# ‘Clerk, dead.’ (I wrote a Physics equation and let a Bot finish it)

μ = reduced mass

λ = wavelength

ξ = Riemann Xi function

γ = specific weight

α = (Alpha) particle *quantum particle

1)

μ ÷ λ = ξ² ÷ γ

Reduced mass divided by wavelength equals Xi function (squared) divided by specific weight.

2)

Its corollary is as follows:

γ × μ ÷ λ² = α

.:. specific weight multiplied by reduced mass divided by wavelength (squared) equals quantum particle.

This equation (our offering to particle physics) explains the unity of the microcosm and the macrocosm, why things [are] held together.

It is also the explanation for the conservation of energy and the laws of quantum mechanics. We want to prove that the fundamental properties of a particle (like its size) obey this theory.

The first reason is not the quantum theory but the second reason of particle physics. .:. The two are related. The quantity in the definition of gravitational attraction, that is the distance of the nucleus to the earth, is related to the mass of the nucleus of the particle. That is, the quantity in the definition of gravitational attraction, that is the distance of the nucleus to the earth, is related to the mass of the nucleus of the particle. That is, the distance of the nucleus to the earth is the reduced mass.

A second example is how the macrocosm and the microcosm hold the particles together. The reason is that the radius of the nucleus in the microcosm is smaller. It is because the reduced mass is smaller than in the macrocosm. In the microcosm, the radius is smaller because the distance of the nucleus to the earth is smaller than in the macrocosm. It is the same as saying that the mass of the electron in the microcosm is smaller than that of the electron in the macrocosm. That is the same thing as saying that the radius of the electron is smaller than that of the electron in the macrocosm. [The microcosm has] mass.

Let me repeat: there are three factors which define the energy of an atom. First, the mass. Second, the radius of the atom. And third, the energy of the atom.

If we consider the radius of the atom as less than that of the macrocosm, the radius is smaller. The distance of the atom to the earth is less than that of the macrocosm. This means that the mass of the atom is greater. And that means that the energy of the atom is greater. The atom in the macrocosm has a greater mass and the energy is greater.

Thus we see the analogy between the mass and the energy of atoms. The atom in the macrocosm has a greater mass and the energy is greater than that of the atom in the microcosm. Thus the atom in the macrocosm has a greater mass and the energy is greater than the atom in the microcosm.

I hope it has been clear that in the macrocosm, the radius is smaller than that of the electron.

This is all true for the microcosm as well.

Let me repeat: there are three factors which define the energy of an atom. First, the mass. Second, the radius of the atom. And third, the energy of the atom.

If we consider the radius of the atom as less than that of the macrocosm, the radius is smaller. The distance of the atom to the earth is less than that of the macrocosm. This means that the mass of the atom is greater. And that means that the energy of the atom is greater. The atom in the macrocosm has a greater mass and the energy is greater.

Thus we see the analogy between the mass and the energy of atoms. The atom in the macrocosm has a greater mass and the energy is greater than that of the atom in the microcosm. Thus the atom in the macrocosm has a greater mass and the energy is greater than the atom in the microcosm.

I hope it has been clear that in the macrocosm, the radius is smaller than that of the electron.

This is all true for the microcosm as well.

THE GRAIN

Now we come to the grain. And this is our “macrocosm” and “microcosm”. However, only the matter in the macrocosm is considered “macrocosmic”. In the microcosm, the electron is considered “microcosmic”.

This is why I said that the atoms in the macrocosm are larger than the atoms in the microcosm. This is why we see that matter in the microcosm is smaller than the matter in the macrocosm. This is also why we say that the universe is larger than the atom in the macrocosm.

The matter is not larger than the electron. There is a greater mass and the energy is greater. And that means that the material in the macrocosm has a greater mass and the energy is greater than that in the microcosm.

Thus we see the analogy between the mass and the energy of atoms. The atom in the macrocosm has a greater mass and the energy is greater than that of the atom in the microcosm. Thus the difference between the atoms in the macrocosm is greater than that of the atoms in the microcosm. And if this is so, then one would think that at least in the macrocosm, the electrons are the smallest or smallest size and that the atoms in the macrocosm have a greater mass and the energy is greater than that in the atoms in the microcosm.

I hope this is clear that I have used the term “atomic mass” in the discussion of the microcosm. If I have not done so, I hope it is because I have not seen anything to support this. If I have used it, I have done so simply because it is accurate and I have found no other reason why I would not use it. The reason that I have not done so is because it does not appear to be used in discussion of the microcosm. I have seen no discussion of atoms in the microcosm.

One does not understand macrocosmic matter unless he first knows microcosmic matter. If one does not have these two things, he is incapable of understanding macrocosmic matter.

All matter is ultimately composed of, at a minimum, two things, the atoms and the electrons. Macrocosmic matter is a composite of one atom and an infinite number of electrons. This is the main difference between macrocosmic matter and microcosmic matter. Macrocosmic matter is a product of the action of an infinite number of particles to act upon one another to make microcosmic matter. This is true of both the electrons and atoms and even, I believe, of the photons. This makes macrocosmic matter much more “organic”, a product of the actions of infinite numbers of molecules acting upon one another.

Microcosmic matter, on the other hand, is a product of one atom and an infinite number of atoms. Microcosmic matter is a composite of one atom and an infinite number of electrons. It is a product of action by a single atom on an infinite number of other atoms. This makes microcosmic matter much less “organic”, a product of the actions of an infinite number of molecules acting upon one another. Microcosmic matter has no organic effect at all.

So macrocosmic matter is a composite of the action of an infinite number of molecules to act upon one another to make microcosmic matter. Microcosmic matter is a composite of one atom and an infinite number of electrons. It is a product of action by an infinite number of atoms upon one another to make macrocosmic matter. These are the main differences between macrocosmic matter and microcosmic matter.

Just remember that you are the universe; the microcosm inner person. Whereas, the macrocosm [is] nothing less than the pandimensional multiverse, OK? Is it over?

--

--