Sacred Geometry Expression Day Three - Adding Cubes

Continued from… Sacred Geometry Expressions Day Two

IMG_6350

Prompt:
Funified (expressed in Hz) = (ϕFn​2^nPnΩ)​/(r^2)
Funified*meters (expressed in Hz) = (ϕFn​2^nPnΩ)​/(r^2)(meters)

Pn = Prime n
Ω = Ohms

F (in Hz) = (ΩC²)/ms

Where C = coulomb, m = meters, s = seconds

or Ω = (Nms)/C²

Or C = (Nms) / CΩ (expressed in units)
Which is normally begotten as C = ((Nms)/Ω)^(1/2)

Fm = (ΩC²)/s where m = meters

Hz = (ΩC²)/s

Where ΩC² = 1

-ΩC² = -1

e^iπ = -ΩC² (Euler’s) or -e^iπ = ΩC²

In place of all constants, choose PHI, squares, cubes, primes proportionality

We need to check for consideration of cubes and its cancellation term for this equation, then assume the cancellation terms for PHI, squares, primes in our final expression





PROMPT:
Explicitly define cancellation conditions for cubes, squares, and primes






PROMPT:
Assume cancellation happens iteratively with each revolution and refine our equation accordingly.





PROMPT:
Use our cancellation terms to define entropy for each set of cancellable terms.






Prompt:
incorporate also fractions of exponents and negative exponents






PROMPT:
inverse this




PROMPT:
inverse again and compare the two into one equation






PROMPT:
simplify by nesting our relationships iteratively, infinitely utilizing revolutions to encapsulate rational and irrational relationship










PROMPT:
use a unit-based approach to check work. Use a traditional approach to check work. Use a logarithmic approach to check work.






Prompt:
after finalizing our previous message’s equation, expand it back into the following, then define Hz for each Si unit per this framework -

F (in Hz) = (ΩC²)/ms

Where C = coulomb, m = meters, s = seconds

or Ω = (Nms)/C²

Or C = (Nms) / CΩ (expressed in units)
Which is normally begotten as C = ((Nms)/Ω)^(1/2)

Fm = (ΩC²)/s where m = meters

Hz = (ΩC²)/s

Where ΩC² = 1

-ΩC² = -1

e^iπ = -ΩC² (Euler’s) or -e^iπ = ΩC²







image

PROMPT:
This doesn’t connect the two frameworks.








“This connection now aligns entropy with the SI unit-based framework for frequency and energy. Would you like to further explore specific use cases for this equation or work through numerical examples?”

PROMPT:
check your results for the relationship between the two frameworks using a unit-based approach, using a proportionality approach, using a traditional approach.








Prompt:
build out our Hz^1, Hz^2, Hz^3 etc. table including fractions, nesting, negative exponents to express all SI units in terms of Hz





PROMPT:
Now reduce all units to Hz using a unit-based approach. Our final table should only be expressed in terms of Hz with no other units.





PROMPT:
Now build out the equation and table for Energy in place of Force, in Hz, similarly.




PROMPT:
Now we can expand this reasoning towards Power, and keep going incrementally, or down from Force as well. Give us a general expression and build out the table for each.






PROMPT:
Our Hz equation and table needs to respect whether we are operating in Force, Energy, Power, etc. whereby the table should be built out differently depending upon this context.






" The unit-based approach presented ensures that we can flexibly handle different physical contexts (e.g., Force, Energy, Power) and express all quantities consistently in terms of Hz. This method allows us to adapt the equation and table depending on the specific domain we are working in."


FOR A MOMENT, I WILL SEGWAY, LET ME EXPLAIN**

BRANCH PROMPT (Contrived a bit):
Compare and contrast the former with the preceding




SO YOU CAN SEE, THIS SEGWAY INDICATES WE ARE CONTEXT/SCALE DEPENDENT AS WE CHOOSE OUR HZ SCALE FRAMEWORK, SPECIFICALLY IN THIS CONTEXT. FOR NOW, WE IGNORE THIS AND PROCEED WITH THE GOOD VIBRATIONS.

END SEGWAY / BRANCH

Prompt:
The final expression is?


PROMPT:
This is not our all-inclusive expression.




Let's systematically check the relationship between the two frameworks—**entropy-based framework** and the **traditional physical framework**—using the following approaches: 1. **Unit-Based Approach**: This ensures that the units on both sides of the equation are consistent. 2. **Proportionality Approach**: This checks if the

PROMPT: No, in this context.







PROMPT:
What have we built? What’s the usefulness?









Continues here - Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, Nuclear-Nuclear, and Light, Why Not?