Mordred

Simply a different interpretation that has viability but is often misunderstood until you dig into the mathematics.. It is largely based upon the Zero point energy of the quantum harmonic oscillator.

That wiki article poorly describes the zero energy model. It is simply taking kinetic energy of the particle and subtracting the potential field energy. Both energy densities are still positive. Also that model requires pseudo tensors and only works well for Cartesian coordinates. It does not imply gravity is negative mass

At the OP, a very solid guideline in thermodynamics. Anytime you have a higher temperature, pressure or energy density you require a lower region for flow from one region to another. That flow will naturally occur. You'd be amazed at how far reaching into higher physics that dynamic occurs. (Lol when you study enough, you realize the universe in all its dynamics seeks the lowest most uniform state). Just a side light perspective consideration.

You would first have to prove negative mass is possible without violating the conservation laws of energy momentum. Good luck with that. Under GR negative mass is impossible.

We cross posted see the equations I posted above. Then seriously think about the definition of mass then equate that to what a negative mass would entail. Ie if you push a negative mass it would move in the opposite vector direction.

Still not following even under Gauss law gravity follows the inverse square law. Secondly how do you have a negative mass. Mass is resistance to inertia change. So the very formula f=ma would behave quite differently with a negative mass. Think of it this way let's assume one mass could possibly be negative while the other positive. [math]m\dot a=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/math] therefore [math] a=\frac{GM}{r^2}[/math] the mass term of the test object in essence does not matter.

Why do you have [math]\frac{2GM}{r^3}[/math] when the central potential gravitational force is well tested using [math]F=\frac{2GM}{r^2}[/math] ? As you can see latex is far more elegant. Or is the r^3 a typo ?

Thanks that is the correct process must have been overtired yesterday. Long day at work lol.

Perhaps I misread your previous post.

No you simply need some form of interaction. For example if you pass the photon beam through a polarizer lens you can split the original photon wavelength into two seperate beams. The two waveforms will be half the wavelength of the original beam.

How could I possibly help you if your range is 10 metres and I probably live over a 1000 km from you ?

Less than 10 meters then you should try the double blind tests mentioned on this thread with a third party overseer and gather datasets.

Have you stated anything related to an actual scientific examination? Absolutely NOT.

Quantitative means you can assign a unit of measure. In this case quantify into units of Newton's. An inertial reference is one of constant velocity. There is no Law of acceleration however there is treatments for acceleration using instantaneous velocity or alternatively mean average velocity between initial and final velocity.

Well to be honest the first step is to learn how emergence would arise in the particular field your modelling. Ie spacetime or other. This involves how that field is quantized. Once you quantize you have a finite group. Here is the thing in order to develop a fractal physics representation you must first learn the physics and how it is mathematically described. Then develop your fractal equivalent. QFT for example has emergent particle number density equations for every field that corresponds to that fields energy. So you will need to be clearer on what you want emergent

Well don't give up hope. Your certainly not the first to look into fractal applications via the Mandelbrot set. If you Google a bit you can certainly find literature including some textbook references to guide you. However don't restrict yourself to image representations. Look into the graph reproductions and group representations. The purpose of physics isn't to produce pictures but to describe interactions and physical processes. It's not a theorem I am too familiar with as I tend to stick to the standardized gauge groups however this may provide some direction. (Note cellular automata ) has fractal qualities. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scipost.org/SciPostPhys.6.1.007/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwimpP797_flAhUuJTQIHfklD7c4ChAWMAN6BAgIEAE&usg=AOvVaw229Pz3Qe3vKM846eMvTjgo

So where is your thermodynamic formulas ? Where is your geometry ? Where is your finite portions of the infinite quantities ? Every infinite quantity contains a finite portion. Where is your cutoff for the finite portion ? What fields are you specifically describing ? Thermodynamics is involved in every physics theory. Let's start with a standard equation of state. [math]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/math] you now have a formula that describes energy density to pressure relations. Non relativistic matter experts zero pressure. Hrrm still not singular.

What is Q phenomena or S ? You haven't defined those terms under physics laws. Do they affect mass or energy or fields or etc etc etc etc. If so how ? Let's put this bluntly you stated your 62 years old. So you obviously spent a lifetime in a career. If someone came along and told you how to do your job without knowing anything about it. You probably would ignore that person. This is what reading your hypothesis is like to me. You have none of the skills to describe your hypothesis under physics.

There is nothing to prove or disprove in anything you have described. One cannot test wild bugger guesswork and conjecture. You something to workable to test.

Then if it's the exclusive zone then Blob would not be a non reactive singularity. Now you see why you require math. You just verbally changed your description of blob from your OP.

Actually you can work down to [math]10^{-43}seconds that will correspond to Planck time and Planck length. These are part of the limits of wavelength observable action. Google Planck units. The BB model starts at Planck temperature at the first unit of Planck time. Prior to that we cannot describe as you reach infinite degrees of freedom. Or other infinite quantities.

Zero is rather meaningless by itself. Zero energy or absolute vacuum isn't a singularity condition. It is easy to describe a true vacuum in a given volume. [math]G^{\mu\nu} = 0 [/math] where [math]G^{\mu\nu} = R^{\mu\nu} - \frac 12 \mathcal Rg^{\mu\nu}[/math]

Well first off you better ask yourself what physics and math describes as a singularity. I await your answer on that one. (I already know the answer but would like to see you answer that question.) Hint there is more than one condition.

Try formal training. I do have degrees in Cosmology and particle physics not to mention a good 35 years of study.. I can post the above in Langrangian form if you like. Here is the trick. Physics can describe any particle or multiparticle interaction. In particular any observable interaction. It can do so with the Feymann path integrals as one example. Those equations describe the SO(10)MSM standard model of particle physics. You can find similar formalisms on the web. They are part of mainstream physics. Every equation above is tested by observational evidence. So let me ask you. Do you expect a word play description to match ?

Might help if you realize all particles are not little bullets. The pointlike attributes is describable under the Compton and Broglie wavelength. The is no corpuscular (matter like) interior structure. In essence all particles are localized excitations of their respective fields. You want to master the SM model under particle physics then you have years ahead. Every interaction of the SM model involves the Langrangian of action. Which invariably involves kinematic displacement. Here is what your competing against. Here is the Standard model under kinematics that also involves thermodynamics, Einstein's famous e=mc^2 (though including momentum.) These formulas are Lorentz invariant via Dirac and Klien Gordon and include QM effects. [math]\mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/math] The above correlates to [math]\mathcal{G}=SU(3)_c\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y[/math] Color, weak isospin, abelion Hypercharge groups. Couplings in sequence [math]g_s, g, \acute{g}[/math] [math]\mathcal{L}_{gauge}=-\frac{1}{2}Tr{G^{\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}}-\frac{1}{2}Tr {W^{\mu\nu}W_{\mu\nu}}-\frac{1}{4}B^{\mu\nu}B_{\mu\nu}[/math] Field strengths in sequence in last G W B tensors for SU(3),SU(2) and U(1) Leads to covariant derivative [math]D_\mu=\partial_\mu+ig_s\frac{\lambda_i}{2}G^i_\mu+ig\frac{\sigma_i}{2}W^i_\mu+igQ_YB_\mu[/math] Corresponds to [math]G_{\mu\nu}=-\frac{i}{g_s}[D_\mu,D_\nu][/math] [math]W_-\frac{I}{g}[D_{\mu}D_{\nu}][/math] [math]B_{\mu\nu}-\frac{I}{\acute{g}}[D_\mu,D_\nu][/math] The above is in covariant derivative form which has gauge invariance. It describes the covariant and contravariant terms of weak, Strong and EM fields. The Higgs in the same format is. [math]\mathcal{L}=(D_\mu H)^\dagger D^\mu H-\lambda(H^\dagger H-\frac{v^2}{2})^2[/math] v=246 GeV Quartic coupling [math]\lambda=m_h^2/2v^2=0.13[/math] [math]\langle H^\dagger H\rangle =v^2/2[/math] Fermions (matter content) (goal tie in CKMS and Pmns mixing angles (latter for leptons)) will require unity triangle... [math]\displaystyle{\not}D=\gamma D^\mu[/math] Now I ask you do you believe word play and verbal drescriptives compete to a model that can describe via mathematics it's observable actions upon itself and other particles ? Verbal descriptions is not enough. One can mathematically describe every particle or multiparticle interaction in nature. You asked where to start. Start with vector calculus.