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.

interesting question. We ARE the medium. Dragging Singularities around by the higgs and rocket motors and old dinosaurs I suspect. We would be able to tell by looking. When something looks like it is moving in relation to us, it most likely is. S is not obliged to stay in any particular local, except as entrapped by Q. Perhaps we could just assume it is true? Blob Theory is based on fundamental assumptions and postulates. Blob is a framework that is pre-defined such that there are only two basic elements that make up reality. The "proof" can only be by assumption. There are only 2 possibilities, one or the other. Any "proof" of any other concept would half to be more complicated. Such as 3 fundamental elements... or etc. I submit the additional complexity is not necessary. We just don't need it. In effect, the proof is that there isn't anything more simple. For example, you could postulate that the universe is made up of an endless sea of tomatoes. But then you'd want to know what happens when they sprout, or whatever. In Blob, they can't sprout because they are the most simple thing possible, an existent nothing with value zero, no spin, no forces, no time, no gravity. And none of wherever else you might think of. You could also postulate that there is only ONE element that makes up the universe, which would seem more simple. Your universe would look something like a lump of cold coal on new years eve at two in the morning -- without the lump, nor the coal, nor the new years eve at two in the morning. Perhaps a little too simple?

Cool it doesn't. (Q) pressure makes the "any difference" only to itself. It is the reaction of Q to Singularities that makes matter. The thing is, for Q, the existence of the 'Singularities' is very disturbing because it just can't go there. Q gets riled up. I've heard this, multiple times, thanks again. the math for 'Singularities' is zero equals infinity. Which is odd for math. You would test this by stripping away (Q) from (S). The infinite Q may not be accessible though because our corner of the (Q) is bound-up by the galaxy; so you'd only get the galactic max. The LHC would be a place to start. Alternatively a big computer to evaluate weather at 10-15. Each little weather event would be some form of particle that you might see falling out of the ATLAS. Whoa, Just realized the LHC is limited by the Q pressure of Earth. LHC in space? (Whooooaaa, just set up a Q phaser in the garage. There's a problem though, when I set the puk in the field, it flew off. I figure the galaxy is moving at about a half a million miles an hour so when the puk achieved isolated mass, it made a hole in the garage roof.;) Maybe the science needs more controlled conditions. All star talk aside, the use of the term "Q" for the pressure is not mine.

peace

Lots of questions. Basically three categories: meanings of terms derived from Lee Smolin's work. Some of the new concepts presented toward the bottom of the 'First Principles' which will take explaining to explain. Concerning basic theory construct. I could try to provide individual answers such as: “What does "dynamical simplicity" mean? How can it "choose" anything? What are the postulates? [haven't figured out how to do quotes from thread yet] Dynamical simplicity refers to the idea (Smolin) that when things change, they do so in the most simple way possible. It is an organizing idea. It doesn't do the choosing, it is the theorist (Blob theorists) who is choosing to use simplicity as the governing device to rule the universe, so to speak. The postulates have not yet been posted. This would be a lot of writing for me. It's hard for me to post Smolin because it is new work. It might be better to deal with these kind of questions as they emerge from explaining other aspects of Blob. I've been trying to organize ideas to present in this forum format, and we should start at the beginning and proceed one at a time. Two ideas. An infinite sea of absolutely inert singularities (gazillions of them in the head of each pin) that do not change. They are just there without metric. You are looking directly at them when you are looking at matter. They are not visible because they do not have dimension. They are absolute zero, not asymptotic event horizon stuff. An infinite sea of 'Change' which responds to the singularities in a quantum-like organizing framework. Permeates everywhere and every when with infinite pressure (Q). Time and space become real at each 'Singularity'-'Change' Merger (SCM) [pronounced: /ˈs(k)izəm/ ]. You should clear your mind temporarily for the purposes of this discussion. My sense is I am confronting years of banter about physics at this forum, which is exactly what is needed to vet this new theory. For now though, allow me to lead the path. Allow the idea of nothing Allow the idea of nothingness settle into your thinking without all those equations and forces and what not. They don't happen until after the basic SCM phenomena. For simplicity of explanation, the first idea to get is that of nothing that is real and everywhere, and which establishes locality of physical particles. There is naturally a third idea that emerges from the first two, which is that which is in between. What happens between these two. Here's a hint: lightning.

Empress of Everything , thank you for the help, I have looked at the Swansont theads and found them to be good. I'm not sure if I'm responding in the thread here or to a moderator. If I'm just to be trashed, I'll refrain from posting the rest of it. As for the testable issue, the tests are all the same tests we have been doing. Blob is a different way of interpreting existing physics experiments. Blob predicts things but it will be up to others to show. One of my posts is missing. Am I trashed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory Pursuant to Lee Smolin's presentation on Relational Approaches To Quantum Gravity, July 23 2018 [5 paradigm approaches to current shortcomings of a fundamental theory of physics.] we present the following: First Principles of Blob Theory: Both (there are only two) theoretical elements are real and eternal. Dynamic simplicity chooses rational basis for Postulates. Continuum limitations are absolute and local. Background structure is minimal possible and continuous. Dimensionless parameters guarantee emergence of spacetime. All points in space are identical except as probabalistically modified locally; there IS an atomic, discrete quantum spacetime. Time and space emerge from two proto- discernations and are real as present moments – two intrinsic properties at each point of universe. Gravity emerges as compressive casimir effect (crushed not pulled). Exclusion zones emerge as organizing structures (lightning and gradient structures). Spin symmetry yields electrical dynamo and neutral particle properties. Orbitals organize pressure crystals and cracks of exclusion zones. Light is proposed as two separate phenomena, propagational vector pulsewaves between matter (white light), and quanta emissions from matter (rainbow effect). Expansion of spacetime is regional and driven by both probabalistic as well as dynamo forces.

Buddy, the math will look much like Pilot Wave Theory, with modifications originally explored by Erwin Madelung in 1927. Except that the new ideas about light may want more math. The big ideas here though, kinda happen before math. Math happens after the interaction of the basic elements of the theory. Blob theory is still infantile though, and I need other thinkers to look at it. I'm working on posting more.

Blob Theory is a new theory of fundamental physics which supplies the underlying framework for existing ways of thinking about the nature of the universe. The theory proposes an infinite sea of absolutely un-reactive singularities providing asymptotical locale for an existent pressurized medium. The resultant pressure gradient structures present with properties similar to Quantum Electro Dynamics theory (QED).

I'm working on a new theory of fundamental physics which predicts that fundamental particles are structured by singularities. Not black holes, but rather the center of the black hole, which have zero size and time, and which exist everywhere and provide locality. Anyone here interested in hearing about it?

Hello, let me know if I'm butting in, but I'm here with a new theory of fundamental physics that I think needs vetting. This seems like a possible place.