An Explanation. Let's Discuss

If we calculate the equation using known data of hydrogen as our base element. Then increase the frequency of the sound, we will see that G increases. This is because the higher the frequency of the sound, the more energy it has. The more energy the sound has, the stronger the binding force between the sound and light waves will be. The stronger the binding force, the greater the calculated gravity will be.

If we continue to increase the frequency of the sound, we will eventually reach a point where the calculated gravity of hydrogen matches the calculated gravity of other elements. This is because the higher the frequency of the sound, the more energy it has, and the stronger the binding force between the sound and light waves will be. Eventually, the binding force will be so strong that the hydrogen atom will be unable to escape the gravitational pull of the sound and light waves.

Here is a list of the sound frequency as the values increase and become other elements:

Element, Frequency (Hz)
Hydrogen, 10^14
Helium, 10^15
Lithium, 10^16
Beryllium, 10^17
Boron, 10^18
Carbon, 10^19
Nitrogen, 10^20
Oxygen, 10^21
Fluorine, 10^22
Neon, 10^23

As you can see, the frequency increases as the atomic number increases. This is because the higher the atomic number, the more protons there are in the nucleus. The more protons there are, the stronger the binding force between the nucleus and the electrons. The stronger the binding force, the higher the frequency of the sound wave needed to break the bond.

It is important to note that this is just a theoretical chart. The actual frequencies needed to break the bonds of other elements may be different.
And I am also proposing the sound and light expression of the atom is responsible for the perception of electrons protons and neutrons. Where instead it is a mass of light and sound waves interfering and using electromagnetism as a medium of propagation. Orbits between bodies would be thought of as harmonic resonance where the net gain and the net loss is equalized between the bodies. When I propose it as a unified theory, I hope to be able to show you examples on all scales. But I am also sharing this as I go because I dont want to covet an idea.

a reply to: Justoneman

Flatland still hurts my head some. Glued planes and perception of geometry is a faculty of mind i haven't practiced

Someone is bound to consider the implications of the equation set eventually. Get curious.

You might want to set up your equations in Mathematica to work with them: www.wolfram.com...

There's a group named xAct Tensor Computer Algebra where they discuss tensors

Description
Discussion on the xAct environment for Tensor Computer Algebra in Wolfram Language and Mathematica.
groups.google.com...

In mathematics, a tensor is an algebraic object that describes a multilinear relationship between sets of algebraic objects related to a vector space. Tensors may map between different objects such as vectors, scalars, and even other tensors. There are many types of tensors, including scalars and vectors (which are the simplest tensors), dual vectors, multilinear maps between vector spaces, and even some operations such as the dot product. Tensors are defined independent of any basis, although they are often referred to by their components in a basis related to a particular coordinate system.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't know what your equation set or the "BE" is supposed to do, but you might want to develop a tensor to describe it.
en.wikipedia.org...

I am curious, though, as to why sound is so important? What's so special about sound?

a reply to: IAMUnification

The Light of Wonder, The Darkness, The Mother, All Potential, The Egg
E = 0 (potential)

The Light of Imagination, The Light, The Father, All Energy, Seed
E = 1 (actual)

POV = non-equity, non-equality

a reply to: Phantom423moment. Is important as we have 3 primary wave expressions of energy. Electromagnetic, sound, and light. Sound is the reverberation of light in density. It they were tuned differently you would have different elements here. You can change the frequency of light or the electromagnetic field as well. When the 3 are tuned in ratio you get the periodic elements. I havent been to wolfram in years, thanks for to tip. I will explore it.

The BE is the binding energy of an atom. It is why the energy doesn't fly away from itself. I am explaining it as an interference pattern between light and sound that creates a standing wave of energy in oscillation.

0 and 1 are both the required. They have no inherent separation and are the same force or creation. The Mother of curiosity is Wonder. Its father is Imagination. If you want to elucidate your perspective, I would hope I can clarify more for you.
a reply to: quintessentone

a reply to: IAMUnification

The atomic binding energy of the atom is the energy required to disassemble an atom into free electrons and a nucleus. It is the sum of the ionization energies of all the electrons belonging to a specific atom. The atomic binding energy derives from the electromagnetic interaction of the electrons with the nucleus, mediated by photons.

What's wrong with the standard description of atomic binding energy?

a reply to: IAMUnification

I could also point out the several cultures begin with the androgynous being. Who divides itself into male and female. I would hope you take the concept and apply your own meaning to it anyways. Please excuse the limits of my grammar.

a reply to: Phantom423

It tells you it is created from mass. We do not require a separate model(quantum mechanics, as cool as it sounds)

I left my binding energy equation unsimplified so you can see what represents mass/energy of the parts. Knowing what is the cause is more important than trying to discover and label a new tiny piece.

I could create names for things forever until I ran out of letter combinations and apply them to division of the whole. It wouldn't explain to you what is happening though

a reply to: IAMUnification

But you are correct, my perspective considers the divinity of male and female as two parts of the whole.

a reply to: IAMUnification


I thought Einstein said that mass and energy were interchangeable and equivalent? Why should it be any different in an atom?

a reply to: IAMUnification

It's okay for you to make your own sense of it. I value our symbolic understanding as humanity. I cannot discredit the waters of creation which I see as the the womb of a mother carrying a child. I see balance in the yin and the yang and do not think one exists without the other effectively. I see this way because I myself am not able to procreate without my wife, and she would be hard pressed to do it alone as well I imagine.

a reply to: Phantom423

He did say that, and you are correct the principle of equivalency would still be true which is why I can show the equation as I did.

The only issue I take with that is he left our science of cause and effect behind and im sure Isaac Newton rolled in his grave. He obfuscated the forces that cause mass by generalizing them into 3 letters. At the same time without his work and the work of quantum mechanics I could not have fit the pieces together the way I did.... so double edged sword I suppose.

a reply to: Phantom423

This .ight add context to those statements if you enjoy tesla:

Poem, "Fragments of Olympian Gossip"


While listening on my cosmic phone
I caught words from the Olympus blown.
A newcomer was shown around;
That much I could guess, aided by sound.
"There's Archimedes with his lever
Still busy on problems as ever.
Says: matter and force are transmutable
And wrong the laws you thought immutable."
"Below, on Earth, they work at full blast
And news are coming in thick and fast.
The latest tells of a cosmic gun.
To be pelted is very poor fun.
We are wary with so much at stake,
Those beggars are a pest—no mistake."
"Too bad, Sir Isaac, they dimmed your renown
And turned your great science upside down.
Now a long haired crank, Einstein by name,
Puts on your high teaching all the blame.
Says: matter and force are transmutable
And wrong the laws you thought immutable."
"I am much too ignorant, my son,
For grasping schemes so finely spun.
My followers are of stronger mind
And I am content to stay behind,
Perhaps I failed, but I did my best,
These masters of mine may do the rest.
Come, Kelvin, I have finished my cup.
When is your friend Tesla coming up."
"Oh, quoth Kelvin, he is always late,
It would be useless to remonstrate."
Then silence—shuffle of soft slippered feet—
I knock and—the bedlam of the street.
Nikola Tesla, Novice

a reply to: IAMUnification

He obfuscated the forces that cause mass by generalizing them into 3 letters.

For any type of energy to be converted to mass, a nuclear reaction (or something similar) is required that absorbs energy and releases a particle that has rest mass. If an object gains energy it gains mass, and if an object gains mass it equivalently gains energy. This is called rest-mass energy.

If you require a outside force to make the conversion - F = ma where m is mass and a is acceleration, wouldn't that change the outcome of your equation? In other words, now you would need another factor to add into the equation which would change the total energy of the system.

a reply to: Phantom423

I think I get what you are asking...
I believe I represent the change in a system that you mention in my equation for change:
Coherence
E_being = 1/Δν
Where:
• E_being is the coherence time
• Δν is the frequency width

Entropy:
ΔS = Q/T
where:
• S is the entropic energy
• Q is the heat transfer
• T is the temperature
Resonance:
Q = ωR/2L

Where:
• Q is the quality factor
• ω is the angular frequency
• R is the resistance
• L is the inductance

Change = f(τ, Q, ω, S, E, f, ω)

Where:
• τ is the coherence time
• Q is the quality factor
• ω is the angular frequency
• S is the entropy of the system
• E is the amount of energy in the system
• f is the frequency
• ω is the angular frequency


To measure things in motion you would have to apply this equation

a reply to: IAMUnification

• E is the amount of energy in the system

Is that the total energy before or after you make the other calculations. The equation for force is simple as I showed in the last post: F = ma. That's it. Why do you need the other terms. In particular, why include entropy? Entropy increases but never decreases so why bother with that?

a reply to: Phantom423

Entropy does decrease as long as the system is open. You give heat radiation(light) off. If your system were closed you would only gain entropy. At the same time if your system was closed and you were exposed to coherence. Your energy would increase until you popped. It is important to represent both. Entropy can be seen as incoherent energy that dampens resonance. These functions allow bodies in space to settle into orbits.

I agree that F=ma is practical for engineering. But it isnt practical for explaining energy in 3 dimensions that are already in motion.

The change equation prevents me from having to creating a set of tensors such as the stress-energy tensor or the mass-energy tensor. I can define a system, apply motion(change), and then calculate gravity. The combination of which allows us to study any energy system through time in a variable environment.

Thats hard to explain myself on. I hope that helps.

a reply to: IAMUnification

That explanation is above my pay grade. I don't understand it. It looks like you're creating a new type of physics that changes what we've calculated and observed in nature. So I really can't respond to that.