MJ kihara

Depend on the extend to which they interact with Higgs field. My opinion is that if space and time is equivalent their magnitude should be zero when subtracted from each other,therefore,the need for opposite signs... therefore,they are unified by their equivalency. The question should be why so? ... It just shows there is fundamental relationship/interconnection between Mass,Gravity,time(clocks) and light that we are not aware of...clocks might be telling us about mass while light might be telling us something a bout gravity...I think the current definition of mass and gravity don't tell us fundamentally what they are.(Just a suggestion based on my perspectives) @Anton Rize and @Mordred 😂 you people are hilarious,You remind me of construction of Tower of babel.

What do you mean with topological limit of matter? Am not getting it " not a necessary primitive " meaning mass is emergent or what?

I tend to think opposites sign unify them... ensuring □=0 Just a question,if you make light keep orbiting the sun using whichever means for one year...what will be the length of helical trajectory?

Just done it no problem...only that av been confused what's going on, I thought it's a form of punishment in the forum or lack of functionality in my device..I tried it several times It neva worked then as I was typing in another thread the down list just appeared magically I select the name l,trying the same to another name it just refused...I thought maybe it's the space between @ and the name or just I was typing quickly..I don't. My experience with upvotes and down votes in this forum it's just difficult...look at my reputation marks,you will understand why....to me "being thankful" is more worth.

In what sense? Is it not from the fact that space and time form spacetime... Space equivalency to time. Sometimes I feel explanations afterwards provided for GR is complicated than how the thought process of Einstein was as he was deriving it.

Thanks @Mordred . Thanks,having been trying that for a while.

While using a mobile device,how does someone quote another @ name in the discussion?

Am very surprised by this let me hope there is substance in what @ Anton Rize is doing...am pegging my hope also on @KJW ability to cross check the authors math. @ Anton Rize,What specifically do you mean by saying that "where internal phase βY reaches zero."?

Don't know if am wrong but the opposite signs in spacetime metric... signature -1,+1,+1,+1 or +1,-1,-1,-1 makes sure the spacetime is unified as it's also stated by □=0. ( To whoever get concerned...Sorry I couldn't not comment in another thread...when experts discuss, sometimes it's reasonable to keep quite). The three sides of de'Alembert operator magnitude(space axis x,y,z) being equivalent to magnitude of one side of the de'Alembert operator ( square,four sided, x,y,z,t) opposite sign ensure the total magnitude is equal to Zero...each degree of freedom is equivalent...t equivalent to -x,t equivalent to -y,t equivalent to -z and t equivalent to -(x,y,z). Sorry corrections, each degree of freedom is equivalent...t = x,t = y,t = z and t = (x,y,z). □=0. It seems there is no need of correction,it depends on which signature you are using signature -1,+1,+1,+1 or +1,-1,-1,-1.

Point of correction,it's spacetime being equivalent to Energy.... That equivalency for I, I totally 100% support it,up to to that point.

Why should they be not familiar? Or in what sense....I think spacetime is a unified thing,what happens in either dimensions should affect the other...If it's not like that then there might be some aspect of either dimension that we don't fully understand...and according to me specifically what time is(nature of time).

Once a gain,a few several days ago have been repeatedly been talking of your model requiring " prior knowledge"...mmmm... The question of why and how,concerning your fundamental tone,has lead to above discussions...leading you to conclude in your methodology there is no massless particle...mmmm....I don't know what to say..sometimes I wonder what predictive power means; is it when the math agree with something or is it talking of something expected at a future date ?...anyway..🤔. If its true then you conclusion"""There are no "massless particles" in RG.""" Is very significant....mmmm....I don't want to start discussion that will divert this thread. This thread discussion is enriching to my perspectives...

Corrections;not the author methodology,the author refutes existence of dark matter/energy.

Doesn't mass of dark matter taken into consideration when calculating critical density? The author methodology refutes existence of dark matter and dark energy.

Not soo quick....for me I extend that further....mmmm.... In my case everything is energy,therefore, no void...there is no "carrying" What your intuition tells you? When you say energy is change...change in relation to what?....You have to av a point of reference to know there is change. Am not accusing you of anything...what am saying is that by stating existence of ''a baseline,a fundamental tone or a floor" it's given if you work out math in that direction the curve will fit to the expected value...if you don't say what that fundamental tone is and it's working mechanism(coupling) that is tantamount to calling it dark matter.

Thanks for your explanations,it's clear....first I should state that SPACETIME≡ENERGY ....to me it's not a new idea ..I have been advocating the same since i entered this forum, tho for me I don't throw away spacetime,it's just an emergent phenomenon that is appropriately modelled by a coordinate system. How does your stated fundamental tone change as the universe expand? In your formulation is there any force carriers? ...how will the star get coupled to the fundamental tone. Meaning without change this is no energy? Is this not a form of curve fitting?

When I was developing a theory from the very most basic assumption and incorporating very few mainstream ideas, such as a Feynman diagram...I was surprised to see how things started fitting together ... Terminology like a Lagrangian, Hamiltonian were exotic and alien to me ... however after learning about them i realized i was doing the same thing....however I also realized I was doing a lot of new things in physics...things that have fundamental consequences like the way people view electromagnetic spectrum to me it's no longer the same,to cut the story short...a new arguments should generate mainstream science and if it deviate it should be clear how and why. My problem is that something that is not intuitive my brain just block it,therefore,I struggle a lot to learn and internalize ideas,to me unless a formula is intuitive my brain has a problem grasping it ..a good example is the photon propagator in another thread I had to take a whole almost two weeks to see how it makes intuition to me.

Am having a sense that even himself is not aware of what is going on, on his most basic arguments.

Both hard questions and in order to unswear them properly you will need to read: https://willrg.com/documents/WILL_RG_I.pdf https://willrg.com/documents/WILL_RG_II.pdf and at least the firs half of https://willrg.com/documents/WILL_RG_III.pdf In total its about 150+ pages and I can imagine what a gatekeeper it might be. So I made you a nice and easy interactive chart: https://willrg.com/LOGOS2 the logical and philosophical core is on the chart it self, and if one wants to see the math - every logical step is clickable and will direct you to the precise section. A more detailed version of the LOGOS chart you can find here https://willrg.com/LOGOS_MAP/ but this one is still in development. For now it covering only https://willrg.com/documents/WILL_RG_I.pdf Please let me know how the LOGOS2 chart communicates the idea. You are complicating things...the question is how ? and why ?...why can't you briefly explain...you are even going against your own thread "simplifying SR and GR"...going with your own philosophy of using minimals it should not be hard for you to answer that question.

I wish he could arrange what he saying in that manner...AI is just challenging our ways in a substantial way....I could just perceive prior knowledge from his explanations.

How? and why?

What is,if your are not paraphrasing Hamiltonian. There is a place in the thread you used the term 'crystallization'..... rigidity after those ideas crystallize..am sorry for this shallow explanation....remember in physics they are two major fields classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. The one you deem necessary were derived from somewhere. ''Any future observation" that is the main reason why I said your model seems to give answers to already established facts...it can't predict what is made up of dark matter but it will end up giving answers as if dark matter doesn't exist.... Haaaaa I like this explanation🙏....the reason I say answers without because of, where from? Again how do things acquire mass? Important note :we have been trying to follow your language...please try to answer mainstream questions as presented by @ Mordred in a precise way so that we can follow your understanding,I salute him for being the residential expert being patient with all this. Take your time to answer in a format close to mainstream way... don't panic.

That's is the definition of dark matter according to you,therefore, it ceases being dark...by explaining it's nature, confirming it's existence, it no longer become dark...I think the issue not by it being called dark...it's just an indication of physics at that particular era not being able to explain the source of ' missing mass' The fact that 'dark matter and dark energy ' makes up almost 95% of the universe is not a small issue. According to your formulation how does matter or rather how does things acquire mass? Also from your definition above,how do you explain the discrepancy between rotation velocity in the outer of the Galaxy and the inner region? Does gravitational wave/force move at/transmitted at speed of light.?

And some of the added parameters lead to discovery of new particles...when a model give you answers almost immediately(it's more knowledgeable) it regards the intermediate steps are clear(it assume you know...) a good example your model incorporates Hamiltonian,Klein Gordon equations, cosine/sine laws and manipulation of physics units/SI units in a smart way(of geniuses are smart people....i don't know...) to give answers in the shortest way possible, it becomes difficult to predict existence of something unknown. Added parameters leads to experimentation so that they can be confirmed or disregarded...therefore, the said flexibility is an important part of scientific discoveries. The definition of Energy I have is too much controversial,however, I tend to think eventually it generates the mainstream definition, therefore, by default am not against mainstream definitions,however, I don't regard them as fundamental...unlike the author I have been slow to develop the math...the author seems to be on steroids turbocharged by AI.

Meaning dark matter doesn't exist? Are you happy with this definition? Personally I don't regard that as the fundamental definition of energy...since I entered this forum have been using it as the mainstream definition....otherwise,you are the first person to encounter in this forum whose arguments come near what I regard as the fundamental definition of energy.