The unifying theory

My take: 

The unifying theory

The famous equations involving Newton’s laws of gravity and the electrostatic force:

F=G*M*m/r^2

F=K*q1*q2/r^2

These two equations look similar. The first works in macroscopic conditions involving masses and the second one works in microscopic quantum states of electrons and charges.

To understand what looks like an incompatibility between these two equations, we need to find the link that is missing.

My guess is inclined to starting from the relationships between sizes of masses decreasing from macro state to the micro state. Gravity is well expressed as the mass of objects increases to the likes of planets and stars. As the masses decrease in size the gravitational attraction between them is almost non existent. The reason is simple. In general relativity, mass tells space time how to curve, while space time tells mass how to move. In the case of quantum particles, what’s direly lacking is mass. So, the way the microscopically invisible tiny quantum particles can curve space time is anyone’s guess; extremely feeble. The quantum state doesn’t follow the rules of general relativity because the particles, especially electrons, can be any where any time in their enormous space in comparison to their sizes. We can confidently say in the quantum state, there’s no mass but energy. The electrons may also move with the speed of light. Since the formula: E=mc^2 works with the speed of light, and electrons have charge, replacing mass, can we use the famous Einstein equation by replacing m by q? Even then, there’s still a dilemma about uniting both states with one formula: My guess is , this can only be done by changing parameters, instead of creating a unifying formula. A good analogy would be when algebraic functions with asymptotic boundaries come to mind.

Can we settle with the disconnect between the two worlds?

To resolve this discrepancy, we can think of a critical mass Mc and M0 where the boundaries of change can be observed.

For m less than Mc, gravity becomes insignificant while for m greater than Mc, gravity starts becoming tangible. For m less than M0, the rules change dramatically.

We can conclude from the above that gravity becomes insignificant when the curvature of space a mass makes is almost non existent.

This means as the masses become infinitesimally small, the degree of freedom is such that the phenomenon changes to include repulsion. This is where electric chargers replace masses and the attractions and repulsions between them replace gravity with an increased degree of freedom.

We can use the above assumptions to formalize the big think. We can derive a unifying formula for gravity by changing the parameters that make these transformations possible.

Two questions that may interest you:

My take: 

Two questions that may interest you:
-Why isn't the spot the Big Bang occurred considered the center of the universe? When we say the universe has no center, doesn't this counter the uniform spherical distribution of matter from the start? Well, as the scientific research updates us, the uniform distribution is being disrupted by the mysterious matter called dark matter. In my opinion, I can hypothesize the reason for this may be the empty space being created continuously as the materials move further apart may be filled by "dark matter", for the sole purpose of compensating for imbalance in uniform distribution. As such, the Big Bang spot may have more dark matter just to fill in the ever increasingly vacating space devoid of matter.
According to NASA, black holes are formed as follows: "Stellar black holes form when the center of a very massive star collapses in upon itself. This collapse also causes a supernova, or an exploding star, that blasts part of the star into space. Scientists think supermassive black holes formed at the same time as the galaxy they are in."
Does it mean the Big Bang is caused by a collapse of something big? We can observe almost everywhere nature emulates itself. Even a collapse of a soap bubble creates a short lived dip on the liquid it floats. I can confidently say in a way that doesn't require a scientific proof, we are the replica of our own origination.

-What is the universe expanding into? The answer may lead to the existence of an infinite space beyond our universe. If that is the case, the possibility of encountering something like the parallel universes may be eminent. Is it possible parallel universes merge just as galaxies do? How can we tell if there is any merger taking place? Or is it beyond our capacity? In fact that may be why we don't hear about it. If it's true, it would be where the gravitational waves are the strongest.

Although it was short of mentioning the expansion of the universe causing the drop in the density of matter and gases around the center of the universe where the Big Bang occurred, the following links touched on its effect:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-did-not-dominate-early-galaxies/
https://blogs-images.forbes.com/briankoberlein/files/2016/09/M33_rotation_curve_HI.gif?

More on this subject: Most recently I have been thinking about the space time conundrum. The space time curve being modeled for explanation purposes is showing as if it is curving like a stretched blanket with some mass on its center. I have a hard time taking this as a preferred representation for a 3-D space. If it portrays a cross section of a sphere of space time curved around a massive object, I may understand, but if the curve is treated as if some material is holding the assumed massive object from only one side, my question is which side is it and how does one decide on the orientation?

Why is dividing a number by zero infinity?

Zero is another expression for nothing. Physically, it can be as saying “I don’t have it “. This mainly identifies local expression for having nothing in hand. It’s a relative view of a physical situation. When one goes beyond our planet into space, it can mean the vast cosmos occupying nothingness, another word for absolute vacuum.
In a real sense, dividing a physical quantity by zero doesn’t make sense, the reason why there is no bound to how many each “nothing“ gets. Mathematically, it is called infinity. In actuality, when we approach the zero point on a number line, it gets infinitesimally smaller and smaller. Dividing any number by any such number is extremely high.

1/0.000000000000000000001 = error

The calculator can’t be wired to compute the above division. What this means is the share such a small number gets is so astronomically high, it is physically impossible. Mathematics simply gives it the name infinity.

Mathematics works in real as well as in an abstract (imaginary) world. You can’t apply an abstract idea unless the boundary of the real world is surpassed. We are limited to a 3D world, but science including math are always open ended; we just don’t have the capacity to see it in order to make sense of it. That’s why playing algebraically around zero is equivalent to wasting your infinitesimally short time on this infinitesimally small planet of ours.

My previous article can be applied for this situation:

So I was wondering about vacuum. I googled “absolute vacuum” and got ads listed for all kinds of vacuum cleaners. Aha! That’s where the moment the cleaner creates a partial vacuum, every dirt rushes into it. Nature every where, including our own planet mimics the Universe. Wow! So does the the answer for many intriguing questions lie in the fact that creating an absolute vacuum is virtually impossible because the moment one  or, naturally speaking, some mishap tries to create a vacuum, everything else rushes into it.

Does this ring the bell?
Ding! Dang! Dong!
I think I got it but I won’t say Eureka! I haven’t done the necessary research to confidently say someone hasn’t already had a good grasp of the idea.

So I just brush and pass it to you by asking the question of the day: Does the black hole concept ring the bell?
Time to think about it.

My take on consciousness

The physics, chemistry and biology of consciousness.

My personal thought about mathematics is, it’s the natural rule by which all the three disciplines: physics, chemistry, and biology work together. By default, they happen to work in a mathematically correct way because there must not have been any other way during the formation of our Universe. Historically, all we do is discover the already existing mathematical relationship that makes nature work.

Mathematics out of the way, the way the other disciplines work in sync to make consciousness work, can be analyzed in the following way:

Consciousness is the result of electrical signals making their ways through a networking of closed circuits connecting the neurons of the brain to the brains of cells-the nucleus (where genetic materials and reproduction, among others are controlled) of each cell in a human biological system. To make consciousness work at its fullest¸ there should be a continuous information exchange between the neurons and the cells in the closed circuit. The smoother the path, and the better flow the signals get, the more conscious a person is. Whenever and wherever there is resistance to the flow of information (current flow), there tends to be some cells that are either bypassed for some reason, or somehow left to die. The frequency of this happening determines the person’s health, and as a result, his/her aging status.

Fixing the broken or bypassed circuits, when technology permits, is not only the solution for curing diseases, but also to permanently resolve the trends of aging.

My thoughts on this subject is solely my own and there is a possibility it can open up a new field in the future of technological advancement in discovering consciousness as the solution for major issues surrounding our being.
Definition: Neurons (Nerve Cells) - A type of a cell that receives and sends messages from the body to the brain and back to the body. The messages are sent by a weak electrical current. Also called nerve cell.

My conversation about dark matter

"Dark matter — non-luminous material in space — is understood to constitute 85 percent of the matter in the universe. Unlike normal matter, it does not absorb, reflect, or emit light, making it difficult to detect.
Physicists are certain dark matter exists, having inferred this existence from the gravitational effect dark matter has on visible matter. What they are less certain of is how dark matter interacts with ordinary matter — or even if it does." 

How do they give such a name for something they don't know exits. Everything said doesn't qualify it to be classified as matter.

The name matter, as we know of, is made of well known atoms which are then made of sub atomic particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. I don’t want to go deeper than that for now. Scientists believe a different kind of matter can exist. If this is true, then an entirely new field of study needs to be established. Until then, naming them in their early stages needs precaution.

The other belief is the instruments that are being newly developed measuring visually undetectable signals ahead of researches. I still think it’s too early to speculate the outcome.

Anything can interact weakly, or not, with a particle. If one cannot determine what dark matter is made of, how can it qualify as matter? The name, for what scientists believe exists is very controversial. They know it exists. Vacuum exists too for that matter, but it’s not matter. Vacuum can also weakly influence matter.

I’m not in a position to scientifically prove my hypothesis, but I believe it should be considered in the scientific researches.

I think the space the universe expands into can't be anything other than vacuum. This should mean there's plenty of empty space. Which in turn means the vast empty space may account for the majority of the volume of the universe due to bits and pieces of empty spaces between, for example galaxies, and planets. This simply means it has it's own force of suction that devoured most of the matter since the big bang. If this is what the instruments detect as interacting with matter deep inside the earth, then is it appropriate to call it dark matter? 

To recap on my conversation, I want to stress the significance of my attempt to explain what dark matter isn’t. It’s not matter. My firm belief is, it has something to do with the curvature of space. Deep into the cosmos, the complexities of space curvatures involving galaxies,  stars, planets and black holes, may have created a delusion of gravity and space curvatures as a barrier to the path of light as if it is caused by dark matter. This opens up a new question: What is the difference between gravity and dark energy?

One more point I would like to make is, the new phenomena that emerge as the universe gets older. One of them is the galaxy formation that wasn’t evident long after the Big Bang . This maybe because, as the universe expands into the empty space(vacuum), and the entropy gradually loses strength, more space is being created between stars thus causing the curling up of their trajectories. This is in an attempt to find a corrective response to the availability of more space, and as a result, the expanding of the universe, including other encounters whenever there’s a new feature appearing as the universe ages. The debacle around the existence of dark matter and dark energy is one of those newly created issues whose true understandings need to be resolved.