MigL

I didn't realize we had a wine enthusiast ( snob ? ) on board 😄 No self respecting Italian drinks white wines; always reds, even with fish. The only time I'll bring out a white is for sipping with a lady friend. With dinner, I am partial to a wine/grape grown in the area where I was born ( the Irpinia region of Campania ), called Aglianico and cultivated since Roman times, which is also enjoying a resurgence. It similarly has some acidity, which cleans and refreshes the palate, enhancing the taste of foods you pair it with. Taurasi is 15 min away from my home town; their Aglianico is reasonably priced, available in Canada, and my favorite. Oddly enough, when visiting Italy, I can usually drink a couple of bottles ( and I have ) with a good dinner, but if I buy bottles imported into Canada, half a bottle is about when my head starts spinning.

Agreed. But there is a possibly huge unobservable part of the universe. If we don't assume that these vast unobservable parts are the same as our observable part, then we cannot say they follow the same Physical laws.

Not quite. Imagine there is no light, and there has never been light. You are trying to describe a light bulb to produce light. How would you describe it if you've never seen one in the darkness ??

The reason for the isotropy and homogeneity of the Cosmological Principle is quite simple. It is the only universe we can describe. If it were anisotropic and non-homogenous ( as this notion of cosmological coupling suggests ) we wouldn't have a hope in hell of describing it.

Heeeey ! I came here for the celebration, and it's almost over ? I'm always late to the party ...

The central BHs in most all galaxies were actively ingesting mass-energy billions of years ago, as evidenced by far quasars. All nearby galaxies are rather stable, with no active central BH, as they went dormant long ago. That suggests BHs are not significantly growing in mass-energy. What evidence do you have that Cosmological Coupling is increasing their mass ? And please define Cosmological coupling as I've not heard of the term.

I think Mr Dhillon is getting very confused. If Chortons are ( by his own words ) " not excitations in spacetime, but proto-excitations that generate spacetime " , then there cannot be space-time during that era ( now he's got me doing it too ). So, as you previously pointed out, how can he assign units involving time and dimensions to these Chortons that are needed to generate space-time. Talking about time, when there was no time yet, is non-sensical ( and I don't care if other well known Physicists do it ); it isnot just a language issue due to unsuitable words. Dhillon's whole idwa needs to be scrapped; it is delusional to insist he can fix it.

What ? The 'source' of gravity is energy and momentum. For systems that have trivial momentum, their energy is the main contributor to their gravity, and since energy is conserved ( even when a star collapses to a Black Hole ), their gravity does not 'travel'. If the system is re-arranged, by introducing momentum, then the 'changes in gravity' would travel outwards at the SoL, and if the 'changes in gravity' are asymmetrical, then gravitational waves would be produced. IOW, Black Holes retain the relic gravitational field of the mass-energy that collapsed to form the BH, and would have little, effect on a regional basis. I hope that wasn't supposed to be the supporting evidence, Professor ...

Does PRE not indicate a time, or sequence, prior to the concept of time and sequence being established ? Your argument isn't just grammatically incorrect; it is non-sensical, as there was no PRE-anything. You cannot speak of time before there was time.

OH, you are so immature ...

I don't even know WHAT we are discussing. The link has been removed, as per our rules. Doesn't anyone read the rules before posting on the forum ? I bet these guys don't get invited over very often; they seem to think they can do whatever they want in other people's homes.

I read this as ... 10o North of the North pole, Chortons activate: there is no geometry, no metric, no spacetime. As you go further North of the North pole, limits are reached or cross the Planck threshold: Chortons emerge as quantized curvature nodes on a pre-spacetime quantum graph. As you keep going North, more Chortons form and align: they collectively give rise to a coherent geometric lattice. This lattice defines the emergent latitude and longitude. There is NO space-time. All these things could have happened all at once, in reverse order, or still waiting to happen after trillions of years. Because the concept of time, duration, and sequence, is non-sensical without geometry. What you may have shown is that sufficient local energy density produces a localized curvature of the geometry, but that is well established. You then used AI, in all its 'wisdom', to extend this globally, using stationary but massless 'particles' ( not imaginary in the standard mathematical sense, but rather figment of the imagination ), all while keeping the universe from being still-born from collapsing in on itself at Planck energies and scales. Has anyone else noticed the amount of new advanced theoretical Physics proposals being posted lately ? I guess AI makes every layman think they are a theoretical Physicist these days.

??? Sexual orientation is not a personality trait. What used to be called 'gay behavior' is ( limp wrist, lisp, flamboyance, etc. - sorry about the obvious stereotypes ), but it is not an accurate indication of sexual orientation

You will probably take this the wrong way ( again ), but you have these questions because you don't understand the foundations, and so, ascribe 'deeper meaning' to simple ratios. You know, using AI, I could probably construct an argument that the '=' sign in a relation is a 'property of the variables and constants in that relation, that would sound perfectly acceptable to a non-mathematician. Do you, knowing some math , see a point to that ?

Better to stay 'free thinking' and wrong than constrained by facts/observational evidence and right ??? Yor idea falls apart at the seams; that's where the 'nit-picking' is done. That is commendable, and I applaud your enthusiasm to learn, but why not ask questions instead of asserting 'theories' with questionable assistance from AI ? You don't know how to swim and yet, are jumping into the deep end of the pool. It is easier to 'nit-pick' all the little reasons why your idea is flawed on a forum, than to give you several years of university education so you can see why your idea is flawed ( although Studiot, to his credit, often tries ). Unfortunately, on a forum, we can guide you towards understanding the basics, but you need to do the hard work yourself to understand and put them together.

Just to add my two cents ... Mike should realize that we use mathematical models to describe the workings of physical reality. These models have to be mathematically self consistent, otherwise they are useless. Pi, along with other mathematical constants, and the whole of mathematic theory, are the building blocks and tools used to build the models. The tools and building blocks are not a result of the physical reality. Oh great ... Add more AI content to get further down the rabbit hole.

These are the wrong metrics to use when this type of decision is necessary. If the harm they can do to themselves or society is greater than the 'damage' done to them, then the 'treatment' may be necessary. This is controversial because mental conditions are what make us who/what we are, and some people would extend this to other 'mental conditions' outside the 'normal' ( if psychopathy, why not sexual preference ? ), so I generally don't agree with such 'treatment'. But I can see the need for such in cases, for example, where a person may be cutting, or otherwise damaging, themselves, due to mental instability, or taking street people into shelters against their will in -30o winter conditions. However, this idea is more easily understood if we were to use a physical condition, other than mental, such as infectious diseases like COVID, I, and most other members of this forum, would agree that vaccination be mandatory, to prevent harm to self and society. Even if it has the potential to cause a very small percentage of adverse effects.

If these 'Chortons' ( from which space-time emerges ) don't propagate, how do they manage to establish causal connectivity throughout the universe and the resulting homogeneity and isotropy ?

Before ??? There was no before, as there was no space-time. One could assume that there was also enough energy density to spontaneously create green leprechauns driving pink cadillacs ... Where is the evidence, or the need, for this 'flight of fancy' ?

I noticed you gave some excellent critique and advice to another poster presenting an outlandish idea in another thread. And I thought "great, He's starting to think critically about presented ideas based on whether they correlate with accepted science". But it seems, other than platitudes about advice, you keep forging ahead ( down a dead end road ) and conveniently moving goal posts from a graviton theory ( about which little is known by anyone ) to a possible new particle ( about which nothing is known by anyone ). For what it's worth ... Good luck.

Seems to have happened again with all these questions and contact info posts. its probably a lot to ask of moderators, but maybe new members should not be allowed to post until they reply to a PM from Moderation after submitting an inquiry to join. It would crack down on these 'drive-by' spam posts.

+1 ... compensated for. Reasonableness and a willingness to learn and share knowledge are greatly appreciated.

I don't know if they 'explode', but they do 'pop' a bit when you focus sunlight on them with a magnifying glass. ( yes, I was a cruel child )

It's amazing... That an AI, capable of accessing a wealth of information and misinformation, can come up with support for any ill conceived idea. I suspect we'll get more and more of this; crank ideas, supported by an AI, and taken as factual by the person proposing them.

Not a Physicist Studiot, although I did get an undergraduate degree on Physics over 40 years ago, and have kept an interest. I have been working in the Chemical field for about 40 years; not very interesting, but it pays the bills. And I'm not retired yet; that will happen next April 30th. But thank you for the 'respected' comment 🙂.