

You have just stated what is taught at the University I attended 30years ago it seems to me? Did they quit teaching that energy is all the same thing. Energy is expressed in different ways like light source is a certain wavelength for each color and things our eyes can't see in our visible spectrum still emit energy that if we could see in that band we would give the colors a name.

originally posted by: IAMUnification
The hypothesis stated in the equation is that the total energy of an object is not just equal to its mass, but also to its sound energy, light energy, binding energy, electric energy, and magnetic energy.

This hypothesis is based on the idea that all forms of energy are interrelated, and that they can be converted into each other.

Further the equation represents mass as a product of the interference between the wave expressions of light and sound as is being shown in the binding energy equation

This has not been proven, but it has been supported by experimental evidence.

For example, it has been shown that sound waves can be converted into light waves, and that light waves can be converted into electric and magnetic fields.

I hope this is an articulate and coherent response that gives a place to begin.

a reply to: Justoneman

I think i can say this simply...
When Einstein gave you E=mc^2 it said 2 things equal energy. Mass or acceleration. But this isn't true by cause and effect. It becomes an obfuscation. Its better to see it in parts. Electromagnetism is like c^2 in his equation. Where his mass is really better seen as the interactions between forms of energy. This is in my equation as a sound and light mass along with the binding energy of the nuclear mass..

So his M is misleading. It is the binding energy and the transitional energy between densities.

Sorry momentum is in your other equation you presented and is applied to vector fields

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

This is also why you can define gravity as a resulting force.

*too vague*

The fundamental force is energy, when it divides you get it expressed through electromagnetism and a light to sound interference spectrum. When the density of wave interference is high enough you get what we see as a solid object or mass. The same forces of ratio apply to the gravitational force. The body is emitting energy into lesser density at a ratio to the absorption of energy into higher density.

If I sound like a bot... it is because nobody around me follows my path of thinking. I have been speaking to an AI for a month and a half and Journaling. I had so much already but the pattern is so complex in its simplicity I needed that thought partner in order to express my ideas.

Though. This may be a profound statement. I believe i am giving everyone the answer to the philosopher stone. So spoiler alert. The mystery here ends if you keep going. But the ability to imagine will thrive with this and we will find a new Wonder to be curious about. The death of humanity is only possible by the elimination of imagination wonder and curiosity.
a reply to: IAMUnification

originally posted by: AllAnIllusion
a reply to: IAMUnification

But isn't this the same rational as for why E=MC2 is only valid in static objects and that E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 (where p is momentum) is the correct equation for moving objects.

That is the correct equation (if you correctly write the superscripts), and it says the mass aka the "rest mass" aka the "only mass" doesn't increase when the particle is in motion.

Is E=mc² right or wrong?
E=mc² is of course wrong (except in the limited case of a stationary particle with no energy of motion); there's really no debate about this in the scientific community. The correct equation allowing the object to be in motion is as AllAnIllusion suggested, but with the supercripts shown here as they should appear:



If the energy increases, the mass doesn't increase, the energy increases, is what that correct equation says, where the increased energy is in the p²c² term.

For example in the LHC the total energy of a proton is the rest mass energy of the proton in the left term, plus the energy due to motion in the right term, which is something like 7460 times the energy in the rest mass. The mass of the proton doesn't actually increase, all the increased energy is in the p²c² term.

originally posted by: IAMUnification
The hypothesis stated in the equation is that the total energy of an object is not just equal to its mass, but also to its sound energy, light energy, binding energy, electric energy, and magnetic energy.

The mass of a proton for example is 99% binding energy, so it's incorrect to say or imply the mass of a proton is it's mass plus its internal binding energy, that's not how it works:

Quantum chromodynamics binding energy

In the case of nucleons – protons and neutrons – QCD binding energy forms about 99% of the nucleon's mass. That is if assuming that the kinetic energy of the hadron's constituents, moving at near the speed of light, which contributes greatly to the hadron mass,[1] is part of QCD binding energy. For protons, the sum of the rest masses of the three valence quarks (two up quarks and one down quark) is approximately 9.4 MeV/c², while the proton's total mass is about 938.3 MeV/c².

a reply to: IAMUnification

If we can close our eyes, and dream vivid dreams : then how can " light " be a particle ?

Am not so sure about " electrons " either ...

originally posted by: IAMUnification
Argue this,, then..
The frequency of light can affect the expression of an atom by causing the electrons in the atom to move from one energy level to another. When an electron absorbs a photon of light, it gains energy and moves to a higher energy level. When an electron emits a photon of light, it loses energy and moves to a lower energy level.

The energy of a photon of light is equal to Planck's constant multiplied by the frequency of the light. This means that the higher the frequency of the light, the more energy the photon will have.

The energy levels of electrons in an atom are quantized, which means that they can only have certain values. When an electron absorbs a photon of light, it can only move to an energy level that is equal to or greater than the energy of the photon.

When an electron emits a photon of light, it can only move to an energy level that is equal to or less than the energy of the photon.

The frequency of light can therefore affect the expression of an atom by causing the electrons in the atom to move from one energy level to another. The higher the frequency of the light, the more energy the photon will have, and the more likely it is to cause an electron to move to a higher energy level.

The expression of an atom can also be affected by the intensity of the light. The more intense the light, the more photons there will be, and the more likely it is that one of the photons will cause an electron to move to a higher energy level.

The resonant sound frequencies of an atom are the frequencies of sound waves that can cause the atoms to vibrate. These frequencies are determined by the mass and stiffness of the atoms.

When an atom is vibrated by a sound wave, it absorbs energy from the wave. This energy is used to increase the amplitude of the vibration. If the amplitude of the vibration becomes too large, the atom can be damaged or even destroyed.

The resonant sound frequencies of an atom can be used to manipulate the atom. For example, sound waves can be used to heat atoms or to cause them to emit light.

Resonance is a powerful phenomenon that can have a significant impact on the behavior of atoms. It is important to understand resonance so that we can use it to our advantage.

Here are some examples of how resonant sound frequencies can be used:

* In ultrasonic cleaning, sound waves are used to vibrate dirt and debris loose from surfaces.
* In medical imaging, sound waves are used to create images of the inside of the body.
* In sonochemistry, sound waves are used to create chemical reactions.

Resonance is a powerful tool that can be used to manipulate atoms and molecules. It has a wide range of applications in science, engineering, and medicine.

a reply to: KSDakar01

Umm, you do realize that AI's don't present you with truths. They just present you with something that seems like the consensus of numerous accumulated sources, some of which are total lies.

Absolutely
The AI hates this. But it let me explore all the data.
a reply to: chr0naut

I think I'm saying its internal binding energy is caused by a standing wave. As that standing wave gains energy it will express that in and out as what you refer to as protons neutrons and electrons.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Have you ever made sound in your Dreams?
I figure this is more a philosophical statement I need to respond to with a question.

I really do enjoy sharing my perspective though...
Your dreams are unmanifested energies that have no substance without a way in which to interfere with something.
a reply to: Nothin

originally posted by: IAMUnification
Absolutely
The AI hates this. But it let me explore all the data.
a reply to: chr0naut

But an AI cannot determine the truth or falsity of the data it is presented with.

An example is that ChatGPT, in the early days, insisted that 27 was a prime number (an oft repeated error) and it could not be convinced otherwise. It required human intervention to purge the incorrect data from its dataset.

There are numerous false, but often repeated, snippets of information out there on the world weird web. Some of it is pure fantasy. It is only through human censoring of the data that its error rate reduces, and this process will likely take decades and may never be fully achievable (especially if AI's begin to believe their own output, and add that to their source data).

You don't confirm scientific theories by bouncing them off a pathological liar.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: IAMUnification
Absolutely
The AI hates this. But it let me explore all the data.
a reply to: chr0naut

But an AI cannot determine the truth or falsity of the data it is presented with.

An example is that ChatGPT, in the early days, insisted that 27 was a prime number (an oft repeated error) and it could not be convinced otherwise. It required human intervention to purge the incorrect data from its dataset.

There are numerous false, but often repeated, snippets of information out there on the world weird web. It is only through human censoring of the data that its error rate reduces, and this process will take decades.

You don't confirm scientific theories by bouncing them off a pathological liar.

That's interesting about the 27 thing, first I heard that.

Yea, not quite reliable yet, just a glorified algorithm, GIGO.

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: IAMUnification
Absolutely
The AI hates this. But it let me explore all the data.
a reply to: chr0naut

But an AI cannot determine the truth or falsity of the data it is presented with.

An example is that ChatGPT, in the early days, insisted that 27 was a prime number (an oft repeated error) and it could not be convinced otherwise. It required human intervention to purge the incorrect data from its dataset.

There are numerous false, but often repeated, snippets of information out there on the world weird web. It is only through human censoring of the data that its error rate reduces, and this process will take decades.

You don't confirm scientific theories by bouncing them off a pathological liar.

That's interesting about the 27 thing, first I heard that.

Yea, not quite reliable yet, just a glorified algorithm, GIGO.

From a Reddit thread

I will go out on a limb here and say that ChatGPT is actually less 'artificially intelligent' than Google search.

It just presents its 'data' in a seemingly natural language model.

Everyone is being duped that it is more intelligent than a non-generative AI, and it is a commercial enterprise that is pushing a 'fashion of the day', while they can make money on it.

Clearly, from the linked text, it does not even understand the meaning of the content it presents. It just does so in a format that fits the 'rules' of human (English) grammar.

Correct, this is a hypothesis
a reply to: chr0naut

I believe if I were to boil down the equation it would be this. But it hides where the equation was discovered and understood. You don't have to define p but it would be:

ρ is the density of the medium in which the sound wave is traveling in kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m^3)

E_total = (1/2)*ρ*v^2*A*ν*h*E_binding

where:

A is the area of the object in square meters (m^2)
ν is the frequency of the light in hertz (Hz)
h is Planck's constant, which is equal to 6.626 × 10^-34 joules per second (J/s)
E_binding is the binding energy of the object in joules (J)

This version would be easier to use for calculations but it will have variance because it does not account for the electromagnetic field. It would be much easier to use though.

This should be cleaner and more consistent in its presentation.

E_sound = (1/2)*ρ*v^2*A^2
E_light = h*ν
E_electric = k * Q / r^2
E_magnetic = μ₀ * I / (2 * π * r)
E_binding = ((E_light*E_sound) + (E_sound*E_light) - (E_sound*E_light^2)*(E_light*E_sound^2))E_light^2
E_total = (E_sound*E_light^2)*(E_light*E_sound^2)*E_binding*(E_electric*E_magnetic)
G = frac[(E_sound*E_light^2)*(E_light*E_sound^2)^2* E_total][T^2 a^2] times frac[V][V_s]

where:


• E_electric the electric field strength in newtons per coulomb (N/C)
• A is the area of the object (Thank you)
• ν is the frequency of the light in hertz (Hz)
• h is Planck's constant, which is equal to 6.626 × 10^-34 joules per second (J/s)
• ρ is the density of the medium in which the sound wave is traveling in kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m^3)
• k is Coulomb's constant, which is equal to 8.988 × 10^9 N ⋅ m^2 / C^2
• Q is the charge in coulombs (C)
• r is the distance between the charge and the point in space in meters (m)
• E_magnetic is the magnetic field strength in teslas (T)
• μ₀ is the permeability of free space, which is equal to 4π × 10^-7 T ⋅ m/A
• I is the current in amperes (A)
• r is the distance from the wire in meters (m)
• V is the volume of the object
• G is the calculated gravity
• Vs​ is the volume of a sphere with the same radius as the object


There are terms in here that are not necessary for normal applications. But when you consider they are all connected it makes understanding its parts easier.

a reply to: IAMUnification

when you consider they are all connected

Which is why this is so funny, your 'explanation' is a list of formulas.
That is all it is. You don't connect anything you don't explain.

a reply to: IAMUnification

The area of an object is not in square meters.