inSe

The di-brane in this three is the fabric of reality that has a positive density medium minus the fabric of reality which has a negative density medium manifested in the form of black holes which exist at every point in space, Cantor's infinity. You can always cram smaller holes inbetween black holes, no matter how small said black holes, because holes curve because they're spherical. You take a simple structure like this, with a simple singular deleterious operation, & iterate it infinitely, but sequentially from the smallest to the largest points of contact between positive & negative density medium, & a universe arises. Positive or negative density mediums. The more vague the better. Think of a thermal solid if it ever became equal to 3 dimensions, where time dilates to a standstill. At the 2x dimensions explained above the thermodynamical structure is as complex as anything from the core of a neutron star to tree bark in Earth's atmosphere to the blackshifted radiation of virtual "particles" in the dead of the vacuum of space as devoid as the Bootes void. Which is pretty dynamic.

The fabric of reality, which is shapeless, which has width, height, & depth

In the OP every calculation involving time dilation/contraction (which was every equation in the OP) was built off the answer to that. By dimension I am talking width x height x depth... NOT the vectors used in eigen functions The answer is no different for the reverse brane, or for a particle (these particles are not points, they are micro structures with width, height, & depth) The answer for the minimum is >2, not greater than or equal to, just greater than. The maximum is <3. The dimensions constantly vary but stay within 2x where 2>x>1. This change is time. A negative change contracts, a positive change dilates time. Now, what did I say about black holes in the previous? Because they are what causes the negation of the brane, as components of the reverse brane. Take away an area, & you get an instant acceleration equal to the volume of that area. These compose the only real interaction which is the infinitely many ripples that become the finitely few crashing waves of the fundamental interactions plus dark plus dark matter plus spook action, ad infinitum, as defined by the newly redefined eigen functions in my future geodesic.

No physics I employ would be non-classical mechanics. It would add ideas, but certainly not along the lines of string theory just because I use the word brane and frankly you threw the word plane in there in the last page , I know what you're doing. Now I do agree I need manifolds for these "particles" if you can even call them that

Now I do plan on expressing this deleterious di-brane in an NC geodesic. But the geodesic has to be built on the geometry in this thread. Ideas such as non-point particles. Which is nothing like string theory. The math in my OP shows certain truths.

It does change, the two branes cancel out just like a positive and a negative. But you can't fully cancel infinity. So it goes on forever.

I had to redefine branes, dimensions, particles, & everything else in my OP. Deleterious di-brane, like parallel inversive branes, but they're perpendicular as opposed to parallel. Perpendicular at every point, there are infinite points in any length (cantor)

I defined five different types of "particles" in my OP They're not particles though.

There are no point particles in my OP I literally say this in my OP

I've never said plane, I've been using the word brane the whole time

Same as positive. It would be values that coincide with increases in mass. If positive & negative areas cancel out, you can imagine why. Constantly remove a distance, & you're constantly accelerating by the length of the distance removed.

A negative density medium.

Not if the EH is the surface of a sphere of three negative euclidean dimensions. The process you're referring to can be viewed as micro-BH absorption. Which is why doesn't necessarily occur. Did you read my OP? Math is an uncovering of nature, not some esoteric invention. We like to think we invented it. We just gave it symbols.

I'm saying none of those concepts were described by a geodesic, or even a metric - but they don't to be in order to be right. They just can't define much at all without being described in a metric Not there, we're talking about matter, energy, anything that represents an increased thermodynamic state as squishing a three-dimensional euclidean geometrized brane together. Any increase in entropy represents a thinning of that brane. Which is why bhs evaporate quicker under high thermal pressure, or last longer when in a lower temperature

How did time dilation for "λmax of the proton’s quasar is the proton’s normal λmax but to the negative power of the proton’s length divided by twice the Schwarzschild radius" literally equal to the entropy available in a quasar around a black hole with the mass of a proton match with the evaporation rate of a proton that size perfectly in my OP? New BHs smaller than planck (which any black hole with the mass of a proton would be like 10^-54 meters refer to OP) just keep forming around the general area for 10^34 years

You're assuming the lifetime of what we think a proton is involves only one proton. What we're looking at when we measure a proton could literally be a billion different objects forming & vanishing in one location.

But I do know, & you know, that whatever rudimentary equations I did know in my OP, was somehow enough to match the measurements of BH proton evaporation rates & the rate at which pair-particle spins got synchronized in the Afshar experiment & other experiments like it assuming this synchronization is not instantaneous So whatever revelation that's described by those equations could be described by a geodesic. No matter the difference in that which can be defined by a geodesic (everything) & that which can be defined by those equations (the oscillation frequency of a BH with the mass of a proton=the oscillation frequency of a proton or the velocity of gravity of an electron plus the velocity of an electron equals the velocity of action at a distance).

So I don't even know what this thing's doing really. Damn.

Γρμν Should produce a NEGATIVE integer, right? "(-1,1,1,1,1)" this part is representing the Γρ's operation of (n-1) x (n+1)^4 right? We're talking about my awareness, not my knowledge. Am I recognizing what the equation should do when I plug something in, not whether I plugged in the right thing. I haven't plugged anything in yet because as I said earlier I don't know how to turn what's in my OP into what those variables need to be yet. With the proper tools, I can find out quicker than you might think.

So I was right about gamma, & how it pertained to the four momentum/velocity

Γρμν=1/2gρσ(∂μgσν+∂νgμσ−∂σgμν) Let's look at everything I picked up on from inspecting this. Because that's the best way to tell how long it will take for me to develop, not where I left off academically What I was thinking before is that is what's going on with the gamma (n - 1)!. I even say at some point after you gave me this that n is a tiny fraction so that whole left side of the equation is negative. But this part is doing (n-1) (n+1) (n+1) (n+1) (n+1) right? Doesn't affine stand for affintity? affine map or an affinity (from the Latin, affinis, "connected with") I knew that from the beginning. Now what I failed to realize is that the equation you gave me originally is a fractal: ignorantly saying: "Then with a smooth manifold I have to get a rough koch/hilbert curve manifold before I can even start the geodesic" But what you gave me was, in fact, the universe, not a koch/hilbert curve, whichwould have been a pointless modulation.

But You see with the right connections, even people who are currently only aspiring to be in physics or the applied sciences, a rudimentary understanding of Unified Field Oscillations goes a long way. Especially these days

I don't really think it will take that long. Especially not if I work with professors, maybe they'd even know some average people who work in the applied sciences of communication theory. Applied, meaning they can create signalling devices with any form of communication based on varied particle physics, such as the classically unified field oscillations suggested in this theory

None of them cover any specific interaction under the dislocated particle trajectories, but they do define rates of generalized interaction do they not? I took it twice, the second time I got hit with everything completely different. Basically everything there is concerning algebra & trigonometry, basically incompleteable in one course, so what's given is subject to the professor's discretion. I taught myself more than textbook, the textbook selects from 18th century proofs, which was what I got into. But I don't remember much. Newton cartan builds a manifold, a change over time. What my equations showed was a lot more rudimentary.

I knew it wasn't a matter of plugging in values looking at it. Most people go through pre-calc without having a subconscious urge to pry 100% into the proofs for a total understanding of euclidean geometry. It was me & another student, neither of us even bothered finishing the course because we neither of us could settle for the incompleteness of the curriculum. It's a form of OCD. Was I wrong to not want to move on to calculus before fully understanding geometry? Obviously not, I wouldn't have the demonstrably true proofs of what actually entangles or creates mass or materializes virtual particles in my op if I didn't think that way. You said I had "equations not well defined by a metric", those equations coincide with what's expected from bh proton evaporation rates & the measured velocity of spook action avoiding bells inequality