MJ kihara

Lead causes neurology disorder and of course mental issues....it could only have increased insanity.

It brought sanity to Roman empire. Even if you don't participate in the game it will affect you in one way or the other. Competition, it has been a good one since it involves acquisition of knowledge, knowledge its self,might be the solution. Religion fanatics are realizing that,how safe can they be,were it possible for them to posses tonnes of nuclear weapons to threaten everyone and make them submit to their idealogies. We are at the edge of change,people used to worship moon and stars..once they realize it's a piece of rock rotating around the earth and they they can visit it and stay there for days,while stars are burning gases... perception will greatly change. AI and intelligent robots will bring Us together,it will scare us and give us something common to be envy and jealous of..this way tension among us will reduce.

The rush to own victory from others...made the opportunities to be upside down...naval blockade could have happened before closure...being outwitted,,,blockade after closure...a catch up game... Just for a mere birthday gift...this is too much...birthdays don't solve millennium issues.... messianic syndrome.... birthday fever will be over soon maybe sober mind will make a come back...

I was among very few or if not the only one who voted for .... In a brief poll in this forum...what has happened in the last few hours ago ...I doubt my judgement..what used to be the meaning of appeasement...maybe after two months... stupidity will not prevail...the meaning of superpower/s is crumbling by each passing day.

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?