Mordred

Ok I will not fault you for following and supporting the holographic principle via ADS/CFT. It is a viable possibility however I would like to spend some time after work showing you how ADS/CFT works in cosmology applucations which your last post doesn't particularly apply. Hopefully once I detail ads/cft after work you will see why,

That last descriptive is accurate

The wiki article gives mass of ordinary matter, if you read down it specifies it doesn't include DE and DM. The 4×10^69 is a common estimate for mass of observable universe. However it depends on how each article estimates total mass. I've seen estimates at 10^53 and 10^69. example 4×10^69 given here though not a reputable site, I don't count wiki as reputable either lol https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html&ved=0ahUKEwiTmNP18qbVAhVozFQKHR4MB8IQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNGZKsc5k_EuXuCv7VWpUZfi0317pA The estimate 10^53 usually arises by using the critical density formula to estimate

Very aporopriate example, in regards to the "What is space made of thread". We are both in essence stating the same thing. Anyways that thread isn't the topic of the OP enough said about it

All heuristic and neophytic descriptives are in essence interptetations. I'm actually happy when experts in the field have read he thread and supply corrections. One such I was happy to see comment being Marcus Hanke. He obviously had a very strong understanding of advanced GR

The moderator staff has its physics experts who I trust are capable of recognizing non mainstream threads in physics. This includes the thread you mentioned. If you study the math in the thread, and recall that the thread states space is just volume that include the standard model of particles. You would see it is mainstream including every formula posted in that thread. However if there is something in that thread you don't think is mainstream feel free to start a topic as the why and I will be happy to discuss it with you. If your argument is strong enough I will happily unpin the thread and move it to speculations myself. I don't see speculations forum as a punishment as if properly done.A speculation can advance science. (Though I can only recall one thread in physics where a Speculation thread has the potential currently on SFN Speculations) that is being consistently properly done.

is there a guide for chemistry symbols? the standard math ones are working for me but never really tried drawing a chemical reaction under latex

Does your theories include the applicable mathematics? After all dozens of models seek applicable wavefunctions. CMB mode polarizations being an example. On the Quantum side the Wheeler-Dewitt equations fundamentally deal with the polarization aspects in cosmology . In all honesty I lost count of the number of vaulted claims of someone solving such and such in physics, yet cannot provide a properly done model ie the correct mathematics. Is that the case with your 5 personal theories you mentioned? As far as prior to 10^-43 seconds how under mathematics did you handle the infinity issues? If you cannot answer that question under mathematics you cannot claim to have solved anything within your first post concerning a multiverse origins. (solutions do exist pertaining to the singularity issue but I would like to see your metrics)

lol completely forgot about posting it after I linked it on my desktop. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.5708&ved=0ahUKEwjUzoCNp6DVAhUMyWMKHWjjCcUQFggmMAE&usg=AFQjCNHjTF6Xb8C0z-xXv6nqIAL1sNJLsA it is arxiv was on my phone.

not sure if its a previous error or not. Two unknown environment errors. Huge range of latex in that thread so it gave an excellent range test on equations. Other threads look way better now. Thanks for the repairs.

Excellent it looks like it repaired all my older posts. When browsing I noticed we also lost support for [imath]. Though I could only find one instance where its used under one of the restricted access forums. I will Pm you link

A very extensive thread of latex errors showing up is here. You can see numerous errors cropping up. All of my old posts were done manually under latex. example here Simply changing latex to math would work without error in last example though as the crossover works with what is posted. Going to dig up some of my more complex latex structures.

This is well written and well thought out. In many ways better than numerous posts under Speculations from our occasional quacks posting alternative theories lol. Excellent job so far a very good read +1

yeah thats the basic idea. It would be a good idea to repair old threads and less likely to cause loss of membership due to fustration etc etc if the repairs are as transparent as possible to the members with regards to their older threads. Also considering we have numerous readers that never post.... If the older threads are repaired our chances to gain new members would improve . On a positive note the math does look far better once changed. At least judging from the posts I've updated so far. (only ran into a prob with triangledown so far.

Under Mathjava I wonder if it is possible to include the library file support imports to include the older latex command set? Might be a better option for older threads. I have been converting some of my older (more commonly referred to posts) ie pinned and unpinned lessons to the new system but there is no way I can fix them all lol

Also under the math command set \triangledown isn't recognized. Though one can replace with \nabla

Is it possible to write a short program to search old threads and replace all instances of [latex][/latex] and the dollar sign format with the old math command to repair thousands of older threads? ie search and replace latex with math only when enclosed in [???,]

Original has been reformatted for new latex structure

[math]\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/math] Well using [math] instead of [latex] still works sux having to fix older posts though as I usually used the latter. test \[\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}\] Ok got the new special char figured out.

Title says it all. [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] K math command works but latex and tex don't

lol I have no idea where he got his S expression as it isn't CSHS. [latex]S=E(a,b)-E(a,\acute{b}+E(\acute{a}),b)+E(\acute{a},\acute{b})[/latex] is the proper expression where a and [latex] \acute{a}[/latex] are detector settings on side A. and the same goes for thee detector settings on B. where the coding is + for the + detector A and - for the detector setting for the - channel B.

Precisely I do not agree You must define what the negative number represents. Why is that so impossible for you to understand? You cannot invalidate any number without defining what the number represents. In Bells the primary numbers of importance is the polarity states of the two particles. How the two are correlated and what affects the correlation. However first you must define what the correlation number represents. You mentioned CHSM fine here is the expression. [latex]\langle\sigma_m\otimes\sigma_n\rangle=-\hat{m}\cdot\hat{n}=-cos\theta[/latex] now show the difference in orientations of Alice and Bobs detectors given by [latex]\theta[/latex] You need to determine which outcomes are 1)correlated, 2)anti correlated 3) no correlation. That is the CHSM inequality. correlated=[latex]\theta=0,\langle\sigma_m\otimes\sigma_n\rangle=-1[/latex] anticorrelated [latex]\theta=\pi,\langle\sigma_m\otimes\sigma_n\rangle=1[/latex] no correlation [latex] \theta=\frac{\pi}{2},\langle\sigma_m\otimes\sigma_n\rangle=0[/latex]

You never described the gedanken of the experiment up in the first place to invalidate it. If you don't even know what the numbers mean how can you define what is a valid number ?

That math formulation has a purpose enough said. Anyone can do a Fourier series transform and show all probable outcomes. The point is what causes those outcomes in terms of the particle polarization states. In other words a physics problem. Not merely a statistical problem Well obviously you can't as you couldn't even be bothered with what those numbers represent in the first place. Hence why Swansont was able to so quickly falsify your premise.

Wow talk about a lack of effort response. Talk about wasting our time. Here is a news flash Solving Bells isn't just about some math formula that can match an outcome. It is also about what causes the probable outcomes What did you think the whole debate about hidden variables is all about? What is local vs global in terms of the states? Lol for those other readers serious about physics and the true nature of Bells inequality experiment. (Which Lazarus you have proven your not interested in) All observables are local operators. Hidden variables are propogators.