Any Amateur Astrophysicists?


I feel like walking into this thread is like being stuck in the Matrix loading bay, unable to escape… and suddenly @Jayson turns the corner and is like

"I heard you once looked up at the stars and felt some curiosity my young scholar"

pulls out presentation board of infinite length



Took me a moment to straighten my mind out, but after writing this out long-hand, I think you could summarize the general idea with what already exists…at least, referring to the first page.

Toss the idea of the “TBD unifying law of EM”.
We effectively already have that with Maxwell’s equations, and the interesting thing about Maxwell’s equations is that if you take a quantum mechanical description of an electron (mathematically) and apply the same conservation of charge concept into it that Maxwell’s equations have, then Maxwell’s equations evolve out of the standard model.

So, two for the price of one. The Standard Model delivers Maxwell’s equations, so we can describe the quantum and electromagnetic behaviors in one go by calling the Standard Model.

So replace f’(x) as the Standard Model.

Next, f(x)
“Relativity + Gravitational energy divided by vector qualities”

You don’t need to quantify it this way. You’ll end up redundant.
Relativity’s field equation already does this.

There’s tensors all through this thing, so that’s essentially “vector qualities”, and they’re all for different things.
Here’s a look at the mathematical parts of the equation.


So, f(x) just needs to be Einstein’s field equations.

Then you have the kinetic energy equation, but I’m not really sure I get why.
Are we trying to convert the electromagnetic field into a straight kinetic energy concept, and mix that with GR’s energy values.

Are we’re trying to get joules out of this?

Delta of time is reasonable enough, though…that might require some distribution through the field equations…possibly, because those already quantify the difference of location over time…well…kind of…in the sense that they include the Ricci curvature tensor, which is going to describe a distance’s shape, which distance is time so effectively we have the concept of time in there. Not sure how that would have to be worked out.

Of course, I don’t know that anyone would know. Einstein’s field equations can’t be specifically solved.
No one has every done it. Ever time someone wants to use the field equations, they have to linearize them before use … meaning, they convert them into a 2D pretend world and ignore the issues involving tracking all of these factors in 3D spacetime.

Even Ligo linearizes the Einstein field equations.

But back on point…I think that essentially, you could say…

The the change of the kenetic energy of the quantum electromagnetic field and the spacetime gravitational energy of matter over time is the summary of the physics of everything.

I think that’s what you were getting at.






Keep in my mind I forgot most of the stuff I used to know and I lost my physics notes to spring cleaning…

Yes, your interpretation of my brainfart of an equation is mostly correct, and the point was to get joules for some of the parameters being that is the most basic unit of energy If i recall correctly…and being that the hypothetical parameters of such equation would have different units it couldn’t work cohesively as part of a larger function with a variable output if all the units of measurement dont gel together…i.e converting kg into miles

So yea My math theory was way off due to my limited knowledge and spur of the moment throwing things together via quick googling…

But on a serious note for some aspects of my brainfart of an equation I simply assigned another variable for it to broken down into a more complex equation that better quantifies and specifies the nature of that particular parameter… and have it work as a piece of a larger overall function…with a variable output

To take a serious stab at it I would have to take account and treat spacetime as a fluid and quantify/account for its various fluctuations and the byproduct of those fluctuations which would be gravity waves and gravity…in addition to that I would also have to accurately represent the force of electromagnetism both the fluctuations in the field and the elements within the field responding to the field as well as the elements themselves having it’s own dynamics…which is problem because the elements own dynamics and generates it’s own field which causes distortions of the overall electromagnetic field which makes it difficult to find a constant to the electromagnetic force…and have to take into account of things like how objects become objects and obtain mass thereby having energy…etc…etc…also I think mathematical probabilities are a piece of the puzzle because of stuff like ghost particles

So to summarize yea you are moslty correct in your interpretation of what I was attempting to do…but even I haven’t fully fleshed it out…so yea

Also i just had another brainfart that sigma f(x) should have been written as sigma f(delta x)
Because each x in f(x) represents a singular object and it would only be for the function for f(x) but I digress…
Being that all the functions are just smaller pieces of a larger function of which would describes the overall dynamic


Picturing a 3d moebius strip for every value of x,y,and z of which oscillates between positive to negative and negative to positive…in addition to oscillating in phase shift, frequency…etc…

Wait nvm I havent learned enough yet I should learn more before I go deeper into this…not appropriate…

Somewhat music related is the study of sound waves so… speed of sound is 333m/s I think in air however speed of sound is diff underwater


Actually, that’s how I learned harmony.
By the physicality of sound.

I grew up around a lot of analog electronic gear, old abandoned WW2 bunkers, orthodox churches, and it was an island so ocean waves were a constant.

I didn’t notice it at the time, but all of this was influencing how I would later understand harmony.

I even made an excel “app” which breaks a chord down into frequency waves, the combined wave, and the oscilloscope symmetry of the wave.

More harmony equals more symmetrical waveform.
Less harmony equals less symmetrical waveform.



The speed of any wave (even light) varies with the medium it travels through. In the case of air the density and temperature also affect the transmission speed. So not only does sound travel at different (IE Faster) speeds in more and more dense objects/mediums, it travels at different speeds depending on your elevation and the weather outside.


Fun fact: my family is considering moving from LA to Colorado Springs next year. I genuinely worry if this will affect my music and how.


Right so sine of x has inverse arc sine which is sin of y…so imagine all trig functions superimposed on each other 3 dimensionally with no restrictions on the range or domain wonder what that would look like…

@White_Noise…I suggest you start a rocky Balboa type training regimen to shovel snow…


Weirder crime.