MJ kihara

Philosophers and physicist in our civilization..human civilization, who came first? I think we can use our own development to give us a clue. We can't put some aspects of reality out of the universe...issues like Evolution where evidence and it's arguments are as clear as daylight...and just associate them with accidents, in any case if anything happen by chance, it's within the universe. Philosophers and physicist in our civilization..human civilization, who came first? I think we can use our own development to give us a clue. We can't put some aspects of reality out of the universe...issues like Evolution where evidence and it's arguments are as clear as daylight...and just associate them with accidents, in any case if anything happen by chance, it's within the universe.

My opinion is that,The title Theory of everything..it's clear as it is written without further complications,among the three branches of science I think physics is more fundamental,maybe the reason why physicist would want to own the title... however,since the title is more general in it's statement then it's not wrong to look from more fundamental thing than physic,going by your post, mathematics and philosophy seem a good area to look for such a theory which should then be verified by physic since it has to be able to explain and predict physical phenomena.

Physic and math seem intertwined to the best of my knowledge so far,it's critical source of information to other branches of science(chemistry & biology). My question is what is fundamental between philosophy and physics? Since we are in speculation section,let use assume this scenario,you are in a planet with the knowledge you have, this planet has homosapiens who have just become aware of themselves i.e they now seem to start drawing things like their fingers and what seem to be circles and triangles..you have a few minutes probably ten minutes to take off and leave them without coming back...is that long equation enough to leave it in a rock tablet to make them shorten drastically the time they develop scientifically to our level or is there anything else more fundamental that they can be told and given on a rock tablet that can exponentially increase there awareness and make them reach our level within a shorter period?

Should it be just for fundamental understanding/just the foundation for knowledge? whereby,by knowing it, it would be enough to be able to know/derive why a rock fractured and the science behind psychology...I mean fundamental source of knowledge to explain/give reasons/predict almost everything if not everything.

I think this post is a hijack of thread since you are talking of the 'list maker' you own thought is critical, from the scientific knowledge you have acquired over time. The use of 'Must be' seem to restrict something that should attempt to explain/offer explanation for everything.

The explanation is so excellent...esp the combination not just matter-anti matter asymmetry but also why did extinction take place and other explanations. I also think it could also be highly speculative since establishing it's limit would be extremely difficult,the crown 👑 for such a theory would remain as long as is able to offer more predictions and explain observations more than any other theory of the day.

For a theory to qualify as a theory of everything what are the expectations for such a theory to qualify for such a heavy title? Or even to come near to that title?

At R=0 is a point,a solution when gravity renormalised to that point, hope am not wrong about that. Since Einstein modeled gravity using geometry(Einstein manifold equating to available energy content ),we seem to have been stuck on our further understanding of gravity. Is there a limit to the extent to which you can use geometry to explain something like a point? What are parameters used to determine a point?

Has nature not given us structures e.g atoms,moon , planets e.t.c as a solution to that issue? It seem to be a mathematical problem more than an already resolved problem... formation of stable structures (existing things) can it be concluded to be gravity renormalised?

What are expectations for a conclusion to be made that gravity has been renormalised?

Atleast those post have consistency in reasoning,whenever I post I do it cautiously knowing that....for instance,there was a post I engaged in discussion with Modred about gravitational waves the initial point after Big bag and I talked about π...and already in my mathematics it's clear I have derived fundamental equation of metric tensor with π as part of the solution. Is there anything like a purely symmetric sphere in the universe? given π=3.14.....to infinitiy...and given that it's used in derivation of 10^-43, at such a point, we can say that gravitational waves were present.... maybe they were infinitely strong such that their wave length were infinitely small..that is, what led to expansion rate varying in other local place during inflation...we can say that anisotropy in this case begins with π not terminating ordred Posted June 27, 2023 Not really considering the temperature at the same time is roughly 10^19 GeV which when you convert to Kelvin isn't far off Planck temperature. Using the Bose Einstein statistics that equates to roughly the equivalent to 10^90 photons squeezed into a single Planckian volume. Good luck finding anistropy distribution under those conditions. (Also a symmetric state as all particles are in thermal equilibrium). Thats what am trying to do,I had to go and look at GR mathematics and it's ideas and see how they fit with my reasoning...remember I talked at that time about my physics mathematics background...the issue of,'i never did it',where l am internate accessibility is an issue, that's why I talked about you to be patient with me...the reason I stick on forum is that by having conversation with residential expert helps me master physics and it's mathematics part of my arguments/thinking.

You are missing the point I used those equation so that I can introduce metric tensor frequency(as far as am concerned,unless told otherwise it's a new concept) that I used in already known energy-frequency relation so that I can bring the idea of quantization,after that I solved Schrodinger equation to get the actual spacetime metric tensor,that is clear on that photo...my point was establishing equivalence in energy frequency relationship and metric tensor frequency....whose solution i had to give it further interpratation.. (how I get to scalar field) I was not given that chance.Is there something wrong with beginning from known to unknown? It's difficult to get it if am not given that chance to offer explanations....thats why I talked about prior notions.

- A model is often an equation or set of equations, so that one can predict some measurable outcome under a set of measurable conditions.. I outlined the equations which were initial set of equations before other equations and explanations that could have led to measurable conditions and predictions...I was not given time to do so. If it links quantum mechanics and general relativity,it explains geodesics paths in a simple way,it explains issues concerning time dilation,it explains wave function colapse,it explains expansion of the universe..... The issue according to my thinking is deciphering it,not overestimation...just do this,look fo a diagram all over the internate and books that is simple and can compete with that diagram/those diagrams in explaining the outlined issues,we see it,and then I will be done trying to explain or deciphering those diagrams.

🦬 I should then become a bull boy instead of a cowboy...just look at the math I posted in a sketchy photo,then ask me a question,that is more helpful than over sleeping.

Are we not in the initial phase of transition to zombification?(someone has talked about being mindless,that an appropriate explanation)whereby the usefulness of humans is declining while we are embedding our collective intelligence to a superhuman referred to AI...the different versions(of AI) of course will merge at one point in time. When the transition is over what will remain of us...of course the biological entity?....mmmm...food chain, of course not,computers don't require blood to run. Are we not taking part on something bigger unaware(becoming zombies) like for instance when we ask AI to interpret this post?

The comments are helpful,the latex and machete,I will try where I can or mayb try to reverse engineer my own ideas and theories,to be on the same table rather than light-years away to avoid a hangman noose. All the same I thought I hand tried to step away from diagrams for simple brains to mathematics...and mayb the input of likes of Mordred, sincerely talking not trivializing others,in my other thread, simplified quantum gravity, he had a lot of input and i had been waiting for him to come back on the forum to just get his take, brilliant brains seems to vanish away with age i.e you can't ask today Higgs a question regarding Higgs boson. and after reviewing my former thread i saw a need for mathematics to bring clarification to my thinking and to tackle Genady on issue concerning geodesic paths and finally settled the issue on faster than the speed of light that unsettled exchemist and others.sometimes whining help but in this form 😂😂😂 or rather 😭 to clean the eyes.

I just wanted to start a conversation concerning the main topic/headline rather than my take/comments concerning the same.

Discrimination goes with comparison...anyway which rules did I break,you never talked about the math...is it the rules or is it the ideas that re not palatable? The simple math I posted,Since I understand this forum to be a learning opportunity,I was patiently waiting for persons like Modred to comment about the math so that I can make improvements where necessary or provide clarification if required to,I feel locked 🔒 for seeking knowledge or because of free reasoning.

I was wondering when knowledge and information becomes inaccessible and overdependence on digital media whose memory can just be erased or be manipulated,while faith and believes becomes trivialized because the machines are becoming more intelligent than majority of humans together with increased abuse of drugs ( the likes of bhang and cocaine) leads to zombification of human,is that foreseeable, what's your take?

I opened a thread on spacetime and presented what seem to be a simple straight forward mathematics to illustrate fundamentals of spacetime.math that would have shown how Christoffel symbols used in general relativity are affected...it was just a tip of the iceberg...and just like that Swanson disregarded my simple math without further questions and blocked the thread. What make fear to develop when issues concerning nature of the universe are to be revealed,when it's time has come.you can't tell a single person to give a model of the universe at once or at ago,it has to be developed bit by bit and with possible help and input of other people, Swanson should review the math I have posted with no prior notions.

The equivalence of frequency let's term it Mj or Kihara equivalence....mmm... selfish... 😋. Pliz give the reason for a red tick,think about it is complicated without reasoning.

This is a continuation of ideas that I have posted in this forum a while back with some mathematics and new outlook added to strengthen my arguments.for those not familiar with those ideas it's appropriate they revisit my previous posts in the forum since I will be using some information/diagrams from them,you will have to be patient with this thread. I will use the diagram above as a foundation of my arguments,since am not good at latex, mathematics to Back up the ideas, will be handwritten photos, after all math is math.

".....just as photon/vitual photon pop out of magnetic fields virtual graviton pops out of gravitational fields....." let me take my pill in the speculation side...red pill is certainly bitter . Observation reign supreme, but in this case it's virtual ...due to uncertainty principle,no further questions. It's also good to emphasis that as 'currently/conventionally' known nothing escape from a blackhole to avoid finality and leave room for further research.

Would you like the mystery to be broken down into parts that can be solved or trying to solve the mystery it's a mystery on itself? The wonderfulness of the brain is a mystery that should not be looked at,is what you are implying?

Why can't the impasse be solved by a having a chimeric particle that transition either way...hhhh kinda of gatekeeper....anyway I know it sounds unconventional and belongs to speculation section,apologies for that.