MJ kihara

I think specifically it for a circle... avoiding definition complications.

I don't think so...the asteroid is orbiting sun elliptically...that's for a circular orbit.

...and since the wavy line is the orbit and the orbit is the path tracing the asteroid as it free fall,then wavy line is the geodesic... You wavy line is not for an elliptical orbit?

Assuming we have an asteroid having an elliptical orbit around the sun..can this orbit/ geodesic be illustrated as a wavy line extending from the larger mass(sun)?

I have not seen such issues in this thread.People throw such ideas in a thread to try discredit important issues under discussion...it's a common trick.

How many different ways can someone illustrate geodesics. Can a wavy line be used to illustrate a geodesic?

Ads/CFT correspondence-wikipedia article. .....It also provides a powerful toolkit for studying strongly coupled quantum field theories.[2] Much of the usefulness of the duality results from the fact that it is a strong–weak duality: when the fields of the quantum field theory are strongly interacting, the ones in the gravitational theory are weakly interacting.... I like wikipedia because it's easily accessible to the public domain. I haven't seen anyone in the thread claiming that. Are you scared by one two three 123 in 10^123.

Am not getting it when did the clue given? SU(3) gauge symmetry is related to strong force....I talked about strong- weak duality. Are you agreeing with this definition.

That's not the way to look at....you should in a manner,the volume coming out of a blackhole...remember in holography volume is an illusion...

Am all a where of that....the universe is well evolving towards that...am trying to be careful however,I think we can get something out of that...or maybe learn more...

What am learning from you is that to get a solution of anything it's so difficult and requires complexity of mathematics beyond comprehension....what am asking myself is that,if there was such an attitude 120 years ago I doubt if the theories such as GR could have been accepted were it not for experimental support they got...almost majority of solutions are approximation. Am trying to think from a holographic perspective if there is an experiment that can be designed factoring in Bose Einstein condensate to look at 1/100^123 validity.

Back to square 1.

Surely...I asked you if the formulas employed by the author were wrong you never replied to that...the author is using physics mathematics,I don't understand which other way should someone reason to get a solution....?(I myself questioned the use of the term SU(3) atom given I had a diagram related to that, I was told to throw it down the sink..it's resisting the sink....am getting to know the jargon...who knows next round it's mathematics...)...what is correct is correct no matter the different language verbal or mathematic that one uses to give the solution.

I don't usually get along with mob justice.....there are no 100^123 atoms!😂

You are giving an answer and yet you can't see it from the explanations...soo weird.

Strong-weak duality.....strong force-gravitation... arbitrary chosen not because it gives desired answer but it's because it's the right parameter to choose and it gives the correct answer..otherwise from the duality which other parameter can you choose?

There is that fancy trend nowadays of trying to discredit any kind of achievement....where do you think breakthrough fundamental discoveries should come from?...paraphrasing people's ideas to suit you own discredit and proof them wrong,while not trying to answer why it is wrong..shows how rigid someone tend to be.

Sometimes am having problem accessing the thread. When I joined this forum I had a theory developed with sheer logical reasoning and minimum already established scientific facts like charges of a quark,and published a book about it in a most basic layman language,my background is not physics oriented but I believed we need a basic theory that someone need to go back to and make references from it's principles....and if this theory is the actual basic theory then answers should get along with it....that's a long story. My perspective come from the fact that if I compare what I have and assuming the calculations of the author is correct and putting the fact that he is comparing superconductor effects with dark matter/dark energy....to reconcile both concepts then holographic principle emerges as a natural solution...this is also bringing confusion to my understanding.. the reason then why the number of SU(3) units it's not getting a long with the number of photons and protons in the universe is the way this holograph is being projected,the projection 'might' being interfered with by quantum noise....the information is encoded on the surface of of SU(3) structure (remember this)... quantum noise is coming from quantum soup.... universe expansion reduces temperature hence reducing quantum noise overtime(refining the projection).....meaning the solution the author is introducing is a constancy of proportionality-the rate at which this refining is taking place i.e how the classical universe governed by GR is emerging from quantum world governed by QFT.....hope that's not too much.

I will tend to differ with your conclusion,the scale was not chosen randomly their is a reason behind it.what the author is doing is a continuation of arguments present in the video you posted above. I think if there was a specific directions such a solution is supposed to come from it should have been arrived at longtime ago. By the way,thanks for the video,it's a good learning material.

The universe is made up of approximately 5%visible matter,it depend with the nature of interaction... neutrinos are passing through you continuously some energetic than the photons that hit you in mid day sunlight...you are not scattered off.

My understanding of a graviton has been controversial if you go with my arguments as per my threads in this forum...if I introduce them here I will be accused of thread hijacking. Mordred is more qualified to answer that question...I have my concepts, he and other residential experts in this forum input and arguments offer guidance,esp when I stray too much to my concepts.

It's creating a correspondence in SU(3) concept and cosmological constant problem....I think beyond that no need to import SU (3) mathematics. The author seem to have other papers that are heavy mathematically,after a quick online search, therefore,he is not limited in that perspective. For me I also have my own thinking (concepts) that's makes/helps me leapfrog the current arguments and see in much deeper angle...the holographic perspective...and I can assure you it's much amazing 🤩...it's weird how scientific concepts from different backgrounds link tonger... Einstein saying 'we can't solve problems with the same thinking we used to create them'

When you I think from a holographic perspective...mmmm...I think things turn out to be more complicated with huge implications...that would end up touching on the issue of Universe Age/evolution it's self..

..and what Joigus has stated excess of proton in the order of 10^43...after thinking and from what am having,comparing that with how the author is solving cosmological constant problem...we may be dealing with holographic principle,any error arising in transmission may be due to quantum noise,to me this is amazing since I never thought of it (holographic principle) to be possible,I took it to be fiction, in this case I see it can be real...this is amazing 🤩.

Is there anything wrong with the formulas employed by the author? According to my views the math appears to be straight forward...if the formulas are correct it mean the math is okay, however, the arguments about derivation of N ( SU 3 atoms) should be controversial.