MJ kihara

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.

To decode what he is doing ... We have to look at his own language...to him it appears everything to do with/that is energy boils down to transformations further definitions are artefacts,he is working with minimals. LLM inner/deep layers the way information is processed is sometimes not well understood,there is a possibility it forms structures/models that are very simple after sieving a lot of information, the residues form formulations like the one used by the author....am sensing the danger in a future date when everything will be connected to AI the pressure of these LLMs to give correct answers will lead to corruption of data received through spectroscopy and other other methods connected to computers...anyway, just a worry. What's your physics background? You haven't indicated it in your profile...the way you are handling some terminologies, you seem to have a professional background in physics...if not so, you have had an intensive learning of physics....which one is which? Not to be personal such information can help us understand better your perspective.

Observer A has frame of reference with axis S^1 and S^2 while B has his own frame of reference with axis S^1 and S^2...your relational frame seems to be a universal frame of reference with axis beta and kappa The above two statements to me is not clear...

Energy is the ability to do work...by doing work, transformations are observed... therefore,your defination of energy is the same version as ability to do work. What is the relational framework?... observer A has a co-ordinate system the axis not being X,Y but S^1 and S^2 Every observer has his own reference frame with axis S^1 and S^2. Where do this parameter fit? Is it between the observers or is it within the observer's circle? Subscript X and Y stand for what? S^1- kinematic relations and S^2-gravitational relations....Hamiltonian equals kinetic energy plus potential energy...what you are doing is splitting the Hamiltonian and distributing it's component into axis. Q is equivalent to spacetime interval which is, if am not wrong, the same to all observers therefore invariant. That's partially why I was asking about prior knowledge.

I will try to answer the question when I get to know somehow what you are doing, philosophically they are things I agree with you, however,am wondering how you are getting the answers,why is it possible you are getting the answers and why is it working like that...because if it's true it's working, then the implications are profound... I would like you to answer the question above because it would clarify to us your thinking. There are four fundamental quantities in your formulation/method; 1-Energy...2-Time...3-mass...4-length. Can you briefly explain to us your understanding of those quantities and your intuition about them? From the perspective of your formulation.

The reason I ask that question is that...so far it seems to me your method require prior knowledge that's why maybe you require to cross check your results from people who are aquainted with GR and SR...also how many people so far can use your arguments to get results the way you are doing.. You use signal delay to determine distance..how do you determine where the signal is coming from and how do you determine the delay?

Assuming your methodology was developed prior to SR and GR being realized by Einstein...and assuming SR and GR developed much later..could your methodology lead to practical technological innovations e.g assuming it was like that for like 50 years prior to 1945 could atomic bomb been developed within that time frame?

💤😇 ...You are going overdrive...if you mix consciousness discussion which already is a messy issue, that we are trying to keep in order,with..'no reality'..the head will go pop 🤯. What's your take on phase space and it's connection to physical world?

Your statement is contradictory:...'wave function NOT real'.....'observation/interaction is made to collapse the wave function'.. How does something that is not real collapse? Non locality infact enhances argument of consciousness,it isn't a local thing it's global or rather universal. The person making the measurements does not dictate the outcome even if the results are spread within a certain limit....they are random to the extend you are doing the measurement to know the result.... otherwise, what's the need of measure? Scientific principles were derived after making observations... scientific principles don't do experiments...they might as well be principles of consciousness that we label scientific principle...long before humans wrote down scientific principles,quantum processes and other classical processes e.g planets orbiting stars were taking place.

The same thing will also applies to scalar fields once used to model wavefunction collapse.As long as the scalar field is not a static field but a dynamic one that changes in a probabilistic way. Just an example-if you measure an electron spin to be up spin...wait for twenty minutes do a second measurement a you sure 100% getting spin up state? What is the minimum threshold required for a quantum state to have interaction so that it can change it's state?

Which one is which one? According to you it doesn't evolve but there are always interactions that make it evolve.. Does it have to wait for interactions or does it naturally evolve until you make measurements to know its new state? Am not introducing mystism into probability....I tend to think quantum wave function is distinct from throwing coins and dices...coins and dices don't evolve on themselves and of course they are classical objects. If you put a coin head up in a box you close it and store it in a place that is stable i.e without issues like shaking and rusting..wait for 4 min,40 hours,million years open the box you expect to find head up...for a quantum particle the issue is different,therefore, we can't have the same kind of intuition from the probability calculations from the two situations.