Planck's Constant Revealed for the First Time

This is the hidden constant of quantum mechanics. Tetryonics presents a revolutionary theory based on Equilateral Triangular Energy. Planck's Constant is the quantum of Action. Its exact value can now be calculated by using the geometry. 6.62943244 e-34 kg[m^2/s]

All quantised angular momentum is equilateral.
mass is defined as equilateral energy momenta per second.
Charge is Quantised angular momenta per second.

There are two sides to Planck's Constant, the plus side and the minus side, hence confirming through the geometry that negative numbers have a physical reality.

The square root of all Energy is momenta.

All ideal inductive loops resist change to their Energy Levels. This explains INERTIAL mass.
All equilateral energy momenta produce square root Force vectors. Otherwise known as the quanta of Force.




The newspapers will read, " "New geometric proof that Square numbers aren't Square!"

After posting the first thread on Tetryonics as a whole, I have realized that we need to take things very slowly at first and introduce individual concepts one at a time. This post is intended to flesh out the fullest most meaningful understanding of Planck's Constant to date. It may take a few weeks to accomplish what I have envisioned here, but please understand that these concepts are completely and utterly new to humanity. One must be willing to re-wire the brain in order to approach Tetryonics.

It may be of note to some that this is not my own knowledge. This was developed by Sage ABRAHAM. It took him over 5 years to develop the theory, test it, and run it through it's paces before releasing the knowledge freely to the world.

Anyone else in the Physics community would have released an announcement of Biblical proportions had they discovered even one of the corrections Tetryonics brings forth. ABRAHAM choose to keep his revelations to himself until he had more time to fully realize the potential of what he stumbled upon.

Here is the thread introducing the entire Tetryonic theory on AboveTopSecret.com for the first time.

Tetryonic Theory: mass-ENERGY-Matter Explained for the First Time

Tetryonic Theory: mass-ENERGY-Matter Explained for the First Time

Isn't one "tetryonics" thread enough? Do we need a new one for every supposed facet of "tetryonics"?

Is the next one "Square numbers - the hidden secret!"

edit to add: things like "the square root of energy is momenta" is the sort of thing that begs to be in "skunk works"

Everyone knows the square root of up is sideways, you know.

This is how most of us here interpret this stuff.

This is different.

Oh how I wish that physics and all of these theories weren't so far above my head. Anyone got a physics in plain english tutorial? Sigh. I tried the other tetryonics thread too and while it all seems utterly fascinating... I have no way of making heads or tails of it.

If my father wasn't an engineer I never would've passed my required physics and calculus classes... guess we can't all be good at everything huh?

Originally posted by shixta

Its exact value can now be calculated by using the geometry. 6.62943244 e-34 kg[m^2/s]

Meanwhile, the observed value has a 99.99994% chance of being between 6.62607102 and 62606812 x 10^-34.
Being at more than 11000-sigma, the value you give has no possibility at all of being correct.

This is where I must humble myself regarding the finer details.

I stand corrected on Planck's Constant yet again. As you can see I'm just a student and as any student does from time to time, we make mistakes.

"Just a couple finer points to correct here:

Planck’s constant is 6.629697947 e-34 kg[m2/s]

All quantised Angular momentum is equilateral [triangular] geometry [A].
mass is defined as equilateral energy per second [E/c2].
Charge is a measure of the quantised Angular momenta per second [A/c2].

There are two charged sides to each Planck's Constant, the Positive charge side and the Negative charge side, hence confirming through the geometry that negative numbers have a physical reality.

The square root of all Energy is LINEAR momenta.

All ideal inductive quantum inductive loops resist changes to their Energy Levels. This explains INERTIAL mass.
All equilateral energy momenta produce square root Force vectors. Otherwise known as the quanta of Force.---ABRAHAM"

Originally posted by shixta

Planck’s constant is 6.629697947 e-34 kg[m2/s]

How did you arrive at this value versus the last one?

Also, I must say that this "corrected" value is even less likely than the original, lying at 12500-sigma from the actual observed value.

Tetryonics gives an exact value for Planck’s Constant [6.629697947 e-34 kg.m2/s]
This gives a value of Avogadro’s number of [6.02214179 e27 /g]
This is the inverse of 1 Hydrogen atom’s mass[1.660538841 e-27 kg]

Using the inverse of Avogadro number to determine the exact mass of a single Hydrogen atom you also obtain a value of 1.660538841 e-27 kg

1 Hydrogen atom has 22512 e23 Planck quanta in its Matter geometry giving the exact mass of 1.660538841 e-27 kg

The inverse value Hydrogen’s mass then gives a value of 6.022141579 moles per KG [Avogadro’s number] as it should be.

Physical measurements have two main problems:

1) You cannot exclude additional energies from you measurements [Kinetic energy, heat, vibrates] etc. Especially when measuring something as small as Planck’s Constant.

2) They are simply physical attempts at measuring the value.

Which method are you using to determine the value of this constant?

Tetryonics calculates its value directly from theory. This is above and beyond what is presently available using the existing theories.

The method used to calculate its exact value is as follows:

1) Calculate the number of Planck quanta on the STATIC geometry of a Hydrogen atom [2.2512 e23 exactly]. This is exclusive of all thermal and motional energies of course.
2) Determine the exact mass equivalence of the Energy contained by those quanta [1.6605338841 e-27 kg] and then,
3) Invert the determined value of Hydrogen to give theoretical value of Avogadro’s Number [6.022141579 e23]

This calculation is derived directly from theory, is exclusive of all thermal and kinetic energies and matches Avogadro’s number exactly.



See Tetryonics [1] – Quantum Mechanics.



There are other examples where Tetryonics determines the exact molar mass of ALL periodic element.

Tetryonics [3] Chemistry.pdf

Why is it that your measurement doesn't agree with the inverse of Avogadro's number as it should? Tetryoincs gives the exact value where this is concerned.

There is always a danger in applied Physics of chasing down a known data point (or set) for a physical value based on flawed theoretical calculations. This has failed in a number of areas in the past. One noteworthy example would be that of the 12 decimal point precision of QED calculations of the Alpha coupling constant. The correct value is revealed here.



The equilateral SQUARE energy geometries of the Triangle is the only geometry that can account for all the physical measurements and constants of quantum mechanics giving us a geometric path to 2D/3D modelling of all mass-ENERGY-Matter and their physical interactions.

Square NUMBERS are in fact EQUILATERAL geometries.



What happens when you compare your value of Planck's Constant to Avogadros number?

Being very accurate about the wrong value is the height of academic arrogance and ignorance.

If you were to use your value for Planck's Constant to determine the value of Avogadro’s number you will get a Hydrogen atom mass of 1.65963046 e-27 or 1.659629679 e-27 which then gives values for Avogadro’s constant as [6.025437932 e26] or [6.025440569 e26] respectively. The deviation you are pointing out is your own deviation not Tetryonics.

Planck’s constant relates to the rest mass-Matter geometry of the Hydrogen atom, and Tetryonic Theory can explain all of this.

No matter how great or to however many digits, it's just useless if you're chasing the WRONG number to begin with.

Um, if you measure Planck's constant directly, you don't get their number. And yes, you can measure it.

h nu, it's not just a suggestion, it's the law.

reply to post by Bedlam


Actually, h[nu] is not a Law - its a Constant * [quanta] what I based my replies on
[created by the quantised equilateral geometry of Energy]

If you were referring to E=h[nu] (Planck's Law) sure, but take care not to equate it directly to E=hf

Theories that are presented with pretty pictures instead of math are, without any exception, garbage. They are however easy to consume by ignorant and/or gullible people.

Besides pictures I just see an attempt to baffle the reader with sciency sounding words. There isn't any practical use of this theory, and no predictions backed up by experiments.

reply to post by -PLB-


All mathematics is just an attempt describe the underlying geometry of Physics using a rigid symbolism, so your first comment is nonsensical [additionally I'd like to point out text books are replete with illustrations to back up the math in them].

Tetryonics strips away the mathematical use of symbols and replaces it all with an equilateral geometry... If you don''t see the associate math on each page I question what you are reading.

Re: verifiable results - where do I start differentiation between mass & Matter on all scales, resolution of wave-Particle duality, 3D modelling of all periodic elements, quantum field theory for Gravitation, unification of QM, QED, Chemistry & relativity.

I could go one but it would appear you have only looked at the pretty pictures so far... May I suggest you invest some quality time in reading each page and the math to truly discern the truth... in most cases the math you use currently will remain the same but the geometry is there to give your language some grammar.

I am happy to discuss any point at depth with you so we may show you the connections between math and geometry at the quantum level, as there is only education and advancement to be gained here.

reply to post by Tetryonics


I suspect that the purpose of this thread is to sell as many Tetryonics books as possible, which are of course filled with garbage, to a couple of ignorant/gullable people. It would not surprise me if the author is posting in this thread. To be honest I don't care that much when people let themselves scammed.

Tetryonics strips away the mathematical use of symbols and replaces it all with an equilateral geometry... If you don''t see the associate math on each page I question what you are reading.

Nope I don't see it at all. Care to spell it out using these obsolete mathematical symbols? Please show a step by step explanation, including all the math and laws used, of how you come to this value of the Planck constant. And do this without posting any image of pretty triangles showing some numbers around them.

I don't understand a word you said. S & F.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Tetryonics

 

I suspect that the purpose of this thread is to sell as many Tetryonics books as possible, which are of course filled with garbage, to a couple of ignorant/gullable people. It would not surprise me if the author is posting in this thread. To be honest I don't care that much when people let themselves scammed.

Yeah, I started to post that over on the other thread. It' s got that feel to it .

reply to post by -PLB-


Yes... The books are for sale for the princely sum of NOTHING.
And the author is posting in this forum [so what?]
It would seem the only 'scamming' here is by you where you say math is the only way to the 'truth' but have nothing to offer about what it is that drives the math.

Why is it that E=mv^2 or that the Electric Permittivity & Magnetic Permeability of the EM field are related through c^2 & their velocity of c ? [even Feynman acknowledged math is only a descriptive tool of a deeper process]

An explanation of Planck's Constant easy - its units are kg.[m^2/s] or mass*angular momentum
mass is Energy/sec and angular momentum is m^2 /s - [use triangular area of square metre]
there no pictures to confuse you and all in physics units as you ask

The only thing that changed was circular angular momentum was replaced with energy in a equilateral triangular geometry - so all square number energy levels are 'quantised' with equilateral geometries, its energy content is E=mv^2 [that's mass*velocity squared], its linear momenta is related to the scalar EM energies by the square root of the field and its physical properties of Electric Permittivity [Eo] and Magnetic Permeability [Uo] are related to the inverse of c^2 [EM field - EoUo = 1/c^2] [surely these you know these basic physics eqns?]

I'd do more but English is so cumbersome, and the math even more so that's why Nature uses GEOMETRY.

So perhaps now you can now explain in English for me why your Math fails to equate your value for Planck's constant to Avogadro's number and the mass of a single Hydrogen atom? [still waiting]

Originally posted by Tetryonics
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Yes... The books are for sale for the princely sum of NOTHING.
And the author is posting in this forum [so what?]
It would seem the only 'scamming' here is by you where you say math is the only way to the 'truth' but have nothing to offer about what it is that drives the math...

And it' s fatass by a nose, as the movie says. Self- advertisement . Which explains all the thread starts.

reply to post by Bedlam


Again, three from three - your batting average really sucks.

I didn't start the threads - your deductive skills appear to be as good as your math
[which you still haven't managed to explain]

I'd draw you a picture but that would be a waste... still there's always hope for redemption

When you can explain your derivation for the value of Planck's Constant [h], Avogadro's number [N] and how both relate to the mass of a single Hydrogen atom [H] at rest [v=o] - which they obviously should
then perhaps then you'll be redeemed...... my fatass awaits your mathematical response.

This was after all the beginning of the authoritative response that you provided [with sigma deviation]....
Go on prove me wrong its only 'math', show everyone how they all relate mathematically
[like I have geometrically]..... or be honest admit you can't (don't hide behind unrelated snide remarks)

I await your response which I know is coming [hopefully with the full math derivations this time]

reply to post by shixta


If your value doesn't match the observed value, then it doesn't matter one bit what Tetryonics says. Tetryonics is wrong, plain and simple. And, if you can't provide mathematical reasoning, rather than stating without proof that you calculate one value from another, then you have no theory to discuss anyway.

One method for finding the value of the Planck constant is called the watt balance, in which the force generated by an electric current is used to counter the weight of an object. The Planck constant is equal to

h = 4/(K²R)

with K being the Josephson constant and R the von Klitzing constant.
These constants are then found via the watt balance with incredible accuracy. Hence the incredible accuracy of current Planck constant measurements -- measurements that put your "geometrical" value far outside the realm of possibility.