Mordred

The reason the galaxies appear smaller is the sheer distance to those galaxies. The universe being smaller in the past doesn't change that. As you correctly noted the universe is expanding. However we are part of the universe. So we do not directly see the universe shrinking in a certain direction but can only infer the universe must be smaller in the past by reverse extrapolation of the expansion. This is because we are included in the expansion. You are correct that we see the past so see where the galaxies were once located.

There were a few theories on this. They didn't last long for whatever reason.

First off the CM cannot change direction without acceleration that is basic physics. Acceleration includes changes in direction so some force must be involved internal or external.

Yes your showing you can calculate the critical mass/energy density. You can do the same with the critical density formula which leads to the Hubble parameter. However this formula isn't strictly the cosmological constant. Critical density has three contributors. Radiation matter and Lambda.

The numbers may work in this case but consider this. The Hubble constant is only constant at a point in time. In the past it is much higher. Where as the zero point energy calculations don't vary. So although you see similarities for Hubble parameter value today you may not get the same relations at an earlier time period. I would recommend you try a few different time periods and see...

Radius

Beecee if possible can you reference the supergravity times ie the value for supergravity symmetry breaking as such estimates are theory dependent ie MSM vs MSSM etc. I would like to examine their derivatives.

Get close enough to a BH and you'll get direct detection lmao course you don't want to too close.

If particles A and B have no shared causality then the two cannot affect each other.

The only way you can apply zero time is to literally complete non existence. That is the only possible way not have change or duration of a state regardless of size. Obviously it makes no sense to describe time to something that doesn't exist.

Dark doesn't imply something unobservable. we can observe both by its indirect influence upon matter we can readily observe As both directly affects spacetime and is literally the two most prominent driving influences upon the expansion of the universe it literally makes no sense to not include them in spacetime. They are two fields that does exist in our spacetime.

Well it never makes sense to ever think of time not existing. Time is a property of rate of change but is also a property of duration. It's common to try to equate it to its own entity but that wouldn't be accurate.

Also universe from nothing models Correct

Cyclic universe or bounce universes is a possibility. We simply don't know to say for certain. It's also equally possible that our universe didn't originate from a previous universe.

Also keep in mind we can only extrapolate our Observable universe portion. The original singularity we have no way of knowing if it is finite or infinite. We only know the portion of shared causality at [math]10^{-43} [/math] seconds that leads to our observable universe was an extremely hot dense state smaller than an atom but that is only our observable portion in the past not the entirety of the universe. Which could be finite or infinite. A finite cannot become infinite nor the reverse. So if it's infinite now then it's infinite in the past. ( In volume portionality) which is different than mathematical singularities where the math no longer accurately describes it.

Both Orion and myself do, we're breaking apart the relations that went into the OP Langrene. Right now I'm trying to determine if it's canonical or conformal by looking at the EW Langrene through symmetry break via the Higgs. Which will confirm the Higgs and Yukawa couplings underbrace sections. We're both learning from this gives us a refreshing challenge. The Yukawa section is rather challenging. I've already confirmed the Higgs and Dirac covariant derivative forms.

[latex]\begin{pmatrix}\acute{d}\\\acute{s}\\\acute{b}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}V_{ud}&V_{us}&V_{ub}\\V_{cd}&V_{cs}&V_{cb}\\V_{td}&V_{ts}&V_{tb}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}d\\s\\b\end{pmatrix}[/latex] Electroweak correlations [latex]\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{gauge}+\mathcal{L}_f+\mathcal{L}_\phi+\mathcal{L}_{yuk}[/latex] Gauge sector [latex]\mathcal{L}_{gauge}=\frac{1}{4}W^i_{\mu\nu}W^{\mu\nu I}-\frac{1}{4}B_{\mu\nu}B^{\mu\nu}[/latex] Where [latex]W_{\mu\nu}[/latex] and [latex]B_{\mu\nu}[/latex] are the SU(2)and U(1) field strength tensors. [latex]W^i_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu^1-\partial W^i_\nu-\partial_\nu W^i_\mu-g\epsilon_{ijk}W_{\mu}^jW^k_\nu W^k_\nu[/latex] [latex] B^i_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu B_\nu-\partial_\nu B_\mu[/latex] [latex]\epsilon_{ijk}[/latex] group structure constants of SU(2) B of U(1) abelion group has no self interaction (gauge boson) [latex] \mathcal{f}\subset\Sigma(\bar{q}+\bar{\ell}i\displaystyle{\not}D \ell)[/latex] q is quark [latex]\ell[/latex] is leptons it sums over generations. The quage covariant derivative is [latex]D_q=(\partial_\mu+\frac{ig}{2}\vec{\tau}\cdot\vec{W}_\mu+i\acute{g}Y\cdot B_\mu)q[/latex] [latex]\displaystyle{\not}D=\gamma D^\mu[/latex] g and [latex]\acute{g}[/latex] are the gauge coupling constants of [latex]SU(2)_w[/latex] and [latex]U(1)_y[/latex] [latex]\vec{\tau}[/latex] refers to Pauli matrices. Y is hypercharge of U(1) the electric charge Q is [latex]Q=I_3+\frac{1}{2}Y[/latex] langrangian for complex scalar fields. [latex]\mathcal{L}_\phi=(D^\mu)^\dagger D_\mu\phi-V(\phi)[/latex] [latex]D_\mu \phi=(\partial_\mu+\frac{ig}{2}\vec{\tau}\cdot\vec{W}_\mu+\frac{i\acute{g}}{2}B_\mu)\phi[/latex] [latex]V(\phi)=\mu^2\phi^\dagger\phi+\lambda(\phi^\dagger\phi)^2[/latex] Lambda is the self interaction term

Added warning tensors calculus has two meanings for the word covariant you have covariant vectors=covector and covariance which is a principle similar meaning to the laws of physics is the same all reference frames Google Lorentz covariance. Then you also have the covariant derivatives and contravariant derivatives. (Just to make things confusing lmao)

NotReference one is a proof of Lorentz invariance using the inner products of the four momentum which is the expression you have above however those are the two transformation matrices of each of the two four momentum components as seen from two reference frames. S and S prime Now inner products are symmetric a lot of literature express this symmetry by this expression [math]\mu\cdot\nu=\nu\cdot\mu=\eta[/math] the author expressed the two four momentum to show this invariance instead. He then showed that one reference frame has the same equation in the other reference frame equating the axiom the laws of physics is the same in all reference frames. Arriving at the equation with the Kronecker delta relations g_{\mu\nu}\lambda^\mu_\alpha\Lambda^\nu_\beta=g_{\alpha\beta} Where Lambda is the rotation matrix. Often called a transformation matrix but a boost is a type of rotation. More on that equation can be found here https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.0156&ved=2ahUKEwiBnZq_wYHkAhVrllQKHXKeDyM4ChAWMAJ6BAgCEAE&usg=AOvVaw3RMIagygRKMga1sXHDiY3V In essence this is one proof of Lorentz invariance of the Lorentz group which is a subgroup of the Poincare group. Other papers can show the Lorentz invariance by other vector components even using different vectors with different vector components. Though for Kronecker delta the components are typically i,j,k. This is a common route via Calculus 1. These being unit vectors. They are unitary =1. They typically use these to further describe the covariant and contravariant relations. The covariant vectors are perpendicular perdendicular projections on M The contravariant vectors are tangent to the local axis. Or parallel projections on a manifold M In tensors they are reciprocal. To get a rank two tensor you need the dyad product of a vector. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web.stanford.edu/class/me331b/documents/VectorBasisIndependent.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiIz6bsooHkAhWTAHwKHTRGCUsQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3B_c2AOC-H2pmeCptog-NE A tensor of rank zero is a scalar A tensor of rank one is a vector A tensor of rank two is a dyad of a vector A tensor of rank three is a triad of a vector and so forth. For tensors rank (m,n) for GR study this guide https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://web.mit.edu/edbert/GR/gr1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjU9YyVqYHkAhXS0J8KHehACPQQFjACegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3GlcNdoopYnvY-SOkLmLU5 PS you will also want to be familiar with Levi Cevitta coefficient for GR.

One of the more common usage for the term new physics involves the TeV range good example the Higgs metastability and potential for MSSM particles (Susy) were reaching the energy scales where it's getting potentially possible.

So in 50 years you can't even get the basics of SR or GR correct ? Tell me didn't it occur to you to at least see what mainstream physics describes before stating it's wrong? You haven't made a single accurate statement about how relativity describes a BH and yet it's very mathematics predicted their existence long before we were able to finally locate one. You claimed to have some equations post them and let's see if you have any clue what your talking about because you batting 100 in the opposite direction I really don't care if you've given up on me I have degrees in physics. My primary field is Cosmology. That requires a strong understanding of relativity and particle physics.

The math of relativity doesn't stop at the EH. It is possible to model past the EH. The Penrose diagrams reflect this. No physicist truly believes the infinite density of the singularity exists. However without ever being able to directly measure such a state anything stated about it is mere conjecture. You can apply effective cutoffs to avoid the infinities however that doesn't mean it's correct. Didn't I already explain time wouldn't stop for a hypothetical observer standing on the surface of the singularity. Please learn at least the basics of a theory before stating it's wrong because every description of what you think physics states has been wrong. All your doing is showing that you don't have any understanding of the actual theories but state their wrong without knowing what they actually describe.

Is there anything above that actually applies to any science ? Lord only knows I can't see anything scientific in that last post of literal word salad. If you ever want to be taken seriously your going to have to do much better than that. Cyclic universes are viable for our universe beginning however your descriptives are so helter skelter as to not make any sense. If your trying for bounce cosmology look to LQC. Ie previous universe that forms our universe. It's not a new idea. However those models at least have supportive mathematics.

As posted.

How we measure time depends on the observer. An infalling observer into the EH and beyond will experience no time dilation. At the EH the faraway observer will see the time dilation. This will be apparent in the redshift. At the EH you will get infinite redshift. However the EH is a coordinate singularity it is not a true singularity. (Singularity meaning the mathematical definition of an infinite quantity or where the mathematics no longer give nonsensical answers. Different coordinate systems will relocate the EH such as tortoise coordinates https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington–Finkelstein_coordinates For example the photon at c has no valid frame of reference. The reason is that it makes no sense for the photon to be everywhere at once in the entire universe. So it isn't valid. It is valid to have the value c to other observers. Therefore taking time to get from a to b. You also keep using the term dimension in the science fiction meaning. In physics and mathematics dimension is any independent value quantity or mathematical object such a tensor etc that can vary without changing any other value. The dimensions of spacetime 4d is based on this definition. Three spatial dimensions of length x,y,z with time given dimensionally units of length by setting an interval ct. Any of these four quantities can change without changing the other. Dimension is not some other overlapping universe. That's science fiction not science. Here is a decent article describing the infalling observer and the outside observer. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdf Hopefully your math understands main stream mathematics...