Quantum physics Evolutionary Data; "Turtles all the way down". Infinite progression of physical states.

Identification of Harmonic Equation 3 as relativity function..

And Infinity!.

By analyzing Bruce Cathie's "Harmonic Equation 3" and we have previously shown that it:

One part of the equation was to close to cos(45).
So cos(45) was replaced with cos(60) as suggested by Fuller maybe. And cos(n).

That difference becomes as (√1/c+√2)/(√2(1/c)**3/2) vs (√1/c+2)/(2(1/c)**3/2) i.e. lack of √2 when using cos(60), etc.
The rest of the expression / equation was also re-arranged..totaling in:
((1/c)**(-3/2)+cos(radians(d))*c). wrong perhaps. mycathie() .
N.B. With c below Zero we get complex numbers.., that which at some point also become parallel?.

Then we had our own "infinity function" developed, this is "python" programming syntax but should be easy to understand; it makes the list..it's not really infinite, but maybe it goes one level deeper for each natural number. Don't know what an actual infinite thing would do because it could never compute..so the code can be modified to go even deeper, ..

Still maybe we did a short-cut at least by running the function through the relativity equation, which displaces the list though it looks identical..

Actually we don't know what the code does so we don't..

So this one goes inside of the equation above..as the variable c, or you can run the procedure.. without it..N.B. Was rearranged by Someone into (29/6480)**-n but does not produce these negative values listed here. See other entry.

def wad(n):
....out=n
....for x in range(1,n): # this is..
........out=(wad(x)*(10/3*2.9)/2160)
........#print(out)
....return(out)

Here it use among other things Wadsworth Constant 10/3 and our own 2.9 (identical to Wien's constant though this one is exactly 2.9 as we have calculated already. ).

This is incorporated into another function containing the relativity equation. And it produced the following evolutionary table of harmonics (in geodesic measures) which may not look exciting, and we have to try to comment it bottom-up (for n from 1 to 16):

mycathie(wad(x),60):

1... 1.5

(This one is easy, it's just 1.0 in the other list..though it can't be displaced..)

2... 0.0025370423892189446

3... 1.0103826935868707e-05

4... 4.484344281483951e-08

5... 2.0057618585548199e-10

6... 8.976067881144512e-13

7... 4.017057371528794e-15

8... 1.797756856293527e-17

9... 8.045516705109457e-20

10.. 3.6006170412578767e-22

11.. 1.611387256037796e-24

12.. 7.211455312490666e-27

(So, and this appears at #10 without Cathie's Modification, and as 7.201234082129259e-22

13.. 3.2273488281201e-29

14.. 1.4443382101154548e-31,

(The speed of light harmonic, 1/x of the next. Or Photons.)

15.. 6.463859273664839e-34,

(This is the preceding's gravity harmonic. Gravitons?)

16.. 2.8927765267944483e-36,

(This could (should) be the anti-matter harmonic.)

17.. 1.2946067789666512e-38,

(Unknown variable, could be Schumann Resonance but it's not certain.)

The good think about this list is that it is "logical progression" (derived just from sequential numbers 1 and onwards to 17 here. Maybe the universe is like this..

Though if one chose a figure say #15 and cycle the co-sinus values away from 60, at cos(1) we have 1.2925749593178103e-33; similar to #17--..with #16 at cos(90) we have 3.681790443611248e-52 similar to #10 or with cos(406) we have 4.0189828564101395e-36 similar to #7..so maybe there is some kind of system here, but the figures are still derived from the natural numbers in the wad(x) function, first.

We agree now with Bruce Cathie that it would be nice if high society-science data was available to the the public, as when we can make this..and since it has some other obvious implications for the intellectual (or thinking; biology),.. though C.E.R.N. used to distribute a particle physics compendium on the size of maybe over 1000 pages, bi-annually..

There are also some "inverted" values (for n) belonging..: (Though the fractions in the real numbers are probably floating point error in the computer here.)

-25,(-12.500000000000027+125j)

-24,(-12.000000000000025+117.57550765359255j)

-23,(-11.500000000000021+110.30412503619256j)

-22,(-11.000000000000021+103.18914671611545j)

-21,(-10.50000000000002+96.23408959407264j)

-20,(-10.000000000000018+89.44271909999158j)

-19,(-9.500000000000018+82.81907992727281j)

-18,(-9.000000000000016+76.36753236814714j)

-17,(-8.500000000000014+70.09279563550022j)

-16,(-8.000000000000014+64j)

-15,(-7.500000000000012+58.09475019311125j)

-14,(-7.0000000000000115+52.38320341483519j)

-13,(-6.500000000000011+46.872166581031856j)

-12,(-6.00000000000001+41.569219381653056j)

-11,(-5.500000000000008+36.4828726939094j)

-10,(-5.000000000000007+31.62277660168379j)

-9,(-4.500000000000006+27.000000000000004j)

-8,(-4.000000000000005+22.627416997969522j)

-7,(-3.5000000000000044+18.520259177452136j)

-6,(-3.0000000000000036+14.696938456699069j)

-5,(-2.5000000000000027+11.180339887498947j)

-4,(-2.0000000000000018+8j)

-3,(-1.5000000000000013+5.196152422706632j)

-2,(-1.0000000000000007+2.8284271247461903j)

-1,(-0.5000000000000003+1j)

We went to try other co-sinus values. The one's that gave a good hit for us on #1 was 120,240,270 and 360. Maybe interesting with cos(270) is that the values turn negative after #14:

60/270=0.222222222..∞

Original wad(x)	+ Cathie Cos(60)	+ Cathie Cos(270)
#1::1	1.5	0.9999999999999998
#2::0.004475308641975309	0.0025370423892189446	0.00029938806823128915
#3::2.002838744093888e-05	1.0103826935868707e-05	8.963321539925984e-08
#4::8.96332153992635e-08	4.484344281483951e-08	2.6835115207728144e-11
#5::4.0113630348435826e-10	2.0057618585548199e-10	8.03411330273708e-15
#6::1.7952087655935786e-12	8.976067881144512e-13	2.4053176613500494e-18
#7::8.034113302810769e-15	4.017057371528794e-15	7.201234067370835e-22
#8::3.595513669467782e-17	1.797756856293527e-17	2.1559634946814902e-25
#9::1.6091033397309517e-19	8.045516705109457e-20	6.454694700365213e-29
#10::7.201234082129259e-22	3.6006170412578767e-22	1.932446233866354e-32
#11::3.22277451206402e-24	1.611387256037796e-24	5.784961039515311e-36
#12::1.4422910624977866e-26	7.211455312490666e-27	1.72947610666393e-39
#13::6.454697656240094e-29	3.2273488281201e-29	5.067206358199327e-43
#14::2.888676420230906e-31	1.4443382101154548e-31	1.021918577564534e-46
#15::1.2927718547329672e-33	6.463859273664839e-34	-1.909965483370213e-49
#16::5.785553053588895e-36	2.8927765267944483e-36	-1.0488727613138423e-51
#17::2.589213557933302e-38	1.2946067789666512e-38	-4.752141831864575e-54
#18::1.158752981173854e-40	5.793764905869271e-41	-2.1284699596798983e-56
#19::5.185777230562001e-43	2.5928886152810008e-43	-9.526080885752733e-59

So maybe when co-sinus is 270 we get one (1) again at #1 as in the original table though as noted when we cross.. #14 then; it become some negative values.

The last in this article may have been in vain. But through work we developed program routine which at least gives a computerized fields difference which again can be computed to dynamic field strength.

The field difference was computed to be nearly harmonic 3474.6210017733647 which can be considered a harmonic of harmonic 432 or 436. This was plotted as average field density , error, minimum density of 201340.09636738308 and at cos(284) almost the printed value of near 205655.30426839588.

The values are lines of (magnetic) force per geodesic inch.

The way to compute field difference is here, maybe.(?) EDIT: The field-variance we tried computing turned out to accelerate to an sinus oscillating value. The computation in the link above is horrible and pretty useless to try as it after who knows how long finally starts to "oscillate" the value between around 3200 and 3600.(The program looks straight like a circular computation but may use the wad function used in previous article. So to get back to field strength one simply put difference back into "mycathie" (not "mycathie2")....this may seem like overdue logic but since the way it is on the computer it's difficult to crack the actually "process".)

Also here is a better equation than the program thanks to "Kruz" for making the program into this equation:

Also thanks to #math @ undernet to have explained at least it's not what they consider pseudo-math.

Main-Page..