Joduh

Right. I think you are a machine I came up with that all by myself! Postulated the results, did the test and you passed with flying colors. one hand Guess that's life in "Speculations"

The finite portions are localized at the 'Singularities'. The "cutoff" if I understand the meaning, would be an inherent function of Q as it stands off S. One interpretation of this is that the size of an electron is a function of the stand off zone; put an S down, surround and spin up with Q and that's how big the wave function (or the weather around S) is. Entropy results from the instabilities of SCM pressure structures. Then they exactly are 'Singularities' and calling them unicorns is specious word play. Should we start a new thread for Unicorn Theory for you? I kinda like the imagery... Maidens and their horses horning the sky So true. but I don't remember my geometry teacher postulating ignorance as math. I put the book down on the table though, reached my hand in and let the geometry trickle through my fingers. Ahh, it's stuff not theory. But why would I need a tape measure? Couldn't we just say it's yea big this and that way? Isn't the tape measure itself the real thing and not the geometry? I know I gotta believe to make this one work. I think I can I think I can I think I can. I propose a test, if this forum is really just an app placing random phrases that seem to fit it's appreciation then it can't sound one hand clap.

The Q is defined above and is pulled from modified Pilot Wave Theory. Q is the pressure term which in Blob parlance is 'Change'. The S is short for the infinite non-array of 'Singularities' in Blob. But I haven't gotten to the exclusion zone part of the Theory and it is getting late. Blob Theory predicts, for example, that the solar system should have an exclusion zone around it -- that is how is separation is achieved from infinite Q . If we send a spacecraft to the edges of the solar system, we should see variations in the magnetic field that isolate ions on either side of a very wide zone which would be pierced by periodic bolts of invasive Q. Outside this exclusion zone would be the galactic Q. And outside the galactic would be the Q of intergalactic. The other thing to test would be the micro dynamos in Blob that project the 'Change' Q structure as lines of force radiating to remote regions of SCM.

The exclusion zone is a Q phenomena in Blob, not the S. It is not the 'Singularities' that make the exclusion zone, the zones are in the Q.

not so and there is no proof of that

it is the exclusion zone in Blob

Carlo Rovelli http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/ has been working on Loop Quantum Gravity and he has really interesting math. In one of his lectures he works the math all the way down to 10-33, when an audience question about what happens below that promts his answer that: "it could be anything... it could be a black hole." Makes me wonder. Seems like rather a waste of that which is really the kernal of everything. Just let it go to waste just like that? Someone must have missed something.

My answer is explained above and is zero. that is 0. as in 0.0 'Singularities' in Blob don't do anything either. How could they? If they did it would be more complicated than simple. Singlularities in GR are theoretical and I suppose could have all sorts of conditions attached to them. Hopefully convenient ones since otherwise they are floating away somewhere. And in a way, that is what SCM are -- weather conditions around 'Singularities' that are localized right here, right now.

good good! Expertise. I'm only 62, but i'm over it. My degrees are not in physics so all I can do is reference the work, and well, try to fit Blob in as the missing foundation. You know I was thinking, this idea of singularities seems newer than the vintage of the Maxwell/Dirak/etc. thinkers. How would they have made that math?

scuze me while I git dees bullets outta ma particles, shoulda realized. All that math looks like it was copped off some website eh? Which did you get it from? Easier just to quote "QED" like I do? Seemss like a really complicated description of somewhere on the other side of something somewhere lost is space. Or maaybe that 's what SCM does. So competings be damned! they'll just have to fall in line behind Blob. I tried that once but I must have inhaled or something I think it was college

Seems like "photons" ARE wave-particles. The teachers prolly rn't splainin more cause they don't know either. This would seem to be the conventional view of light though, nice quote. I'm still not sure (even after all those teachers) what "hitting at prism surface" means. the molecules of the prism? which one? aren't they in different shapes and stuff when they perfectly reproduce the spectrum? Why don't surface imperfections make imperfect rainbows? Perfect crystals? Surfaces of crystals? how do they "hit" without particle properties? How are they "bent" by the prism? Is that like bending straws? Why does light go straight except then? how about the little elastic gluons, are they involved? And why, if light is photons, and the density is whatever at the source, it should be a lot less light years away, yet it seems like there is no empty space between photons -- that can only be waves. No, you can't use photons as explanation without it being inherently about wave particle duality. And that is confusing, not a good theory. Not saying it to the kids is part of the problem. Im talkin to a machine here aren't i

Gravity emerges as the thermodynamic equation of state. "Q" is pressure-like compressing toward each 'Singularity'. Geometry starts at each 'Singularity' in the sense that a Q has no geometry until it is effected by each 'Singlularity'. Blob happens before GR, and then GR emerges as what happens when you crush Q in certain spots, while Q presses around. We just don't need the abstract notion of geometry chosen at random. At least we don't need it for Blob Theory. May I ask, who put all the scaffolding in place that allows you to measure? GR? it's abstract not real. Which leads back to one of Smolin's precepts re: realists v. operationalists. You must have a rational basis for your choice in where to start your interactions. Where does GR start? put your finger on it please. push the button if there is one. I submit there is no GR starting point unless you simply define it that way. and if you define it that way, why not another way. or another way on the other side of the universe, not here. So GR is a non-starter, kinda. QED math seems pretty good from an observational standpoint. Modified Pilot Wave Theory math may prove to be more simple. Both maths would apply to the Q portion of Blob Theory. Both maths happen after the basic interactions of Blob Theory, and need only be modified to the extent that Blob predicts things like entanglement, dark matter, galactic structure, lightning... Mordred is astute here in the sense that kinematics is key. The difficulty for Blob is that Q is continuous rather than discrete as quanta. I think. (that means an educated guess that should be discussed) The quanta don't emerge until after the SCM events. If we imagine for a moment the event that is SCM, it presents as a “freezing” of Blob's Q at a 'Singularity' locale (S), with associated gradient of less-frozen Q surrounding radially (radial for simplicity) and very large in magnitude further away. This gradient provides the structure for micro-scale dynamos and torrents (more on those later). Imagine the closest packing of spinning spheres model of 3d space. The parts between the spheres is distinct from the spheres and represents where they grind together. So as these degrees of freeze establish around S, there will be a complex transfer of stuff around, between, on top of... There will be stable spin states that emerge from the complexity, the most probable ones. This is the basic kinematics of Blob. This is where the super computer would be helpful. To approximate what can be described as weather at 10-15.

start with what? "a geometry"? where is it?

good, good! Kinda the opposite of the sea of Blob's un-reactive 'Singularities'. Which is what the theory is based on – two things that are as different as can be. And which merge together to form everything. Kids in school see white light falling on a prism, and then colored light coming out. Then the teacher tells them that light must be both particle and wave, without any proof. It can be convincing despite the lack of logic because there doesn't seem to be a better explanation. Instead, white light is the input, and the colors are the output of matter reacting to light. They are not particles except to the extent they are absorbed by matter, and even then, they are not the matter itself. The light is not “being split,” it is different light that is emitted as vectors. If the teacher said that, wave-particle duality cross-thinking goes away. Kids have a more simple view. And maybe won't start drooling at the sight of differential equations. Herein lies a key concept about Blob. (fractals are cool BTW) Blob's 'Singularities' are not in an array. That would be an ordering that would require justification – why is the array there? The array is not there in Blob. But the 'Singularities' are. They are there without metric. It is the most simple arrangement possible. You cannot reach over from one to another – there is no getting anywhere from anywhere. (unless you bridge with Q) In the array you mention, each “point” is a regular distance apart, which can only be justified by an additional assumption – that of there being measurable space. In a sense it is the same problem that math itself has. Everybody is assuming that the thing that is between 1 and 2 is the same as the thing that is between 2 and 3. Without justifying it. It is self justification. Makes it seem like everything hangs together, without actually proving it. Now you could say that is just the way math is defined. Hmmm. Is that why models based on math seem consistent? Or you have only proved your own assumptions. Instead, resort to the most simple. It is there but can't be measured. Each kid in school knows this instinctively. That is why measurement must be “taught.” that is why we invented clocks too, for that matter. Because time in nature is there, but it is not regular. And if you want your minglings to show up on time, you best have a clock and a big stick (meter should do). As a kid I was more interested in play; and imagining frustrated teachers smacking kids with sticks to prove math exists.

what do the unicorns do? I don't think this would work as a postulate. the problem with math is it has no locality, no starting point, other than arbitrary ones. things just don't add up unless you start somewhere. You can calculate the cannonball trajectory, but you have no cannon to fire it from. I don't think math works as a theory of the universe.