Thank you for all your videos. Thank you to share your knowledge. This channel deserves more views but people don’t like to try to understand they want something that doesn’t make them brain in work. Effort to understand is not welcome. But lots of people don’t know that you exist and even if some words escape me ( not English) I always appreciate to learn. Cheers from Belgium 🍺🇧🇪 and Spain🏔️🏔️⛰️ 🇪🇸
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
Well thank you. I'm glad you appreciate my research.
@manipulativer
8 ай бұрын
Lovely stuff! But after listening to Weinstein talks lately and reading upon quantum stuff and ofc my intuition, i truly believe 1 planck if its 1 rotation should have 4 bits of information. Namely the 90 degree action. (or perhaps the 4 particle model) physics gibbergabber; I got an idea of exchanging places of the neutron and electron and it changes a lot but sort of extended plumb puding where the percieved 0 point energy field (should be slightly + but becomes 0 for an inertial observer going with gravity) is made of same stuff interacting in through the positive potential or negative neutral region. So electrik field moves from + to - in the 2+ Cu neutral lattice and it rotates electron-positrons which causes the electron apperent - to + acceleration and since in the ZPE the electrons and positrons are bound they only rotate without a current which is what magnetism is? Idk
@elvistesla3179
7 ай бұрын
How would you quantify stillness?
@whig01
8 ай бұрын
Probably a good idea to scale Planck units by a fixed quantity, like we do for Avogadro's number for molar quantities.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
Explain Avogrados number, if you would? I'm trying to see what a molar mass exactly is and not the runaround BS!
@whig01
8 ай бұрын
@@TravisTellsTruths I'm sure Fractal Woman understands what I mean. Avogadro's number is the number of atoms of oxygen in 16 grams of oxygen, if you want to be more concrete.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
Why 16 grams?
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
And why is water 18.02 grams?
@whig01
8 ай бұрын
@@TravisTellsTruths It's a conversion from atomic weight to gram weight. Water has two hydrogens in addition to an oxygen per molecule.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
FractalWoman, I need help. For years ive been trying to convert the Planck Length into a larger octave of it's own size, so large that I can see it and use it for measurements. The problem is the 33 to 34 zeroes. A meter always fascinated me as being so close to 1.618033988 x 10 to the negative 33 or 34 or whatever it is. Exponents need to be converted to octaves (doubling sequence and also halving). 10/16 is 0.625 a musical number. I wonder if this applies. I need to pull an engineering unit out if the planck length by multiplying it by numbers like: 137,438,953,472
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
The 1.616 in reduced Planck's time is just a coincidence because of the arbitrary "meter" and "second". If we used different units, then these "numbers" would change. So if our calibrated meter was just a tiny bit smaller by 1mm, then those numbers would change. Those numbers are a measurement relative to the measure unit of one meter. So don't put too much mystical meaning onto those numbers. Besides, I prefer to use calculate Planck Length using non-reduced Planck's constant which doesn't have any interesting "numerology" associated with it. If you are looking for octaves, then for sure I would recommend non-reduced Planck length which is calibrated to the cycle (where light propagates one wavelength in one wave cycle).
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
Then under this analogy, how can anything move faster than light in a given medium? Look up cherenkov radiation. I've made breakthroughs on 0rg0ne energy.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWomanno I understand that they appear to be arbitrary, however, they are less arbitrary than they appear. The meter is 99.93% of a Light Meter. And the second is well, 43,200 in a 12 hour day or 86,400 in a 24 hour day. A ten foot water column experts 4.32 PSI of pressure at the bottom and a 1 foot column of water is 0.432 PSI. 34.2 feet up is 2 atmospheres of pure water pressure in PSI and 34 feet down is also. The meter was originally calibrated to Earth and is quite close to measuring the polar circumference at 40.008 million meters. I'm looking for an Octave of planck length in inches or meters.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
The purest Gold is 99.9 to 99.99% so 99.93 is indeed close. Everything has a margin of error in the natural world from perfect theoretical values (~0.5 to 1.6 %). The moon crossing over the sun in an eclipse is an example. Nearly a perfect fit... stunning. All based on 107 to 109 ratio (108). There's about a 1% gap between lunar disk and solar disk to allow us to see the solar Halo in all of it's Glory.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWomanit's 1.616... X 10 to the -35th Meters. The planck Length.
@toymaker3474
8 ай бұрын
what are the boundary's for the wave to reflect off of?
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
I don't understand the question so I can't really answer it. Here is what ChatGPT has to say: The boundaries for waves to reflect off of can vary depending on the type of wave and the medium it's traveling through. In general, boundaries where waves reflect can be characterized by a few scenarios: Fixed End Boundaries: In situations like a taut rope fixed at both ends or a wall, waves can reflect when they reach these fixed boundaries. At these points, the wave energy can't continue through the boundary, so it reflects back into the medium. Free End Boundaries: When waves encounter an open end or boundary that allows movement, such as the end of a string or an open space, some types of waves can reflect partially or undergo changes in phase upon reflection. Change in Medium Boundaries: Waves can reflect at the boundary between two different mediums where the speed or properties of the wave change abruptly. This happens with sound waves hitting a wall, light waves encountering a different medium like air to water, or seismic waves moving through different layers of the Earth's crust. The behavior of waves at boundaries can be further categorized based on the type of waves, be it mechanical waves (like sound waves and seismic waves) or electromagnetic waves (like light). Additionally, the angle of incidence, the angle at which the wave hits the boundary, plays a role in how the wave reflects-this is described by the law of reflection. Remember, the specifics of wave reflection can vary significantly based on the characteristics of the wave and the medium it's traveling through.
@toymaker3474
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman light being a disturbance in the medium must have some sort of boundary condition in order to create the wave in the first place unless... light is actually longitudinal in nature.
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
@@toymaker3474 Here is an animation of radio waves being generated by an antenna: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_wave#/media/File:Dipole_xmting_antenna_animation_4_408x318x150ms.gif Here, the boundary condition is the wire with which the charges are accelerating back and forth. These are not longitudinal waves. They are transverse waves. Atoms must be doing a similar thing when the electrons transition up and down inside the atom.
@toymaker3474
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman i would like to show you a video from eric dollard were he talks about this... but apparently i cant.
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
@@toymaker3474 If you tell me the title of the video, I should be able to find it. KZitem sometimes doesn't allow other people to post links.
@bartercoins
8 ай бұрын
So, this would be a law only for _transverse_ waves propagating through the _matrix_ of spherical cavities (assuming Aether is composed of spheres + matrix), and the fundamental unit of space would be one cavity of the matrix and the fundamental unit of time would be the time it takes one sphere to travel from one cavity to the next. Space-time, then, could be said to refer to each of the two components of Aether: space and time, space referring to the distance between one cavity and the next, and time referring to how long it takes for one sphere to travel from one cavity to the next. Planck's constant only applies, then, to an *Aether Matrix Transverse Wave Field* (or _AeM T-Wave Field_ , for short) because the speed of the wave is the speed of light, not to l-waves propagating through a field of matrix or of spheres (which propagation is instantaneous). Technically, it may also apply to t-waves propagating though Aether spheres unencumbered by a 3D Aether matter field, which waves travel at _slightly less than_ the speed of light, which indicates that the waves _slow down_ when passing through a mass field of 3D Aether matter (such as the mass field of a length of conductive wire). Thus we can say that outside of such mass fields, both forms of Aetheric transverse waves propagate at the speed of light, but only the Aether sphere t-waves slow down slightly when they propagate through mass fields. As for Aether Sphere Vortical Flow Fields, I suppose the speed of the flow is likewise slightly less than the speed of light.
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
Actually, this is a "law" for all waves. All travelling waves propagate one wavelength of space in one wave period of time whether they be transverse or longitudinal, light or sound.
@bartercoins
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman I'd say you are correct in that statement, but when speaking of the Aether (and using the spheres + matrix of cavities model), the fundamental length of space for a transverse wave is different than for a longitudinal wave. The transverse waves use a single matrix cavity as its fundamental unit of length (or distance), whereas the longitudinal waves appear to be _instantaneous_ because they use _the entirety_ of the matrix of cavities as the length. So, if we could ping the outside of the universal matrix of cavities (which fills up the volume of, and thus takes the shape of, a sphere), the time that longitudinal wave takes to reach the other side of the universal sphere is the fundamental speed of longitudinal Aether waves, which we call instantaneous because from our local perspective, that's how fast it appears to be.
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
@@bartercoins You are talking in terms of your model, and I am talking in terms of a wave propagating in a medium, no matter what the medium is made of. What you are talking about is highly specific and I am trying to generalize the concept. So, you said "the fundamental length of space for a transverse wave is different than for a longitudinal wave". I am not sure what you mean by "fundamental length". I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying. Longitudinal waves propagate one wavelength of space in one wave period of time. This is a true statement. If longitudinal waves exist in the Ether (if the Ether can house and sustain longitudinal waves), then those waves are going to propagate one wavelength of space on one wave period of time. However, transverse waves and longitudinal waves are qualitatively quite different and so you won't be able to measure a longitudinal waves using the measuring stick from a Transverse wave. That would be like trying to compare apples to oranges. Yes, they are both fruit, but qualitatively, they are very different. Transverse waves are not Longitudinal waves and vice versa. But they are both waves that propagates one wavelength of space in one wave period of time in The Medium. This is NOT to say that the speed of the transverse waves are the same as the longitudinal waves. The speeds might be and likely are different. In all other wave propagating media, longitudinal waves are always faster than the transverse waves. So, fundamentally, transverse waves are not the same as longitudinal waves and so when you say "the fundamental length of space for a transverse wave is different than for a longitudinal wave", I believe you are saying that L and T waves are fundamentally different, and so then I would agree.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
@@bartercoinsI think you're describing ELECTRIC FIELD, LONGITUDINAL WAVES. And, I have discovered a non-pulsing or Static Tesla type of voltage field. This field is a Scalar Field as it isn't waving or vibrating but just is a so called solid state flow or "Static Flow" of raw energy.
@bartercoins
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman When I speak of a fundamental unit of length, I'm referring to the smallest incremental distance that a wave can travel. Unless I misunderstood it, your video uses Planck's constant to define both the smallest incremental distance that can be traveled by a wave and also how long it takes a wave to travel that distance, which works out to be the speed of light. If all Aether waves traveled that same distance in that same amount of time, then you could use Planck's constant for all waves, but _gravity waves_ travel _instantaneously_ , therefore you can't use Planck's constant for gravity waves. Gravity waves are longitudinal waves, not transverse waves (according to my understanding). Depending on the medium, a longitudinal wave usually has some "wiggle room" between particles. One particle smashes into the next longitudinally, which smashes into the next longitudinally, and so on, propagating the wave in increments, for it takes time for each individual particle to cross the wiggle room distance and "touch" the next one. When dealing with _matter_ , therefore, longitudinal waves have incremental distances and take time to cover the accumulated distance increments. But in the case of Aether, _there is no wiggle room_ . Every Aether sphere _is already touching_ the surrounding Aether spheres. Every Aether sphere is also already touching the Aether matrix. Conversely, the singular Aether matrix of cavities is already and always touching every single Aether sphere found within it. This means that when a longitudinal wave is propagated in the Aether, whether through the spheres or through the matrix, irregardless, the energy is transferred _instantaneously_ from beginning point to ending point, as if it were all one solid thing vibrating in unison. So, Planck's constant only applies to Aetheric transverse waves, which move much more slowly as they "wiggle" up and down through the Aether.
@Saalvadaar
8 ай бұрын
I'm not anywhere near educated enough to claim to understand all of this on par with a real physicist.I want to correctly understand these units and their distinctions from each other in application. Please do correct me if what I'm about to say thinking aloud has an erroneous underlying assumption about the nature of these units, though. I'm a simpleton trying to understand something that may well be past the periphery of my own intelligence. So, in my head, what sense I've been able to make of these things we call 'photons', 'protons', 'neutrons' and all the other 'quanta', thanks to the Aether hypothesis, is that they are stable configurations of intersecting waves that can be understood in a maximum of 4 dimensions - X, Y, Z, and time. All it takes to change one to another or to make any from scratch is to apply forces necessary to create a different configuration of intersections. In application, I think this quickly becomes very complex and hard to grasp. What I'm doing in my head is trying to imagine these flexible, stretchable, nonphysical circular/spherical units of aether intersecting with each other and forming fluid quasi-structures that are a kind of spinning balance of periodically interweaving poly-vortices in the shapes of various platonic solids. The more complex, the more long-lived they are due to their overall entanglement resulting in a structure that transits many intersections in time without losing overall coherence, like an atom. The exception being some of the 'heaviest' atoms which are for various reasons at a threshold where it is more efficient to quickly break down into multiple smaller configurations, as with those that passively undergo radioactive decay, meaning they are more unstable than others, but could probably be held stable if interacted with in the right manner externally, like putting duct tape on the structure in a way, but with great precision. Anyway, in this sense, I'm thinking that everything is made of the same units, just as you are, but I'm understanding it as different structural configurations which have different macrogenic properties and can react with each other in a multitude of ways depending on interactions with even the slightest asymmetric ripple coming into intersection with any said structure. I think fundamentally this all holds true at all scales even up to the totality of the universe itself, and that any distinctions we make between larger and smaller configurations of structures within it are mostly arbitrary due to how we perceive the universe at our specific scale with our human senses. We find it convenient to call one thing different from another, such as defining multiple forces of nature instead of just one and then all its possible resulting configurations even when the principle governing it all is ultimately the same at all scales if you're not mistaking the macrogenic attributes of the universe for the principle it is built out of. What I'm having trouble keeping track of, personally, it what is what and why, because it all seems very interchangeable at an intuitive level. I can keep track of explaining things as magnetic and electric, but beyond that I just get completely lost with all these different units, formula, and conversions. The fact that some incredible people throughout history have managed to nail down how to manipulate all of this enough to engineer the technology we have today is astounding to me, because in their position I don't know how I'd be able to figure out where to begin and how to distinguish one configuration of natural forces into natural units from another. Thank goodness we have a universe to observe and learn its favorite building blocks from, because if I had to start from scratch I don't know how I'd predict all that has come from this one simple thing we call the aether. The myriad of differently named units and concepts after many different contributing scientists' names we have today is honestly quite confusing for me and makes it hard to keep track of what anyone is even talking about, so if anyone can universalize it so that a child could understand how to build up to from the principle, that would be revolutionary. I never got a college education on the matter though I wish I had had the opportunity. Even so, learning what I have now and attempting to build a better understanding I find I have to navigate through serious fundamental errors in mainstream physics, the subtleties of which are often tricky to catch, on top of trying to account for my own lack of knowledge at the same time. I feel like physics today has a barrier to entry requiring a lot of memorization, which I'm not good at, where it would be far easier to traverse and work with if its fundamental units were defined in a more secular way. I would hope for it have fewer names and obscurities to keep track of, with fundamental principles with more and more complex application ordered neatly above one after another in a nice inverted pyramid shape.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
That's right, faster than they possibly are supposed to in ANY given medium. My pyramid can glow blue at nighttime and emits blue lightning. This blue light is also seen around nuclear power plants. The Aether is a medium, the air is a medium, yes water works well to see this light becayse it's such a powerful dielectric and yet scotch tape works too and many other clear materials allow you to see it. Oops, I somehow edited the wrong comment. Oh, well. This thing got really glitchy and weird today 😮 😢
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
I too am obsessed with units of measurement. I write software for medical devices for a living. Calibration is my middle name. If my software isn't working correctly, it is likely because it wasn't calibrated correctly. That is all standard units are. Standard units are calibration jigs. In order to calibrate a device correctly (the universe in our case) you need to have really good and accurate calibration jigs (measuring sticks). In terms of making measurements, I'm not too concerned about octaves. If you are looking for octaves, you need to look more closely at the FREQUENCY term in the equation E = hf. That is where "octaves" really play a role. In this equation, h, is merely a conversion factor converting from the domain of energy to the domain of frequency and vice versa. Nikola Tesla once said "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration." As Energy and Frequency are two sides of the same coin Temperature and Energy are two sides of the same coin. As Boltzman's constant has units Joules/Kelvin or [J/K], Planck's constant has units [J/cycle]. Planck's constant converts from the domain of Frequency to the domain of Energy and Boltzmann's constant converts from the domain of Temperature to the domain of Energy. So if you have a frequency of light, you can use Planck's constant to convert to Energy, then you can use the inverse of Boltzmann's constant to convert to Temperature. That is another way or looking at Planck's constant. FW
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWomanlook, I'm trying to get an octave of the Planck Length in our human dimensions. The kilogram should be recalibrated to match water from 997 grams per meter cubed to 1,000 grams per meter cubed, BUT the Light Meter should be used to define it. The planck length as a unit of measurement of length as a non-arbitrary measure or "Natural Measure" is my obsession. 1 unit of an octave of Planck Length so I cam build things to resonate with Space-Time "fabric" as inherent to its structure. Size is key to me.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
This is a Static Size Measure for buildings and technology to vibrate sympathetically to all of the Universe or in other words, to Time/Space Itself. Space is a static property of relative dimensions. This compared to that. I want Planck Length Octave as a size i can use and work with. I already solved the Meter (Light Meter) and the Kilogram should be defined to be 1,000 grams of Pure Light Water (or regular "earth average" deuterium content fresh water) instead of the 997 grams but also the Light Meter or Another New "Planck Metric" unit of Length to define the Cubic Volume of this Water in Kilograms per Cubic "Planck Meter."
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWomanI can make the best computer screens on Earth. One day I hope I can. It's calibrated to NATURE AND PERFECT HOLY MUSIC as LIGHT!!!! All in divine frequencies (sacred Numbers). Think 108. Also with only 2 pixels colors I can make ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more colors than with 3 (R,G,B). Think about what it means. WITH 4 I CAN SOAR. All divinely and Organically Calibrated Musical Light. Pure White Light isn't easy at all for humans so far, either. I can.
@adamsheaffer
8 ай бұрын
I have also been obsessed with units since 13-14. But more than just units is the mathematical BASE! The units themselves are pretty easy, Planck units are very useful but are too small and requires a choice of a base to make them larger. Base ten is mostly arbitrary, but base six is objectively better, so if aliens from across the universe were to use any particular units of measure, it would likely be the non-reduced Planck units multiplied by powers of six.
@elvistesla3179
8 ай бұрын
Can a singuarity be quantized?
@elvistesla3179
8 ай бұрын
Let me rephrase that. Can the absolute be quantified?
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
@@elvistesla3179 It depends on what you mean by quantification (and by absolute). Quantification is a form of measurement. If I am measuring distances, I need a distance measuring stick (a ruler for example) with which to "quantify" my measurement. If I am measuring time, I need a temporal measuring device (a clock or stop watch) with which to "quantify" my measurements. Quantification is the act of applying a "number" to a measurement and that "number" need to be relative to some calibrated measurement jig, such as a ruler and/or a calibrated stop watch. Regarding the term "absolute", I have no idea what you mean by this. I am a calibrator. I need "things" to be accurately defined. The term "absolute" is extremely vague. The term "singularity" is also extremely vague. I will need more details.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
We need absolute zero temperature as a major reference point. And the other might be the ZPE.
@elvistesla3179
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman Can you measure the undivided or is it immeasurable? Is it not by differences that we measure? Don't you think that there might be some aspect of reality that cannot be subdivided and is thus immeasurable ? That is what I mean by the absolute or singularity. I might pose a thougth experiment when it comes to quantity. Is there a difference between a singlarity or one thing and nothing? Can nothing or NO THING actually exist? Or are one thing and nothing actually the same thing? These are just question that I think and maybe they will stimulate your questions in your own paradigm that might be useful to contemplate.
@elvistesla3179
8 ай бұрын
@@TravisTellsTruths What is zero? An absense of ? An absolute? A singularity? What was before the big bang? Temperature is only a reference point to differences between 2 extremes. But what about the mediated and perfectly balance middle of dualities? Is that the actual singularity in a divergent world? Isn't that the zero point? Not at the beginning or end, but rather the still unmoving fulcrum of all motion in opposition that makes up the material world?
@inphiknitfractal
8 ай бұрын
Isn't quanta technically the incorrect terminology for something with no quantity? (space)
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
I am talking about spatial quantities and temporal quantities. One meter is a spatial quantity. One second is a temporal quantity. One Planck length is spatial QUANTITY. One Planck time is a temporal QUANTITY. Quanta the singular of quantity. I am very careful with the words I choose and I believe I am using the terms "quantity" and "quanta" correctly.
@inphiknitfractal
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman I understand why you are using them as representative of measures, just feels strange to be measuring nothingness :p Have you seen Dan Winter's calculation for gravity using Plank length x Golden Mean Ratio = precice radii of Hydrogen?
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
@@inphiknitfractal Waves are not "nothing". They are "something". If waves were "nothing" then we wouldn't be talking about them. In terms of measurements, I can physically measure the distance between crests of water waves (for example) using a common ruler. I can physically measure the time it takes for two crests of the wave to crash into the shore using a stop watch. What I am taking about applies to all waves, not just Light waves. Regarding Dan Winter, I have not seen these calculations.
@inphiknitfractal
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman Completely agree..Part of why I brought up terminology..Space itself has no properties, so technically can not be measured / quantified. Waves are a completely different story.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWomanthe smallest amount of red light possible would be 1 quanta of red light, I believe. There is a minimum threshold for red light as it does have a value in electron-volts. How does Jules as "energy" relate to voltage is my question. Is light really measured in "Power" or Amperage or Voltage? I guess "Irradiance" and Lumens/Lux is all equal to Power (Amperage × Voltage)?
Пікірлер: 185