Mordred

Too bad your not listening to the advise of two physicists. Your grids will only make sense if you incorporate phase space for each particle. The volumes you have are insufficient to be able to get any measurable quantities in regards to anything measurable on a particle. We cannot measure anything at Planck volume yet we can measure particle properties.

Let me describe a useful voxel that would work. Each voxel represents the phase space describing the state of a particle. Now you can apply all the standard model of particle physics formulas under that geometric treatment.

You may be using a couple of physics terms and values but your not applying anything one can describe as particles. Nor are you looking at mainstream equations. If you were you would know how mainstream physics applies pressure with regards to a particles equation of state.

I've read both books preferred both over 100 Roads to reality by Penrose (though some of Penrose commentary was rather amusing)

Have you ever considered simply studying physics instead of trying to invent your own. Nothing you have posted so far makes any sense.

The tesseract does nothing with regards to the claims you made above. We are all aware of the tesserect. There is literally nothing new about it.

That section you quoted stated your idea needs to make predictions in your examples requires mathematics in order to make predictions for testability. It's not a reason to avoid the mathematics. Nice try If you take a geometric object described by 3 dimensions turning it inside out will still only be 3 dimensional. (Dimension refers to effective degrees of freedom or under math an independent variable) A dimension has specific requirements to meet. That qualification is described and tested via mathematics and not random assertions.

You don't solve anything involving geometry unless your applying the mathematics. Without math everything is simply wildly imaginative assertions.

Your welcome

Mond has been around for several decades and has always been in contention with LCDM. MOND modifies f=ma in regions of low density such as voids originally to do away with DM in terms of galaxy rotation curves. For certain galaxy types it made better predictions than the NFW profile used by LCDM. In other cases it's the reverse. Where MOND failed is early galaxy formation and early LSS (large scale clusters). The link Geordief linked shows the early formation due to DM.

One thing to realize is the pop media hype is something that occurs with every new finding. Ignore the hype.... The paper is interesting but it certainly doesn't entail any new physics or challenge to LCDM. All it really does is show the possibility that DM halos extend further than originally thought. Which favored a MOND prediction over the NFW profile but in either case the theory involved in either case can account for the findings.

Agreed and yes terminology can be critical to understanding some of the more complex theories. Particularly with lousy pop media etc knowing the correct terminology helps avoid garbage garden paths. Superdeterminism would be a hard sell for me as under QFT all particles being field excitations it would literally be highly improbable to trace back further than one or two interactions leading to particle creation and annihilation. For example at a given blackbody temperature you have a number density of particles of a given species. You have no means of determining the precise number density but can only estimate depending on the particles effective degrees of freedom and cross section.

Lol so am I for that matter. For example the term correlation is a statistical mechanics terminology that describes a type of probability function. Hence it's application to entanglement. However this correlation function also includes the experimental setup. In essence the term doesn't particularly suit super determinism. One of the hassles with interpretations, is which terminology is best suitable for a particular interpretation.

Lol I tend to consider the real as being measurable quantities so in my point of view there's no need 😅

That's the impression I got as well.

Here is a paper discussing the Hartman effect which the article of the OP describes. In this paper it shows that the Hartman effect is in point of detail subliminal https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.09742 The gist of the paper is that the probability distribution function (wavefunction ) is larger with a leading tail that precedes the peak of the amplitude. The illusion occurs in examinations that focus strictly on the amplitude peak. Most of the answer given in this thread was in the right ballpark in recognizing the distinction due to the probability function. QFT for example the probability functions are Fourier transforms which provide a Delta function. That Delta function has both a leading edge and a following edge. The peak of the function is somewhere in the middle. This is the region of highest probability current. (This region also has number density terms describing the probable density of particles.) In QM with position and momentum operators the Schrodinger equation the above applies as well albeit single particle states the probability current is still used. As well as Fourier transforms.

Just an fyi there are treatments using Heaviside step functions for bounce cosmologies. https://skim.math.msstate.edu/reprints/ShinKim_Recursive_Heaviside_17.pdf this is one example though I have seen others its not something I would describe as a main stream approach but its been tried and has some merit. here is a treatment in regards to QCD once again just an FYI https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9603119

Lets try this tact. One can get a research grant or other sources of funding. Say the grant is to validate the Earth is flat. (This actually happened to a flat Earth society). They performed a test. They went into the test with full bias. The Earth is flat and I'm going to prove it attitude. To their utter disappointment the test showed the Earth was round. I will give them credit though. They honestly announced their findings. When I wrote that dissertation I believed strongly in my theory. So I likely had a bias based on how strongly I believed in it. Yet like that flat Earth society. I accepted the findings as being valid enough to counter my previous belief in my theory.

You can but keep in mind that dissertation was back in the late 80's lol and publishing requirements will vary depending on the publisher. Swansont for example has a peer reviewed paper on arxiv. I studied it a few years back.

Ok let's do a personal experienced example. I once wrote a dissertation paper using quintessence for inflation. At that time period there were dozens of quintessence inflationary models kicking around. The two most popular classes of inflationary models were Chaotic eternal inflation and quintessence. (Everyone believed in one or the other). My disseration at that time was a good match to COBE findings. Then WMAP took measurement of the CMB and with its findings my dissertation instantly became null and void as the equations state I had could not be fixed to account for the required E-folds. Theory done proven incorrect with one dataset. Later confirmed by other datasets. All it takes is 1 reasobably conclusive test to invalid a given theory. That's the process. It doesn't matter how strongly myself or others believe in a theory. Tests and evidence can trump any theory if it doesn't match up to observational and experimental evidence. The last couple of years I have been researching Higgs inflation so far I know I can get write a paper on it that would match current observational evidence however if new evidence becomes available it could just as easily trump the theory I'm working on.

Another good example of shoddy science is perpetual motion machines. You sometimes see papers that seem well written and have all the required details. However if the experiment cannot be reproduced by other independent examiners. You know something is fishy. If others perform the same experiment then the two experiments should match within reasonable approximation allowing for potential error margins.

That I would agree with. Regardless of the science if the science doesn't match evidence. Then the theory gets changed to account or gets dropped.

What I gather from this thread is that bias isn't science but the opinion of the scientific process itself. The way this thread has gone in circles supports that it's the bias of opinion of the scientific method itself

Yes I know for a fact that time dilation cannot account for the cosmological constant. When you do the math you will find that you get the wrong ratios of change. You will also discover as Migl mentioned Newtons Shell theorem that time dilation isn't involved when you have a homogeneous and isotropic mass distribution. Let's do a simple example if you use recessive velocity from Hubbles Law \[v_{r}=H_0d\] and apply that velocity term to the time dilation formula you will think it will work out. However once you get to the Hubble horizon it approach infinity. The Observable universe itself is far larger than the Hubble horizon. The recessive velocity formula will have a value for recessive velocity of 2.3 c. Thankfully recessive velocity is not a true velocity but an apparent velocity due to separation distance. As our time dilation formula would break down when velocity is greater than c. Leading to causality issues. Our light cone would be restricted to the Hubble horizon. The recessive velocity equals c at the hubble horizon. We observe beyond that. Does that help ?

If you know the frequencies your trying to detect you might also want to look into band pass circuits to filter out unwanted signals. Also RF signals are maximally detected via an an antenna at 1/4 wavelength. If your antenna picks up half the wavelength you get refective currents that will degrade your signal and cause equipment damage. Optionally 3/4 wavelength is just as effective as 1/4. If you could provide more detail such as frequencies involved we may be able to help fine tune your components.