UltraPolymath

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

Again, this does not answer the question. Even if there are unanswered questions in current models, that does not provide any support for your idea.

 

!

Moderator Note

Citation needed.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/dark-matter-goes-missing-in-oddball-galaxy

57 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I fail to see how that assumption is observational support for a different Planck length beyond the cosmic event horizon. Where can I find a mainstream observation supporting your statement?  

Yet you can see how it is observational support for an existential origin...is that because of cosmological redshift?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hubble-tension-headache-clashing-measurements-make-the-universes-expansion-a-lingering-mystery/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1168298/black-hole-universe-conformal-cyclic-cosmology-stephen-hawking/amp

Also every galaxy we have found that doesn't have a central black also has no dark matter, which was testable parameter in my model.

My model predicts via a tree like law that parallel universes or "mother black holes" merge and cause dynamic cosmological redshift, which is also applicable to lcdm and testable

The applicability that is not recognized extends the lcdm in two ways, it uses a 3 dimensional string topology to form rotating particles made of dimensionless points (earlier in the thread I said the were 1 dimensional that was a typo) via phase intersections in dimension 1 pi curves within the length contracting strings to form a deterministic quantum scale precision for molecular and cosmic scale modelling and then you have the Planck scale shifts for dark matter or dark energy which goes beyond the cosmic event horizon and within the black hole event horizon in order to recreate specific cosmic conditions that have a triple layer of uniqueness out of a maximum of 5 different Planck constants before redundancy steps in. Murphy's law, this tells us everything that can happen.

There's really 60 dimensions there but only 48 of them are used to find 36 complete dimensions, or only 36 out of 48 that interact (great grand mother, grand mother, moth black holes in a tree like law each containing 6D past by 6D future topologies interacting in the present). All of these out of infinite dimensions repeating the same behavior in an infinite onion layer of infinite different Planck constants. Existentially you have infinite spheres without a real size going infinitely far back in to relative to any given perspective, and a second infinite number of spheres going forward into time, and they sort of interact to form those crescent deformations, the quantum eraser representing by those pointers in page 1 as a pair of assymetric bi-vectors for past and future gradients interacting in the present. Why spheres as opposed to cubes? What does a shape become when infinite corners are added to it? A concentric curve, a circle, a sphere.

Which I think is preferable to a random and finite existential interpretation. 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

If you are not able to provide meaningful answers, this thread will be closed.

"The CMBR" is not a reference as requested.

The CMBR is not beyond the cosmological event horizon.

 

Jesus give me time to elaborate

Wait an hour before slapping a moderator warning not 3 seconds

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Where can I find a mainstream observation supporting that Planck length* is different beyond the cosmic event horizon**? 

 

*)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length 1.616255(18)×10⁻³⁵ m
**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon#Event_horizon

 

The CMBR. Why cant we see older light than that? If the Planck length is screwed beyond an event horizon. We take that same observational data in mainstream and assume something else, that that is when we poofed into existence when Lamaitre was basically just saying let there be light for the Vatican he is the sole perpetrator of bbt. That's a matter of interpretation of the cmb data and redshift. We have 3 competing constants ffs

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

The part of the article that is open to access does not mention String Theories that turns the LCDM inside out.

The claim is incorrect. I would expect more rigor when claiming "recognized", "referenced", "interested" or similar in the context of scientific or academic writings. Smolin did not recognize your model. And from what @Mordred has provided so far there seem to be very little reason for Smolin to ever be interested. 

 

Side note: Mordred's concepts, for instance Wicks rotations, is easy to lookup on the web and plenty of reliable sources exists. Why does the web not provide easy-to-find definitions of many of @UltraPolymath concepts such as "fractal redshift photons", "matrioshka doll spacetimes" or "self-cannabolism in reversed time linear m-branes"? Fractal, redshift and photons are of course familiar things but that does not mean "fractal redshift photons" is a useful innovation.

 

None of those terms were in my original document they are referring to math I did based on fractional dimensions with an e(36) [base 36 dimensional calc] wherein beyond the cosmic event horizon or within the interior of a black hole the vacuum has respectively a Planck length of 10^-11 meters and a different Planck time as well or wherein within the interior of a black hole it is lp/lt = 1.95x10^26 m/s based on mainstream I repeat MAINSTREAM equations such as plancks reduced constant, gravitational constant c cubed or c to the power of 5 in the denominator and also the Planck mass, f=ma, black hole evaporation formula all mainstream all the basis for my 36 dimensional space superstring theory only has 11 dimensions

16 hours ago, UltraPolymath said:

Did you read the document.

I mean even what's in there was a simplification, I have a lot of material written down by hand here and finding the gradient vectors for 9 strings looks something like f(xy)=[-24/25,+24/25,+24/25,etc] f(x-y)=[-4/5,+n,+-+] for lt=1

The process for finding the pointers is itself a chore and a matter of breaking it down to consistent 5s or 3s and ending with the other once you know that numerator

I mean even before you graph a single spherical string at lt=0 you have to find the direction and magnitude. The sphere I graphed had that upward from left to right tilt for the direction and the magnitude just described how steep that center is.

SELF NOTE That's f(-x,y) for gradient vector 1 which had the denominator of 25 not 5 for 9 spheroidal strings (iteration 2) at t=1 that's the interior of 9 Planck particles merged

Which has a maximum of 1/9^28th (calculated by the Planck mass for your maximum) of 25 so at t=24 in there you 24/9^28 sub Planck transforms. Which is why we normally start at a real astronomical as in cosmological sized number of planck volumes, not just 9

How many Planck volumes are in a galaxy? Billions of those galaxies merge into one universe over time which is why you need 3 Planck scales before redundancy sets in, two 6 dimensional branes, and voila 36 dimensional space

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Then perhaps you should apply some mainstream physics. You haven't anything mainstream in your theory. Nor does anything in your theory match up with observational evidence

Plenty of mainstream equations were used in calculating the metrics and what would turn into the values for the matrices and if you believe mother black hole universes don't match observations with an observational incomplete homogeny (dark flow, bootes void etc evidence against) or this that and the other thing then just remember there's two parameters regarding black hole evaporation which my topology would test

For both a normal black hole and a mother black hole. It can also be applied to tests for quantum scale molecular modelling, quantum effects like eraser or entanglement observations of dark matter and dynamic dark energy, all adding parameters where LCDM falls short

Everything that can be learned on the subject has to come from learning mainstream physics, Not sure what you mean.

There's a difference between knowing what has been put together as a best solution, and innovating.

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No it wasn't, you know there is really very little in your paper that is accurate. LCDM has been tested to a high degree of accuracy that the cosmological Principle of a homogeneous and isotropic universe is accurate. We can also test for the relative densities of faraway galaxies using the Luminosity to mass relation. They don't have higher densities the farther away they are.

Secondly trapped light in particles is absolutely nonsense. All particles are field excitations, Bosons such as the photon has different symmetry relations than do fermions. This is described by the Pauli exclusion principle. The great attractor is part of our local group it isn't nearly as far away as the CMB.

If were in a black hole then our universe cannot be homogeneous and isotropic. Greater physicists than I have tried to model out universe in a BH it takes a great deal of extra terms such as torsion and time dilation just to counter the effects.

Really the paper you have has so many holes in it that it would take several pages to go through them all 

paragraph 1:

Oh come on the whole reason there's still a such thing as theoretical physics is because of quantum weirdness, Dark matter, mysteries

Paragraph 2:

Again these strings are not the particles themselves, only where they intersect with one another, also later down that document I correct myself and put the largest most disperse vacuum as the logical center, the bootes void. Besides the CMB's distance would be a lot closer yet the oldest light further at the other side of the diameter that's a larger CMB if you're at the edge you need a common center to even state where you are relative to the oldest light, if it takes less time to orbit a region like the bootes void than for the CMB's light to reach you you have what's called an optical illusion because you're being hit by the walls from an equal distance

Paragraph 3:

Is our universe really homogenous? We see near the horizon blue super-giant suns, galaxies barely formed, and generally larger black holes at the center. Yet evidence of black hole evaporation was recently found, we have dark flow which is my strongest point here, also supermassive black holes out there near the CMBR before they would have had time to even form according to bbt models

Yes, that is my maxima.

I even used the word continuous, that's where the particle oscillation frequencies are redshift phonons

5 hours ago, UltraPolymath said:

That would have to do with the tachyons, the evaporation rate is confirmed by Hawking Radiation, I have in my model the string vibrations only getting so slow as the Higgs Boson before length contraction turns into length dilation, these crescent string-sphere deformations were written as being continuously produced in the same locations so as to allow the cosmos to take upon locations of density juxtaposed to the vacuum where light is the vibration of that vacuum, when those length dilated reversals turn back into the original planck spheres in the least dense vacuum regions that continuous generation of those fields gets killed, this happens exactly as many times as those fields were being generated and my model predicts it as being equivalent to black hole evaporation rates.

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No maxima and minima of a function is different

http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/mc-ty-maxmin-2009-1.pdf

Killing vectors involve the inner product of two vectors

Then the minima correspond to halfway between the particle pair production and the killing vector in the syntax of my document excerpt I just quoted. Which is, topologically, where the crescent deformations slow to 1/9^28 c. Does that make sense?

And c is the maxima, where, topologically, the spheres before they get deformed into that crescent spheroid or after they become a sphere at the killing vector.

If only I had said it like that two pages ago.

I could have saved some face.

Trust me, I knew that's what you meant two pages ago to begin with, all of this has been an exposay of my model.

Tell me, does the killing vector have anything to do with maxima or minima?

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Considering I had personally met him at a lecture definitely by the way the post above with your drawings is rather basic stuff. You might want to study how to apply the above to symmetry groups.

I don't just study, I dissect. I know knowledge is the goal but what I have shown is a rate of acquisition of that knowledge is above normal, because I've been in the classroom and I know what average is.

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So you admit that the link you posted on Lee Smolins work has nothing to do with your model yes or no.

I'm agnostic to that faith. Saying it doesn't is not being objective but on the other hand, saying it does is not being objective. We're being inductive, not deductive. Inducing is step 1, what's step 2? Deduction, I'll admit making such a claim as I did might be frowned upon here, obviously. We don't know what material Smolin was reading before writing his article. Why do you assume it was his own material when he says this stuff is new and very new? New can be not something going around in circulation within the established channels yet.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Like I stated you hadn't shown a single killing vector in your document. The killing equation is in that paper.

But I definitely described one in that quote.

That equation has the word limit in it, more evidence that I immediately knew what you meant in page 1

Is that on the middle right not calculus equations? Oh yeah, I'm good. That's like nothing compared to all the equations pertaining to topology I have written on papers, I can string together the next couple hundred spheres and where they go in an equation, rather simple equation but the graph would be impossible on paper

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

I think you got killing vectors wrong see this reference and tell me what you think

http://www.physics.usu.edu/Wheeler/GenRel2013/Notes/GRKilling.pdf

What do I think about that?

I think about reverse engineering in the equations. It's what I do. Thanks.

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Do you know how to model a killing vector?

 

Well I taught myself 3D equations from infinite angles, for 3D shapes with infinite point for the curves, what do you think?

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 

I quoted your post stating that article was a recognition for your work. Those were your words I quoted.

I get real time updates, and a trend is inferred, I made a very public disclosure directly in line with that article. I said it recognized disclosure, I didn't claim it recognized said disclosure. Lack of proof is not proof of absence but I'm not saying absence of proof is proof of the contrary.

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

None of your mathematics shows a killing vector.

 

Doesn't it? That depends upon what you mean by "showing" the math I did show infers such if you know what to look for, I stated in that document this:

Quote

After lt=1 there's another sphere replacing the previous one that turned into a crescent spheroidat lt=1 understand? This particle production ends eventually, but this is the last trick here, the newer ones represent the vacuum the older ones, the larger crescent intersections, represent the atomic nuclei, but when the bottom quark has a volume less than the planck volume as a culmination of string crescent intersections, length contraction and time dilation get reversed into length dilation and time contraction, this is tachyons, unlike superluminal dark matter tachyons are slower than the speed of light they simply go back in to time, but they don't go back in time they also go forward back to the origin of particle production where the crescents become planck spheres again and then the production of these crescents gets terminated you see according to black hole evaporation.

A lack of familiarity with classroom semantics and I still knew what you were talking about.

What the layman might not be able to discern is how that quote relates to the limits of a vector function

30 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let's see your track record when you first claimed the above for Ker Smolin's work and not your own.

You then claimed tachyonic action in your model. Then claimed that string theory involves LQC quantum foam.

I can post numerous claims you haven't shown in your document

Shall I go on ?

I said nothing about Smolin's work, I claimed what his article was referencing when it was written less than 24 hours after a disclosure and said something about turning the spacetime inside out to achieve quantum determinism.

No I claimed it involved it's own quantum foam unlike other models but still a quantum foam as in the minimum of quantum action planck values

Everything I've claimed was claimed in some form in my document, even my response on how to go about testing predictions although I didn't make the direct connection to the equation for evap rates and the ppp vs killing vectors, yet that was mentioned in the document briefly

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That's not what minima means..

Every graph has a maxima and a minima. They are the extremum of a graph.

The document says something about the 1/9^28th of a photon volume does it not? I'm not going to repeat myself. That's where it meets half way to the field cancellation, the killing vector. Hence the limits

The quarks have a lower oscillation frequency. Hence

"minima"

My calculus grammar may not cut it in a classroom but yet the underlying syntax is the same

And that all goes beyond Debroigle semantics and rather into observational data

Cutting corners can be advantageous for comprehension, sometimes a shortcut is just a shortcut, not a crutch

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

No the Higgs boson does not represent a minimal frequency in particle physics. How can it with its mass value ?

Okay, do bottom or top quarks have a higher or lower oscillation frequency than electrons or positrons? Like the Higgs boson, those are all elementary particles. Only difference is you need a particle accelerator to find a higgs boson not something typically found in nature like the bottom quarks in a quark star's inner layers

16 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 

Your reply after I first mentioned maxima and minima went onto the topic of bosons. So give me your BS.

 

 

Do subatomic particles not have an oscillation frequency? Would the Higgs boson not represent a minimal frequency in particle physics?

Because that's what string theory is applied to, particle physics as opposed to biology or something involving how to meld aluminum tubes

I feel like you're trying to ruin face using "wrote semantics" as opposed to actually showing any flaws in my model or the geometric equations that were actually in the document

I mean it's like you're an English speaker criticizing me for speaking French when the underlying comprehension is the same

Is the issue translation for encoding into a program?

Moreover I provided the necessary syntax to do it so I don't see why JOPA had grounds to turn it down other than the number of vectors for iteration 2 being slightly off. First you need the iterations, which was in the metrics. 

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Really you didn't even recognize the terms involved in defining the limits of a function and you expect me to believe your last post ?

Yes I did, as early as my response to Swansont's second post in page 1 before you even posted

In fact I made a statement about the limits of the velocities of the strings in the last few paragraphs of the docdroid link in the OP

That's literally the maxima and minima even if I didn't label it as such I still knew what to do next, all of that was set as early as iteration 1 even if in the illustrations I got s(2) wrong for the gradients even in the docdroid as opposed to my 7th submission at JOPA I recognized that on my own/

You're correct in that I'm self taught but that goes for me, if you're taught this stuff in class you're just a cookie cutter for what's already been established and you don't turn our space time on it's head as Smolin put it

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Really how do you set the range of applicability for your functions without the maxima and minima?

Well I know what they're expected to be even though I didn't actually turn the metrics into the topology yet. The metrics tell us what they're expected to be not the other way around it's literally calculated in that paper once you know the reduced planck's constant and gravitational constant

The topology tells us what the equations cannot, it tells us behavior once the rules are already set and then if the behavior matches the equations you're good

You're gonna need a hell of threading software to visualize that topology though. The equations I can do.

Point is I fell short of actually doing the equation for the maxima and and minima but I understand the calculus and how to do it.

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Definitely not. It is an essential step to model sinusoidal waves other waveforms under graph. It is definitely not the last step but one of the preliminary steps.

You need the metrics first, and you also need the geometry, the vectors, etc. All comes first

My paper has the metrics first, I mean I have the equation for the sphere, but not the crescent deformation, which is a process for specifically finding the maximum especially in a 3D planck volume based model like this one it's a rank +6-6 it's a rank 12 model

I admitted from the start it wasn't completed which I guess was why JOPA denied the last run, even what I had for the bi-vectors was off for iteration 2

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

None of your equations describe the maxima and minima of a graph.

That specifically is one of the last things in the process of modelling.

I had the maximum already, which was the sphere. 25/25 for 9 in f(xy) if you don't care about the physics, but physics wise you need to know the entire metric ordering and for a universe the ratio has to equal c

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

If you understood the meaning behind maxima or minima you would understand my reference to calculus. Those terms have nothing to do directly with any physics theory except physics employs those terms under calculus rules.

Did you read the document.

I mean even what's in there was a simplification, I have a lot of material written down by hand here and finding the gradient vectors for 9 strings looks something like f(xy)=[-24/25,+24/25,+24/25,etc] f(x-y)=[-4/5,+n,+-+] for lt=1

The process for finding the pointers is itself a chore and a matter of breaking it down to consistent 5s or 3s and ending with the other once you know that numerator

I mean even before you graph a single spherical string at lt=0 you have to find the direction and magnitude. The sphere I graphed had that upward from left to right tilt for the direction and the magnitude just described how steep that center is.