Mordred

I can agree with this statement, your skills and knowledge is greatly improved well done

I forgot to add another related study is Kaluza Klien gravity which couples gravity to electromagnetism using a mathematical 5th dimension. (dimension means any independant variable that can change without affecting any other variable) Here is an arxiv for that. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805018&ved=2ahUKEwihqezcqMXaAhVJsVQKHRqMDnIQFjAHegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw070frg753xw0_wjdOr61HV This theory has historical importance as it is one of the earlier theories towards unification. The techniques towards unification today arise from this theory. (in the lessons learned) It is part of the post graduate curriculum in cosmology to unification development. An interesting tidbit Klein imposed a condition in that the 5th dimension at each coordinate is a circle represented today by the U(1) Lie symmetry group. This circle being too small to be measurable. This is in some literature referred to as cylindricity This 5tth dimension key feature is that it is unobservable. U(1) is oft referred to as the circle group for this reason. This will provide hints on the mathematics (antisymmetric) for the electromagnetic field.

The thermodynamic term your looking for is adiabatic. In our Universe regardless if closed or open there is no net inflow or outflow of heat or energy. Energy is the ability to perform work, it is a result of system conditions. There is no need to create energy as per se, as it is a property of a system not a thing unto itself. There is two primary types of energy in terms of cosmology applications. Pay close attention to the following definitions and memorize them. They are of primary importance. Kinetic energy: energy due to an object or particles motion. Potential energy: Energy due to to position relative to otber positions/coordinates. In the latter it is the anistropic variations of a field within itself that gives rise to the potential differences from one locale to another. (just like potential differences is electromagnetic fields.) The greater the differences from one locale to another in field strength etc the greater the potential energy between those two coordinates

Accurate analogy.

Fairly accurate, it waa thought to be a type of matter field as opposed to a force field ie electromagnetic. The term field is acceptable and no one will question it.

The field of study suitable to understand how Electromagnetism and gravity work together in the same region of spacetime is gravitoelectromagnetism. Though it is very math heavy the relevant field equations are in this paper. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0011014&ved=2ahUKEwihkI3rgsXaAhWJqVQKHRS2Bm0QFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1-oqasirIHBCIGCsn4AyiX Its an arxiv paper working from phone

Emtangled particles do not communicate nor interact with one another at FTL. More than just a thought

I take it you didn't read the paper I provided by Stephen Hawkings on this subject ? The imaginary time part is specifically the set of imaginary numbers, as per a graph via setting some arbitrary baseline spacetime mass density as zero. It specifically follows the Wheeler Dewitt methodology which is specific to wavefunction of the universe. The Wheeler Dewitt is still around but its largely fallen out of favor. Needless to say Hawkings doesn't support the proposals you have put forth.

Nope can't say I have ever come across any such proposal

Well I'll just sit back and imagine some physics being applied lol. Seriously though much of that last post sounds like ramblings rather than physics. First goal understand how physics models spacetime in terms of the mathematics. Might just help explain what Hawkings meant by imaginary time. Granted it would help if you read the paper proposal https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960 "Wavefunction of the Universe" by Hartle and Hawking. Much clearer than the pop media blitz on it for one detail here is a specific quote. "The ground-state wave function in the simple minisuperspace model that we have considered with a conformally invariant field does not correspond to the quantum state of the Universe that we live in because the matter wave function does not oscillate. " In other words its what referred to as "Toy modelling" or a what if model.... PS this is part of Hawkings "No Boundary proposal"

The question is very easy to answer. Think about it, it will come to you

As Studiot mentioned in this scenario, more than one influence is involved.

Well jumping past all the lack of mathematics, Gravity is never repulsive. I lost track of all the connect dots attempts to justify a repulsive gravity. However the examinations you have provided are far too random and in most cases can be explained via other force/pseudoforce interactions that are not specifically gravity related. One of the first rules in physics is to isolate as best as possible all other outside influences. Every example you provided failed to do this basic step.

Lol try to find that coin in your pockets. Lets take care here though. There is several differences between Superposition via Statistical mechanics and Superposition via QMs usage so this line of reasoning can vary depending on which interpretation of Superposition is being imposed.

The cat is in a probability superposition which is where the terminology originates until you open the box. Superposition is also a statistical mechanics terminology.

Well its your model, no one will do the work for you particularly since its poorly defined mathematically. Little hint try applying a coordinate system and go from there. I recommend polar coordinates. You will need to define properly and with proper terminology your model if you ever hope to get it off the ground.

Both can be treated as a point where our understanding /model/math breaks down. Though I will note a true singularity is of the same criteria to all observers and all known coordinate/metrics You can have false singularities due to a breakdown in a particular metric. One example being the Schwartzchild metric, which changing to a different metric such as Tortoise coordinates can eliminate.

There is two meanings behind singularity. One is as per a BH, while the other is any condition that leads to nonsensical infinities regardless of volume. The BB is the latter

This work is actually fairly decently thought out. Though I'm still thinking about the advantages of using hyper operations in modern physics applications when typically the majority of the math operations are done in Natural units. The advantage of Natural units being all the major units are given an equivalence of length. I'm still thinking on this, but I do not wish to discourage your work as I would like to see it progress further as it has the potential in certain applications on improving computation times. Anyways still thinking on this as well as kicking ideas around in my head on where the application can be more readily useful. Also I have to do some digging as this has familiarity in certain research papers I've read in the past. I can't shake the feeling that this technique is already used in various physics papers

nice article short and brief but has the essential details. Seems the questions have been answered lol and glad to be back as well

Looks better, I will study the second document in more detail later on.

One thing to remember about QFT is that every particle is a field excitation. VP are not individually observable as they lack the amount of energy for individual action. They form the internal lines on the Feyman diagrams while observables such as real particles form the exyernal lines. QFT textbooks rarely ever refer to a particle preferring to refer to them as an excitation or state

A field is any collection of assigned values or functions assigned on a coordinate basis. You can have any number of fields of any type. For example the connection between two fields interacting with one another can be treated as its own field. Every mediator gauge boson mediates the force field of its particular type ie photons for EM, qluons for the strong etc. However one can arbitrarily assign a field to any individual particle species. Fields can also be assigned to virtual or quasi particles such as those involved in poppup ghosts. antiparticles are typically part of the same field as their partner but one can arbitrarily choose to assign them to their own field (though this is rarely done) the reason its rarely done is that the creation/annihilation operators work well together for the fields they are used upon. Fields can also be and scalar or vector quantity even spinors or tensors.

Doesn't address the problem of the made up garbage with non standard definition on any key word due to your lack of knowledge on the recognized physics involved in any theory you mentioned. You tried to apply Newton-Cartan theory which you don't understand. You mentioned String theory terminology without knowing the proper definitions. You tried mentioning quantum erasure but that involved probability amplitudes of wavefunctions. I could keep going but this is beginning to bore me. Here is a news flash a D(d=0) brane is a particle, a D(d=1) brane is a string, a D(d=2 brane) is a plane or membrane. the lower case d can be upwards to 26 dimensions all of which follows the rules of mathematics as an "independent variable." just as length of an object can change without affecting the width. these are independent spatial dimensions. However you didn't know any of this did you, you simly invoked cool sounding words to make your article sound impressive. That might fool a layperson but it won't fool any physicist

How can I make sense of something when its apparent you don't even understand any of the physics involved in any of the terminology you mentioned????? You don't have the same definition for branes, quantum erasure, dimension etc try learning the real physics involved instead of made up garbage