Sounds like such fun. An irremovable or a point update fix on the press? https://github.com/jackokring/majar/blob/master/src/uk/co/kring/kodek/Generator.java sounds like fun too. Choices, choices? Amplified radial uncertainty of Δr.GMm.Δt≤ℏ.r2/2 was kind of the order of last night. Is it dark matter? Is tangential uncertainty in the same respect part of dark energy? The radial uncertainty in a sure instant of time, and the potential gravitational energy? A net inward force congruent with dark energy?
And a tangential version of the squared hypotenuse of radius and tangential uncertainty of radius resultant? That leads to a reduction of gravity at a large radius and is more like dark energy. More evidence for a spectrum of uncertainty amount hence the “less than equals” being simplistic on an actuality?
Oh, no I’ll have to investigate the last GET/POST before errors … how boring (last time an Indian) … guess who?
The Small Big G and Why Gravity?
As G the gravitational constant is small compared to other force constants this would make delta r be bigger in gravity for the same amplified ħ uncertainty. With the time accuracy of light arrival in the visible range, the radial uncertainty at a high radial distance integrates over the non-linearity of the 1/r^2 force, for a net inward. Tangentially, the integral would net a reduction in gravity.
So a partial reason for dark matter and dark energy to be explained by quantum gravity. It’s a simple formula and Δv/Δt as a substitute for Δp=mΔv using F=ma=GMm/r2 in ΔxΔp≤ℏ/2 so the answer is approximate an r±Δr might be more appropriate for exacting calculations, and r2+Δr2 as a tangential hypotenuse.
As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law is 20 orders of magnitude higher the dark coulomb force will be 10 orders of radius larger for the same effect.
As the Mass by the Cube, and the Uncertainty by the Square.
As the distance increases to the centre of a gravitational lens, the uncertainty of the mass radially becomes significant so effectively reducing the minimal acceleration due to gravity, and growing the volume bulk integral of mass in uncertainty. The force delta would be inverse cubic, countered by the cubic growth in integration volume. The force would therefore in isotropy become a fixed quantity effect.
This is not even considering the potential existence of a heavy graviton, or the concept of conservation of a mass information velocity that would have a dark energy effect. It still seems “conservation of acceleration” is not even a taught effect considering there are many wine glasses that would have loved to know about it.
As for the rapid running constant increase toward the unification energy and what inner sun horizons would do to a G magnification? Likely not that relevant? Only the EM force seems to increase in coupling as the energy of the system dilates in time. This would imply the other three standard forces decrease, so necessitating an increase in radial uncertainty on average. The strong force has a with distance effect below the confinement distance, and so as the radius reduces, a Δr.k.Δt≤ℏ/2r rule is likely which would lead to the most likely reciprocal isomorphism of dark matter and dark energy.
Due to quark mass differences, and k, therefore, being one of 15 = 6*(6-1)/2 constants depending on the quark pair a triad product pentad structuring of force to acceleration might occur, with further splitting by boson interactions with quarks. Maybe this is a long shot to infer the finality on the low energy quark set of 6. Likely a totient in there for an 8. That’s all in the phi line and golden, silver and forcing theorems. I wonder if forcing theorems have unforcing and further forcing propergatives?
You could be right. So? It’s not as though it affected any of the local accelerators I don’t have. If it’s all about the bit not understood, then as a product constraint, it is where the action is at. As the maths might work, I am speculating the further equations will be in a less than form and so need fewer corrections? Premature optimization is the root? Any tiny effect would be on that side of equality perhaps. Maybe it was just a tilt on the suggestion of an inverse isomorphism. I couldn’t say, but that’s how it exited my mind.