SuperPolymath

2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Was that applying to my post or Polymath's

He's trying to explain how my idea could incorporate string theory despite having a completely different dimensional structure

22 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

And no Superpolymath they were never your concepts, I adopted concepts from string theory, not yours which yours are made from, that why I always say "stealing" the Hubble constant and etc. 

But, a few pages ago you said "remove hyperspace". I know at some level there was collaboration. Perhaps not as much as with 006 or Mordred...but

I'd hoped/hope my idea would get used at some point

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

define a dimension under math... yes there is an answer

Cant 

could define it with geometry:

1 is an x,y coordinate plane. 2 is an x,y,z coordinate plane. 3 is an xyzr coordinate plane if I had to guess 

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Unfortunately I read far too many misconceptions of string theory being applied on the other forum that I cannot see any accuracy of string theory being applied.

I think we should stop discussing my idea here. I'll make a separate thread for your thoughts on my pet idea later

But I'm not planning on learning advanced calculus. 

6 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

And no Superpolymath they were never your concepts, I adopted concepts from string theory, not yours which yours are made from, that why I always say "stealing" the Hubble constant and etc. 

String theory involves 11 dimensional hyperspace, not 5. There's no fractal geometry or special relativity beyond the speed of light in string theory either 

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Thats where the mathematical precision comes into play. Once you define a state under math it becomes trivial to apply it to different theories.

One can readily apply every equation I posted in this thread to QFT, Loop quantum gravity and even string theory etc or simply describe the above under a classical approximation.

 No it wouldn't require a Ph.D but one can easily think it would. There is nothing preventing someone learning physics and even self teaching with the correct diligence.

(here is a little secret, the most complex models derive from the simplest)

 Diligence & whatever I have come from two opposite parts of the brain. Structured learning would be like pouring concrete down a holy well. Vmedvil's pretty diligent though. He's way better than me academically. He's been adopting my concepts, I think he's been testing to see if they're flawed too. Now this is how we network,

I'd need a PhD in astrophysics if I meant me interpreting it.

Anyone want to risk the time for a potential Nobel? Lol.

21 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 

 The problem I found reading your post on the other thread was the lack of proper descriptives via proper terminology. You tend to try to apply a scattering of random theories, some of which have little to do with one another. 

Every theory is attempting to describe the same thing, that's why.

As far as terminology, anything I could do to get the point across my mind was a chaotic place trying to collate the massive data I was collecting

Vmedvil is listening to Mordred, & actually made this thread admitting he was taking your model too far 006...& admitting that it was off. Mordred, I at least appreciate helping with Vmedvil's equations. Mordred I'm only trying to see IF my ideas can be interpreted through math.

16 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

We have not gotten to that part yet we are proofing this, where your model enters when ω² = k² + m² , somehow this needs to take account for expansion the equation which that is a solution to.

I think y'all have yet to define all 3 sources of the dynamic dark energy in my thread. You have late entropy stage mother black holes increasing the space-time via evaporation surrounding early entropy stage CMB bodies causing the isotropic qg plasma to break apart into the first atoms there. What happens with this new cosmic portion is anisotropic black hole sizes. As the universe section ages macro bh's become larger as they consume mass from matter & micro black holes (the higgs field that gives matter-energy mass & DM) shrink overall until a new late entropy section forms overlapping the previous one where those monster black holes of the previous one have been reduced to micro-bh's. 

Now those 2 sources alone would end in  an omega entropy state if not for source 3, the horizon of the white hole with contour=infinity is constantly absorbing parallel white holes beyond its horizon, continously adding additional energy-matter & space-time. This is the positive approx 2.5 dimensions (fractal geometry which allows the scale relativity Lorentz transformations in this model) that we experience, beyond that is an approx negative 2.5 dimension, these two space-times (de sitter & anti de sitter space) are literally the same but with opposite directions of space-time & negative matter-energy. Anti de sitter space is literally these perpendicular dimensions that give energy-matter mass as space-time gets turned inside out flowing through their event horizons it's curtain is yanked, these black holes of an infinity variety of sizes that occupy literally every point in space is behind the fundamental interactions (gravity, electromagnetic, strong & weak nuclear).

This 5 dimensional hypersphere is like a cosmic yin-yang symbol, or an infinitely long snake eating it's own tail.

35 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yes correct you would have at some point needed it.

I remember thinking that what annihilation would leave in its wake were rapidly evaporating microversal scale cosmic unit black holes in a pre-CMB, CDM state, just like a big rip. Whatever is pulled back by the expansion generated by BH shrinkage would have to be causally synchronized by gravity, just like all particle pairs

You can have a duodecillion black holes, each with a different spin, if they merge, there's only going to be one spin.

Some of the ideas in that thread were out there, but I think they could have been, possibly, applicably prescient. Way ahead of the norm.

Highly imaginative & speculative, stoically poetic even, but somehow infused with a certain grounded logic. It was about addressing the greatest amount of questions with the fewest amount of answers - & those answers seem to work for everything that's challenging them.

25 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ok this gets a bit complex. Think of particles as field excitations. Under QFT the operators correspond to the field itself as being the operator. Now particle production always occur in pairs to maintain the conservation laws applicable to the Eightfold Wayen. Conservation of charge, lepton number, parity, flavor,color,parity etc. Ordinarily these pairs would annihilate however they get separated via expansion depending on their momentum and rate of expansion in essence. Now unfortunately we encounter an assymetry in this in that for some unknown reason the number density of matter vs antimatter don't stay balanced. Which is good as the universe wouldn't exist without this assymmetry. This is one of the unsolved problems called leptogenesis and baryogenesis. Afiak the best viable solution involves the Higg's field but this work is still under scutiny.  Its actually where my current studies is focusing on The Higg's field involvement in the FRW metric though I have run into a few problems. Mainly lack of applicable observational data lol though that is coming in gradually via CERN etc. The main problem is the seesaw mechanism itself

Yeah, I had heard about that. We shouldn't exist because am & m should have cancelled during the big bang. That's probably the only problem my pet theory thread didn't address intentionally. I was more focused on unification, de & the cosmological constant & the essence of mass (dm & higgs field included) & paradoxes & spookiness in QM. Suffice it to say, with what I addressed I would have had to have inadvertently addressed the m & am issue in some way.

Even still if you read my thread, there's  @ least a dozen articles that show a necessity for my lines of thought here

I had hoped my concepts had been adopted into said maths before this threads conception. I was wrong

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Out of the box ideas are absolutely useless unless you can them up with the correct mathematics. This is physics not guess work and unsupported conjectures based on personal ideas.

Math is built on concepts

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Lol not exactly a scientific definition. How big ? how small? how do you define this boundary ? What is the point where curvature becomes measurable? ie where light paths convergence/divergence begins to be potentially measurable ?

Lets use the example at 10^{43} seconds where the observable  universe is contracted to roughly the radius of a grapefruit. Does curvature matter? this is a state that can be accurately described strictly by its temperature.  All particles are in thermal equilibrium. Yet once electroweak symmetry breaking occurs you get rapid inflation. 

There's no evidence that documents anything before CMB, such as some mythical "grapefruit sized singularity". Idk about what 006 & vmedvil have said about rotating universes, but my concept is that the CMB is all you get. & all you need.

So as the observable universe ages, black holes grow. I proposed that they grow by consuming mass by merging with the microscopic black holes (beneath the Planck length of 1.6x10^-35 metres for radiation & about the Planck length for the center's center of atomic nuclei between the shifting protons & neutrons falling into the core like the bright quasar of the heart of a galaxy) inherent within all matter. This matter stripped of its mass is just Cherenkov radiation that gets jettisoned back put into space before propagating away from said macroscopic BH.

When these super God black holes get get large enough, during big rip, adjacent waves of Cherenkov radiation around CDM-like collections of evaporating mother black holes pass through each other. By the two the mother black holes have shrunk into infinitesimal versions of their former selves (micro-black holes) the curtain of space-time has flowed from their collective anti de sitter space into ours, pulling all these Cherenkov radiation waves into a convergence point equal to the total area of the CMB, restarting the process & spawning the first atoms of a low entropy body out of a quark-gluon pool that looks exactly like the CMB.

That's a small taste of the out-of-box ideas that I presented in support of a rotating universe.

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ok now we can start toy model building without risk of confusion to Student readers.

Lets start with question 1 how do you propose to maintain a homogeneous and isotropic expansion from a white or black hole when that dynamic is anistropic and inhomogeneous?

It's only homogenous at 13 billion light years, beyond the cosmic event horizon it may become anistropic  At a few million light years it's inhomogenous. 

Every idea I've expressed in this thread comes from :

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30597-the-theory-of-everything/#entry352697

Which includes more information. The hyperlinks show what holes my pet model was designed to patch.

Actually the reason we wouldn't see more than 13 billion years into the past has more to do with a CMB outshining a stellar era than the velocity of C

5 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

So, know what lets define this as same universe multiple Big Bangs from USMBH (Ultra Supermassive Black Holes), Hyperspace removed.

Not mother black holes so much as the matter-energy they fling out reheating each other as they converge over an area where mother black holes have shrunk into micro black holes ( this shrinkage pulling the adjacent portions of a universe together)

5 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Ya exactly where CMB is able to reach it is what Fusion of Universe means or fission unable to reach since that is what we base "Universe Radius" as CMB reachable @ C, beyond that lightcone would be another universe by physics definitions.

C is just the rate at which space-time distorts at a certain scale, the rate of gravity changes every Lorentz transformation. When we observe the quantum world we're seeing way beyond the CMBs of those microverses

2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Ya exactly where CMB is able to reach it.

I mean I guess they could split while in the process of a merge. But not after the merge had occurred & one entire brain has been consumed, then whatever detached reattaches.

8 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

You took that in the wrong context Universe Fusion/Fission from the Dynamic DE, at some point it has to break or merge.

So you meant what became of or will become one CMB (the one we can see) & those beyond our observation, not parallel branes. Those grow by merging or shrink by not merging enough just like black holes. They contain the CMBs. The white holes share the same linear direction of time, unlike those of black holes. Who knows how many CMBs (solid particles) or observable stellar eras (wave particles) may be in one white hole considering those patterns of matter formations exist compose one another on infinite cosmic scales.

5 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Ya, but what I am pointing out is this is never going to pass the observation and experimentation test in the 2000s to 2100s, where White Holes have never been seen nor Universe Fusion or fission. 

By universe do you mean what became of the CMB or one entire white hole that's isolated by its dimensional parameters?

Because white holes are just black holes of a negative 2.5 dimension that's the exact same thing but to us looks like a black hole. So relative to negative space, a white hole, far beyond our observable universe just acts like a black hole.

There's universe growth via fusion, or shrinkage by lack thereof, no fission.

10 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

 We have stacked this on guesses of mainstream science which were guesses and assumed them correct where that still is just a guess it was based on.

Welcome to the idea phase of the method. It passes to hypothesis when you can define it with math, which is what I don't know.

3 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, I am going to shelf this for now, this is starting to turn from Modern physics to speculation on both our parts though I agree, honestly there is no way to experimentally prove it wrong or right for like billions of years.

My ideas are probably ahead of their time. But they are not speculation, they just are the most direct answer to the holes in any mainstream model.

But the full brunt of my ideas were in the last post in the link of your OP. Which I don't think anyone read or is ever going to read. Oh well, maybe they'll figure out what I already wrote in 100 years or so.

2 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

Nvmd

It's all one white hole, no charge particles can exist adjacent in the same plane without combining into 1

2 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

1.6x10^-35 meters as it does at 18x13 billion light years & *1.6 x 10^-(35^35) meters *

*1.6x(10^-35^(1.6x10^35)) meters*