Ghideon

Good catch. In my initial response above I was biased by background in computing where I think the answer is something like: "All possible combinations" means empty white tile and empty black tile plus each chess piece, black and white, on a white or a black tile. 2 empty + 6 types of piceces x 2 colors x 2 tile colors = 2+24=26 different tiles. (quick calculation, may be wrong)

I do not really follow the idea (yet). Short question that may clarify for me; Big Bang is about how universe went from a hot dense state to less dense and cooler. Heat death is even less dense and cooler. How does the mini universes "keep their size"? To me the Big Bang -> heat death analogy seems to suggest that the mini universes expands, not a cyclic process.

Thanks for the clarification, we are discussing the Time dilation paper. Is the version of the Time Dilation paper you attached to this topic the same version you sent to IJISRT? If so, how come the paper is ready to be published? The paper has quality issues.

I am confused. What paper are you talking about? A Collatz paper? The A-New-Dimension-to-Time-Dilation paper you attached above? Something else?

How is that paper connected to the Collatz Conjecture? Anyway, I responded in another topic where you posted. Here are some of my concerns: The first part of the chapter INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND states: (bold by me to highlight) Maybe just a minor thing but not a promising start. And it is then contradicted by the paper's first reference: Unfortunately it does not look like this revision of the paper has quality issues. How was the paper reviewed?

Interesting topic! I'm no expert in the area but have some, rather naive, comments. First some statements that, in my opinion, are applicable to the topic. 1: There are "laws", "rules" or "mechanisms" governing things in universe. I do not think the universe cares about what I call them and they seem to govern things such as gravity etc regardless if any scientists are around. 2: For a lot of the things in universe scientists have created approximations, or laws, that predicts the outcome of a number things. The approximations are good enough to enable to be useful in lots of stuff used in daily life. 3: Some old approximations are replaced by better versions. Some old laws are still used but in limited contexts. Some ideas: I have not yet found any reference to an experiment where the result shows something like "the universe, at this particular place, behaves differently from the rest of the universe". But through history I've seen lots of cases where "The known laws of physics are not applicable, or does not predict the outcome of the experiment. The laws need some adjustments." A: So, if the OP is about the laws of physics, or "approximations" as I named them above, then @Strange has already given a valid answer. B: If the OP is about any underlaying principles, the ones scientists are trying to model, then the short answer is "Everywhere". Example, intended to illustrate: Modelling the centre of a black hole is hard and doing experiments inside a black hole may not be possible. Black hole observation seems to suggest that black holes follow what ever principles that are applicable. Whether those principles are modelled by laws in text books or not does not matter. I'm not sure there is any scientific value to case B. I find case A more interesting. Thanks! Intended or not, that comment made me think, +1.

By verifying some of the answers given by people on here there are some I trust and others I do not trust. Those I trust most have for instance backed up their claims using good source material, ability to answer questions and present fresh views on various scientific topics.

What makes you believe that I have to? Or that I, as a god, cares about "will"? You told me I am a god in the thought experiment, I am capable of creating rules that apply everywhere. Back to science: What scientific experiment do you suggest to tell if one of us is right? Is it possible within the scope of science to test it? Can you provide some evidence for your pixel based universe other than "it is self evident"?

Why throw a god into the mix? But it may be OK for a thought experiment.This will me very imprecise; the purpose of my comment is to express an opinion in context of the thought experiment, not present any scientific facts. Since I am a practical guy relying on mainstream science and observations, I would: 1: remove space 2: create a hot dense state and let it evolve as described by the Big Bang model. Ok. What scientific experiment do you suggest to tell if one of us is right? Is it possible within the scope of science to test it? Can you provide some evidence for your pixel based universe other than "it is self evident"?

Ok! But how am I supposed to see the self evident step if you have a complete picture of some new pixel based model while I have only a short description without any details? Ok! That is interesting, please show how. The original conversation was a bit messy, I am going to slow down a bit so things stay more understandable. I dont quite get what you are on about here, sorry. The reason for my statement is that i have tried to ask the same question from various angles and also to figure out the answers to other members posts but all I can find is: and and and

Ok, interesting! I fail to see why it is self evident but that may be just my lack of understanding so far. Can you please describe: what is a pixel in the context of your theory? Please include a proper mathematic model in your description. Sorry for repeating but I also would like to take part in the discussion about the original topic. If I get your idea correctly there are gaps to be filled but only within these two theories. There is no room anywhere for any kind of new discovery that does not fit within big bang/evolution*? How is that? If possible, I would like some more detail, not an answer similar to "Because it explains everything".

Sorry, was that comment directed at me? (bold by me) It's probably just a language issue on my part, but I have to ask before trying to answer.

I've thought about the statement above and found it interesting. That is one reason why I engage this discussion. Because it explains everything, including things we don't know yet. There is plently of evidence to suggest the big bang and evolution happened so why don't we don't we just say this is truth, this is the theory of everything and trust the scientific process will fill in the gaps. I have read through the posts and I can't find an answer, I'm still curious: How are these two theories unique and how are they, or will be, able to explain everything? If I get your idea correctly there are gaps to be filled but only within these two theories. There is no room anywhere for any kind of new discovery that does not fit within big bang/evolution*? How is that? If possible, I would like some more detail, not an answer similar to "Because it explains everything". *)I've have been gone for a while and trying to catch up. I've seen the interesting discussion about definitions in the topic, and at this point my question may be imprecise.

Is the Big Bang intended to explain the universe or the observable universe? Lets try this angle: Why is evolution theory needed, why does it not follow from an "improved" Big Bang theory? Or, the other way around, why are two theories enough? Why is there no room in the universe for new discoveries that does not fit within big bang/evolution?

Does Big Bang explain the universe or the observable universe?

Can you explain why I would take the above statement as a fact? I have lots of scientific questions regarding the first time after Big Bang, where the theory applies. I have lots of other questions that I think would need new theories outside of Big Bang to answer. Are you suggesting that my second set of questions about nature is invalid? Or maybe that future revisions of Big Bang theory will explain them all? I think all theories are applicable within some scope. Why is Big Bang + Evolution "complete" making it a theory of everything?

To me it does not look like a theory of everything. It looks like two different theories describing different aspects of nature. I beleive that a theory of everything would describe how GR and evolution follows, and is explained by, "the theory of everything". *)I usually use "theory of everything" as a notation of a theory explaining fundamental forces including gravity. In the context of this topic I am prepared to deviate from that.

How about some interactions and discussion with those of us in this forum that are interested enough to spend far more than one hour without getting paid?

In my opinion I am trying my best* and I hope other forum members corrects me if I fail. May I request that you also start answering my questions in a clear, consise way using scientific language? Or at least, in a clear and consise way, states why you think my questions are not valid in this context? *) I'm not working as a scientist in this area, I may have trouble to express my opinions clearly. English is not my first language.

I think claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based is not necessary unscientific. Lack of discussion how universe is pixel based or what pixels are, that is unscientific.

Ok. What is a pixel in the context of your theory? Please include a proper mathematic model in your description.

Personally I find this topic kind of interesting and I've trying various angles in my earlier posts. Fact is that so far i have not been able to see any answers. In my opinion yu are ignoring my attempts to discuss. I'm starting to repeat myself. Since the topic is moved to speculations I ask again and try to clarify: Is that the current laws that there are evidence for? Can you maybe explain, in detail, what a pixel is, what properties you think it has? What tests do you suggest to show that these pixels explains everything we have evidence so far? In my opinion think you have suggested new scientific progress once your theory is adopted. Is that progress based on a new understanding on currently known and testad laws of physics, or will your theory reveal new laws? Or maybe a combination? I also whould like to know how to test the theory. Let's say I have an idea that states: "Each pixie controlls all the laws of the universe". What test will show I'm wrong and you are correct? I do not agree at all. Fact: there are a lot of useful models and theories for many parts of the nature that surrounds us. My opinion is that there are loads of interesting discoveries yet to be made, far more than just a few more things.

I do not agree that pixels are simple. A pixel is indeed the smallest controllable element of a picture represented on a screen. But the pixel is the result of a rather complex set of underlaying technology and very different on a CRT or LCD screen. That is far more complex than the pixel on an LCD screen. Can you explain what a pixel is within your theory and how the pixel behaves? Why is a pixel a good analogy? Maybe OK in a very limited context, but I fail to see the connection to your theory. I want to get to the point where we look at a scientific experiment, agree and state "That is a pixel!" That point may be far into the future but at least try to guide my reasoning in the right direction.

Probably, the fee may differ depending on country of residence: https://ijisrt.com/processing-charges

Could we test the idea in the following way? 1: the proposed idea will have profound impact of humanity: 2: Combining 1 and 2: What if I go to two classes tomorrow. In the first class I teach the students that the universe is composed of pixels. In the second class I teach the students that the universe is composed of hexagons*. Ideally I would like to have some scientific evidence but, as a start, can you explain why the students in the first class will have a chance on a very different future than the ones in the second class? *) or cubes or whatever, just not something mistaken for pixels.