Mordred

It's a pleasure to help someone model build correctly when they are willing to learn and don't automatically ignore mainstream physics so you deserve credit for that as well

Quantum entanglement doesn't allow FTL communication. In point of detail quantum communication involves encryption not because the message bypasses space time but because of the correlation functions of the prepared message which the receiver would require via normal communication means to decrypt. If I have an apple and an orange placed one in each bag then give you a bag without knowing which bag contains the apple or orange. Once you open your bag I would know what is in my bag without opening it. Entanglement is much the same you prepare the entangled states by the process that causes the entanglement. That is the prepared states, you don't know which states are which until you measure it but your probability choices of possible states are determined by the particles possible states and the method of preparedness. This probability with the detection apparatus forms the correlation function of the entangled particles. So like the bag of oranges and apples once you measure one particle you know the other particles state. No communication is required for that. Nor is there any hidden variables nor action needed. {action has specific meaning in physics}

First off the standard model of particle physics is an 18 parameter model that is so successful it has predicted the bulk of the SM particles long before detection of those particles. Quantum entanglement is poorly understood by Laymen but that isn't as true among Physicists that recognize the Probabilistic nature of a correlation function and the preparedness of the experiment. The cosmological Principle applies to the mean average mass density this is taken at a scale of 120 Mpc. Obviously LSS exist but it is the mean average mass density over a large volume that is important. Yes dark matter and DE still have to be solved as to their cause however there is strong evidence that both exist. It never ceases to amaze me how many people use the factors you mentioned as an excuse to never learn any of the mainstream physics theories and figure they can rewrite physics and describe a ToE in a few pages when they don't even know what a ToE entails. Believe me its frustrating for me when I have two degrees in physics. My primary degree is in Cosmology my secondary is particle physics. So trust me your no where close to a model that has any practicality.

No it wasn't, you know there is really very little in your paper that is accurate. LCDM has been tested to a high degree of accuracy that the cosmological Principle of a homogeneous and isotropic universe is accurate. We can also test for the relative densities of faraway galaxies using the Luminosity to mass relation. They don't have higher densities the farther away they are. Secondly trapped light in particles is absolutely nonsense. All particles are field excitations, Bosons such as the photon has different symmetry relations than do fermions. This is described by the Pauli exclusion principle. The great attractor is part of our local group it isn't nearly as far away as the CMB. If were in a black hole then our universe cannot be homogeneous and isotropic. Greater physicists than I have tried to model out universe in a BH it takes a great deal of extra terms such as torsion and time dilation just to counter the effects. Really the paper you have has so many holes in it that it would take several pages to go through them all

Your still not making sense, your mixing terms. In mathematics, a Killing vector field (often just Killing field), named after Wilhelm Killing, is a vector field on a Riemannian manifold (or pseudo-Riemannian manifold) that preserves the metric. Killing fields are the infinitesimal generators of isometries; that is, flows generated by Killing fields are continuous isometries of the manifold. More simply, the flow generates a symmetry, in the sense that moving each point on an object the same distance in the direction of the Killing vector will not distort distances on the object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_vector_field

No maxima and minima of a function is different http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/mc-ty-maxmin-2009-1.pdf Killing vectors involve the inner product of two vectors

Considering I had personally met him at a lecture definitely by the way the post above with your drawings is rather basic stuff. You might want to study how to apply the above to symmetry groups.

Like I stated you hadn't shown a single killing vector in your document. The killing equation is in that paper.

I think you got killing vectors wrong see this reference and tell me what you think http://www.physics.usu.edu/Wheeler/GenRel2013/Notes/GRKilling.pdf

So you admit that the link you posted on Lee Smolins work has nothing to do with your model yes or no.

Do you know how to model a killing vector?

None of your mathematics shows a killing vector. I quoted your post stating that article was a recognition for your work. Those were your words I quoted. To quote.. Followed immediately by an media article describing Smolins work not your own.

That's not what minima means.. Every graph has a maxima and a minima. They are the extremum of a graph.

Work out their De Broglie wavelengths.

No the Higgs boson does not represent a minimal frequency in particle physics. How can it with its mass value ? Wave particle duality should answer the other question

Let's see your track record when you first claimed the above for Ker Smolin's work and not your own. You then claimed tachyonic action in your model. Then claimed that string theory involves LQC quantum foam. I can post numerous claims you haven't shown in your document Shall I go on ?

Uh huh so answer this question which boundary conditions apply in a closed string. A) Neuman B) Dirichlet C) both Your reply after I first mentioned maxima and minima went onto the topic of bosons. So give me your BS. Seeing as how your model by your own admission involves string theory what is the fundamental string representing ? What is a brane ?

Really you didn't even recognize the terms involved in defining the limits in terms of the extremum of a function and you expect me to believe your last post ?

The only difference between antiparticle and particles is that they are opposite in charge. If you had equal quantities of each they would indeed annihilate one another. Why do you think I mentioned baryogenesis in my first reply ? There must be some assymetry between the two in order to get a higher percentage of positive matter. Charge is symmetric under rotation translation so charge itself cannot account for it.

Really how do you set the range of applicability for your functions without the maxima and minima? There are entire textbooks in Calculus that involve this process without once referring to a metric. For example Calculus and analytical Geometry 4th edition by Douglas D Riddle.

Definitely not. It is an essential step to model sinusoidal waves or other waveforms under graph. It is definitely not the last step but one of the preliminary steps. Needless to say Smolin knows this better than I do so we can forget your false claims in your OP.

None of your equations describe the maxima and minima of a graph.

Ok first off fields don't necessarily involve probability. For example one can model our macroscopic atmosphere as a scalar field. Secondly if you wish a deterministic theory I am fine with that but you have to be careful not to include theories that involve a probability nature quantum Darwism does just that. You can get away with Unruh effect in classical terms but decoherence invariably does involve probability.

If you understood the meaning behind maxima or minima you would understand my reference to calculus. Those terms have nothing to do directly with any physics theory except physics employs those terms under calculus rules.

Oh wow hold the presses physics without a single applicable equation. You need to be able To plot those graphs via an equation. Obviously you never studied calculus.