Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

[Mordred]

yeppers it takes a considerable amount of time also we cross posted before I finished the latex see above for additional details

[Vmedvil]

53 minutes ago, Mordred said:

yeppers it takes a considerable amount of time also we cross posted before I finished the latex see above for additional details

You know what I just need to structure the cross matrix for this which would have solved this nearly instantly and wolfram alpha told me to go screw myself as undefined.

Wait, this time is said this for the time version.

Which is missing parts where the .... is.

Then when I = F instead because it was taking I to mean i. 

Azimuthal angle had the same definition in both. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Vmedvil

[koti]

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

That moron friendly enough lol ? 

Yes! Thank you Mordred, very infightful for me (Dirac, spin 2) I also havent realised what you wrote about LIGO. +1.

[Vmedvil]

2 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

You know what I just need to structure the cross matrix for this which would have solved this nearly instantly and wolfram alpha told me to go screw myself as undefined.

Wait, this time is said this for the time version.

Which is missing parts where the .... is.

Then when I = F instead because it was taking I to mean i. 

Azimuthal angle had the same definition in both. 

Then Wolfram Alpha cannot compute (∇^2)(1/((1-(((2 M G / R) - (I ω^2/2M))^2/C^2))(1/2)))MC^2 or ∇'(x',y',z') or ∇(1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s²/2M_b))²/C²))^1/2  and doesn't understand  ∇²(1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s²/2M_b))²/C²))^1/2 , so I guess it falls to me.

Where even looking at that form gives me a headache where it infinitely loops.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

1 hour ago, Vmedvil said:

Then Wolfram Alpha cannot compute (∇^2)(1/((1-(((2 M G / R) - (I ω^2/2M))^2/C^2))(1/2)))MC^2 or ∇'(x',y',z') or ∇(1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s²/2M_b))²/C²))^1/2  and doesn't understand  ∇²(1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s²/2M_b))²/C²))^1/2 , so I guess it falls to me.

Where even looking at that form gives me a headache where it infinitely loops.

Ya, no I have no idea what ... = that equation even means.

[Vmedvil]

1 hour ago, Vmedvil said:

Ya, no I have no idea what ... = that equation even means.

In any case, If this doesn't work for as a solution I found a new DDOS packet. *computer implodes* *Processor gets sucked into another dimension instantly*  What are your computers not...... Safe! How do you stack a quantum computer.... This equation. 

Meaning of DDOS.

Wolfram Alpha's Hardware

Edited November 16, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

On 11/16/2017 at 6:56 AM, Vmedvil said:

In any case, If this doesn't work for as a solution I found a new DDOS packet. *computer implodes* *Processor gets sucked into another dimension instantly*  What are your computers not...... Safe! How do you stack a quantum computer.... This equation. 

Meaning of DDOS.

Wolfram Alpha's Hardware

You're not going to get an exact velocity without doing infinite calculations but we don't need one. We know it's within 4 orders of magnitude of the speed of light. What we need is to predict the position of particles within the waves in order to fully manipulate the atomic world for quantum gate communication methods that would give us an exact velocity. How we do this is we take the output of this operation & use it as the input of next a few million times (& modern computers can be made to do this with your equation) until a graph is formed that predicts quantum positions & therefore falsifies the uncertainty principle. So you can't test this mathematical model if your terms like mass & energy are any specific quantities.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.01619.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology

[Vmedvil]

On 11/17/2017 at 7:45 PM, SuperPolymath said:

You're not going to get an exact velocity without doing infinite calculations but we don't need one. We know it's within 4 orders of magnitude of the speed of light. What we need is to predict the position of particles within the waves in order to fully manipulate the atomic world for quantum gate communication methods that would give us an exact velocity. How we do this is we take the output of this operation & use it as the input of next a few million times (& modern computers can be made to do this with your equation) until a graph is formed that predicts quantum positions & therefore falsifies the uncertainty principle. So you can't test this mathematical model if your terms like mass & energy are any specific quantities.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.01619.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology

Well, the Quantum numbers of an electron are equal to this expression in X = R Cos(Θ) , Y = R Cos(Θ), Where Z = (I(d/dx) J(d/dy))^(1/2)

Where Z = 0

Where the Metric under the ()^(3/2) is spin versus a gravitational pull of equal magnitude across Schwarzchild Metric for static moving objects to Kerr Metric for a body of mass, Which I = The summation of all they (tpC) movement versus time is displacement vectors in a Brother of the SO Group which is SO(8 x 4)

The Set would be For if it exists as a string of quantum entanglement across two opposite but equal spin states.

which this set says that when the spin states are equal within the system that this is a linkage generated.

Then a D - Brane forms between the opposite spin states in the mass which has been done in photons where Q entanglement is the operator of Wormholes in the Einstein-P Bridge where the D brane equal for the Universe space-like solution can be found in Superstring as P =  Brane Size of (2) and as disconnected across space Strings being Closed Strings  q = 1 where q = may also equal (2) as a D-brane sheet between two spaces in a Wormhole Open String lattice.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

23 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, the Quantum numbers of an electron are equal to this expression in X = R Cos(Θ) , Y = R Cos(Θ), Where Z = (I(d/dx) J(d/dy))^(1/2)

Where Z = 0

Where the Metric under the ()^(3/2) is spin versus a gravitational pull of equal magnitude across Schwarzchild Metric for static moving objects to Kerr Metric for a body of mass, Which I = The summation of all they (tpC) movement versus time is displacement vectors in a Brother of the SO Group which is SO(8 x 4)

The Set would be For if it exists as a string of quantum entanglement across two opposite but equal spin states.

which this set says that when the spin states are equal within the system that this is a linkage generated.

Then a D - Brane forms between the opposite spin states in the mass which has been done in photons where Q entanglement is the operator of Wormholes in the Einstein-P Bridge where the D brane equal for the Universe space-like solution can be found in Superstring as P =  Brane Size of (2) and as disconnected across space Strings being Closed Strings  q = 1 where q = may also equal (2) as a D-brane sheet between two spaces in a Wormhole Open String lattice.

I noticed a typo/mistakes here 

"Well, the Quantum numbers of an electron are equal to this expression in X = R Cos(Θ) , Y = R Cos(Θ), Where Z = (I(d/dx) J(d/dy))^(1/2)

Where Z = 0"

It should be  X = R_jk Cos (φ) , Y = R_jk Sin(φ) , R_jk = (I(d/dx) + J(d/dy)^(1/2) , Where Z = 0 , I said that Z = R, that was wrong it does actually equal zero with no dimensions, Where ω^2 =  (ΔΘ/Δt)^2  with a relative Magnitude of I for each Energy-Mass which can be in energy or momentum. 

 

Spherical coordinates (r, θ, φ) as commonly used in physics (ISO convention): radial distance r, polar angle θ (theta), and azimuthal angle φ (phi). The symbol ρ (rho) is often used instead of R. 

Where R_jk is like the Reimann curvature Tensor. as (u,v) mean that same as (I (d/dx))(J (d/dy))

-Which is like saying (x,y,z,t,θ,φ, I) or (x,y,z,t,ω,M,I) , where (x,y,0,t,ω,M,I,) which mean does does equal zero if  (R = Y + X - 0)

50 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

I noticed a typo/mistakes here 

"Well, the Quantum numbers of an electron are equal to this expression in X = R Cos(Θ) , Y = R Cos(Θ), Where Z = (I(d/dx) J(d/dy))^(1/2)

Where Z = 0"

It should be  X = R_jk Cos (φ) , Y = R_jk Sin(φ) , R_jk = (I(d/dx) + J(d/dy)^(1/2) , Where Z = 0 , I said that Z = R, that was wrong it does actually equal zero with no dimensions, Where ω^2 =  (ΔΘ/Δt)^2  with a relative Magnitude of I for each Energy-Mass which can be in energy or momentum. 

 

Spherical coordinates (r, θ, φ) as commonly used in physics (ISO convention): radial distance r, polar angle θ (theta), and azimuthal angle φ (phi). The symbol ρ (rho) is often used instead of R. 

Where R_jk is like the Reimann curvature Tensor. as (u,v) mean that same as (I (d/dx))(J (d/dy))

-Which is like saying (x,y,z,t,θ,φ, I) or (x,y,z,t,ω,M,I) , where (x,y,0,t,ω,M,I,) which mean does does equal zero if  (R = Y + X - 0)

Where φ = Tan^-1(x,y)  Where X = R(Cos(θ)  and Y = R Cos(θ)

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

1 hour ago, Vmedvil said:

I noticed a typo/mistakes here 

"Well, the Quantum numbers of an electron are equal to this expression in X = R Cos(Θ) , Y = R Cos(Θ), Where Z = (I(d/dx) J(d/dy))^(1/2)

Where Z = 0"

It should be  X = R_jk Cos (φ) , Y = R_jk Sin(φ) , R_jk = (I(d/dx) + J(d/dy)^(1/2) , Where Z = 0 , I said that Z = R, that was wrong it does actually equal zero with no dimensions, Where ω^2 =  (ΔΘ/Δt)^2  with a relative Magnitude of I for each Energy-Mass which can be in energy or momentum. 

 

Spherical coordinates (r, θ, φ) as commonly used in physics (ISO convention): radial distance r, polar angle θ (theta), and azimuthal angle φ (phi). The symbol ρ (rho) is often used instead of R. 

Where R_jk is like the Reimann curvature Tensor. as (u,v) mean that same as (I (d/dx))(J (d/dy))

-Which is like saying (x,y,z,t,θ,φ, I) or (x,y,z,t,ω,M,I) , where (x,y,0,t,ω,M,I,) which mean does does equal zero if  (R = Y + X - 0)

Where φ = Tan^-1(x,y)  Where X = R(Cos(θ)  and Y = R Cos(θ)

 

Where to stop the infinite looping around and around the equation you need to add a Radius which we will add the Schwarzchild Radius solved for C^2 of R_s

[SuperPolymath]

5 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Where to stop the infinite looping around and around the equation you need to add a Radius which we will add the Schwarzchild Radius solved for C^2 of R_s

I had pictured this object (photon sphere around an event horizon) when considering what a black hole relative to the rest of the universe would look like if you turned them both inside out. It was very difficult to imagine. It's a hollow sphere, not quite a white hole. Or, a hypersphere, we're inside the surface of an expanding bubble, we're not within a solid sphere like your typical stellar object. It doesn't have to be infinite, but there's an event horizon filling the bubble of the interior of the event horizon that fills our "bubble". It's an onion with infinite layers, between every layer of anti de sitter space is a layer of space-time that shares our spatial-temporal linearity. So either approx 2.5 dimensions has infinite size. Thing is, even a finite size has infinite time, the volume of your bubble can always smaller so it had no origin point - so that's the infinity loop you need to worry about. Whose to say our scale isn't smaller than the Planck length of a larger "verse", it's more likely we're the wavelength light in someone's microverse. A wavelength has more entropy than a solid-state particle & therefore the most complexity within its inner systems (composed of all 3 types of microverses) than the qg plasma or the atom, that's why it's the most anthropic of the three.

Edited November 20, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[SuperPolymath]

The photon sphere of the first "reduction" in a set serves as the event horizon radius for the next reduction, ad infinitum, even if you "only have 4 sets".

You need to set a limit Tsub(uv)Fsub(uv)>0. But we're obviously dealing with interactions a certain level beneath the Planck length in the waves (those trident looking symbols) for the fiber-optic measurement of nx10^4 relating to the Lorentz transformations. How do you find that n without infinite loops? Well, it will be a pretty accurate with that cursive w symbol, or L, or Tsub(uv)Fsub(uv)=1.6x10^-1004 meters or so I'd imagine. The Planck length is 1.6x10^-35.

 

Now, I know your Tsub(uv)Fsub(uv)=0, but I don't think wolfram can calculate to infinity, while a decimal followed by 1000 zeroes followed by 16 is close enough to zero for an approximate, even if that's not right. Sometimes you have to break the rules, so you'll have to change all the values in the equation to get a calculation.

 

Look, all you're doing is setting a limit to the Lorentz transformation, whether or not there is actually a limit calculators, therefore math and therefore physics don't mix with infinities. It's a very technical solution to your problems, 10^-1000 meters is close enough to zero & far enough beyond 10^4C to show that if your equation for V of QE is still consistent with 4 orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light all the way down at 10^-1000 m than your model still proves promising for quantum gate communication technologies which has far reaching applications, VAST. Even in the field you study.

Edited November 20, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Vmedvil]

On 11/20/2017 at 3:50 AM, SuperPolymath said:

The photon sphere of the first "reduction" in a set serves as the event horizon radius for the next reduction, ad infinitum, even if you "only have 4 sets".

You need to set a limit Tsub(uv)Fsub(uv)>0. But we're obviously dealing with interactions a certain level beneath the Planck length in the waves (those trident looking symbols) for the fiber-optic measurement of nx10^4 relating to the Lorentz transformations. How do you find that n without infinite loops? Well, it will be a pretty accurate with that cursive w symbol, or L, or Tsub(uv)Fsub(uv)=1.6x10^-1004 meters or so I'd imagine. The Planck length is 1.6x10^-35.

 

Now, I know your Tsub(uv)Fsub(uv)=0, but I don't think wolfram can calculate to infinity, while a decimal followed by 1000 zeroes followed by 16 is close enough to zero for an approximate, even if that's not right. Sometimes you have to break the rules, so you'll have to change all the values in the equation to get a calculation.

 

Look, all you're doing is setting a limit to the Lorentz transformation, whether or not there is actually a limit calculators, therefore math and therefore physics don't mix with infinities. It's a very technical solution to your problems, 10^-1000 meters is close enough to zero & far enough beyond 10^4C to show that if your equation for V of QE is still consistent with 4 orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light all the way down at 10^-1000 m than your model still proves promising for quantum gate communication technologies which has far reaching applications, VAST. Even in the field you study.

I think the ... is where the computer stacks at on a double Float calculation, but it ended operation when it noticed it got near stack overflow.

Double Float Meaning

Stack Overflow meaning

 

So by infinite it meanings smaller than The 53-bit significant precision gives from 15 to 17 significant decimal digits precision (2⁻⁵³ ≈ 1.11 × 10⁻¹⁶). If a decimal string with at most 15 significant digits is converted to IEEE 754 double-precision representation, and then converted back to a decimal string with the same number of digits, the final result should match the original string. If an IEEE 754 double-precision number is converted to a decimal string with at least 17 significant digits, and then converted back to double-precision representation, the final result must match the original number.

 

Then again it does define infinity and negative infinity in a double float.

 

So we can at least say that it calculates it better than a computer on a double precision float which would be slightly below femtometers in scale which is within the size of an electron at 10^-16.

Therefore, a proton has about 1836 times the mass of an electron. The best estimate of physicists is that the radius of a proton is about 8×10-16m and the radius of an electron is about 10-16m . If they are correct, then a proton has about ten times the diameter of an electron enough to call the 52 zeroes and 11 ones as repeating like π.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

More on Double floats(Double floats) and the meaning of the  ... (Meaning of ...) So, basically what is needed is a Quadruple Float and ... does actually mean infinity which in double float is expected as it should resolve it like 4.4704601196572883072076801920048 * 10^208 being Volume =(4/3)(1/(t_pC)^2)^3 in meters, as the number of Planck time(Time Frequency per second) C(Velocity of Light and Time with infinite energy) equal a meter, which may actually be infinite as it is for energy that calculation due to it hits near a asymptote which is why a Radius defined fixes it like R_s which is a static BH @ C's Radius depending on mass which is energy which turns into another infinite loop, but E = MC² was made.

 

Where this gives the energy-mass required to make an infinite gravity well(Potential Energy) is R_s , where mass then begins to increase the R_s as M_b or E_b gets larger which then lowers the gravity well with angular momentum, otherwise it would get smaller R_s as mass increased.

Which is why BH look like this.

Where SMBH look like this.

Look at the magnitude of that angular momentum otherwise it the states would be reversed if that ratio were reversed in Schwarzchild Radius or R_s

So, what is Dark energy the spin caused from all the mass in the universe, which goes back to the Friedman equation, why are Matter-Energy density and Dark energy both plus.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

2 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

More on Double floats(Double floats) and the meaning of the  ... (Meaning of ...) So, basically what is needed is a Quadruple Float and ... does actually mean infinity which in double float is expected as it should resolve it like 4.4704601196572883072076801920048 * 10^208 being Volume =(4/3)(1/(t_pC)^2)^3 in meters, as the number of Planck time(Time Frequency per second) C(Velocity of Light and Time with infinite energy) equal a meter, which may actually be infinite as it is for energy that calculation due to it hits near a asymptote which is why a Radius defined fixes it like R_s which is a static BH @ C's Radius depending on mass which is energy which turns into another infinite loop, but E = MC² was made.

 

Where this gives the energy-mass required to make an infinite gravity well(Potential Energy) is R_s , where mass then begins to increase the R_s as M_b or E_b gets larger which then lowers the gravity well with angular momentum, otherwise it would get smaller R_s as mass increased.

Which is why BH look like this.

Where SMBH look like this.

Look at the magnitude of that angular momentum otherwise it the states would be reversed if that ratio were reversed in Schwarzchild Radius or R_s

So, what is Dark energy the spin caused from all the mass in the universe, which goes back to the Friedman equation, why are Matter-Energy density and Dark energy both plus.

Which goes back to why I said "Punch a wall" we need more curvature to balance out Dark Energy in one of my first posts.(Punch a wall) cause you cannot change this little problem without generating curves explained here (Expanding Universe), Where BH and SMBH are actually damaging this universe which will someday collapse as more form stretching it to death. Thanks to a Matter high Density and Spin with more energy-mass consumed.

which explained why this universe began in a boom, that BH must have been highly unstable with that much dense mass (Gravity Magnitude) and Rotation against it, which must have vibrated with expansion and contractions that were violent when it exploded like a supernova.

So, what caused the big bang Rotation overcoming gravity @ C, why did this happen Not the slightest clue besides it was "Too Massive". Whatever made it through into this universe was definitely not suppose to be here, why do you say that you may ask? "Because what it did was impossible for this universe to do at that scale." as they are supposed to emit hawking radiation and grow small enough to evaporate, which it being "Too Massive" may have caused a Big Rip within itself.

 

Where we may want to put a "Do not Feed" sign on black-holes as causes our universe to fall apart, which is why here(Dark Energy/Matter Related) I said that Dark Energy may be something not created ever again as the Strong-Electroweak were coupled then the Inflationary period then decoupled into Electroweak and Strong.

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

1 hour ago, Vmedvil said:

Which goes back to why I said "Punch a wall" we need more curvature to balance out Dark Energy in one of my first posts.(Punch a wall) cause you cannot change this little problem without generating curves explained here (Expanding Universe), Where BH and SMBH are actually damaging this universe which will someday collapse as more form stretching it to death. Thanks to a Matter high Density and Spin with more energy-mass consumed.

which explained why this universe began in a boom, that BH must have been highly unstable with that much dense mass (Gravity Magnitude) and Rotation against it, which must have vibrated with expansion and contractions that were violent when it exploded like a supernova.

So, what caused the big bang Rotation overcoming gravity @ C, why did this happen Not the slightest clue besides it was "Too Massive". Whatever made it through into this universe was definitely not suppose to be here, why do you say that you may ask? "Because what it did was impossible for this universe to do at that scale." as they are supposed to emit hawking radiation and grow small enough to evaporate, which it being "Too Massive" may have caused a Big Rip within itself.

 

Where we may want to put a "Do not Feed" sign on black-holes as causes our universe to fall apart, which is why here(Dark Energy/Matter Related) I said that Dark Energy may be something not created ever again as the Strong-Electroweak were coupled then the Inflationary period then decoupled into Electroweak and Strong.

 

What I think now is Dark Energy is the Cherenkov radiation of that angular momentum during a decouple of the Strong-Electroweak into Strong Nuclear Force and Electroweak like the Higgs Mechanism Cherenkov radiation is mass during a Electroweak decouple into Electromagnetism and Weak Nuclear Force in Tachyon Condensation.

 

 

 

 

[Vmedvil]

2 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

What I think now is Dark Energy is the Cherenkov radiation of that angular momentum during a decouple of the Strong-Electroweak into Strong Nuclear Force and Electroweak like the Higgs Mechanism Cherenkov radiation is mass during a Electroweak decouple into Electromagnetism and Weak Nuclear Force in Tachyon Condensation.

 

 

 

 

Dark Energy on the Universe acts like Angular Momentum on a BH, The Angular Momentum expands the R_s From increased mass where Dark Energy Expansion R_u  From mass. So Dark Energy is probably like a photon just as a photon can escape a BH's Gravity well, the Dark Energy Particle can escape the Universe's Gravity well, which makes me wonder if the Energy-Mass of the Big Bang was caused by a huge Boson hitting our universe with similar properties to the photon, Gravitational waves, or Dark Energy from another universe.

Which is where this leads you to Wormholes which is where this actually agrees with Super Polymath as whatever caused the Energy-Mass of the Big Bang was not from our universe and Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Where smaller Wormholes will lead back into our universe being directed by Weak Quantum entanglement like a magnet to the Spin opposite state.

The Larger of these two would require Strong entanglement to connect with the other universe or it could be vice versa, that is unknown, but I would imagine since Strong QE is faster than Weak QE that it would be this way due to the fact that distance in space would be nothing compared to distance in universes thus a greater velocity is required to reach them then itself in a different part of space, but also you could use the logic that it is the other way around because the distance is shorter between the universe and itself in another part of space so the connection would be faster versus a slower connection between two universes being more distant.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

3 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Dark Energy on the Universe acts like Angular Momentum on a BH, The Angular Momentum expands the R_s From increased mass where Dark Energy Expansion R_u  From mass. So Dark Energy is probably like a photon just as a photon can escape a BH's Gravity well, the Dark Energy Particle can escape the Universe's Gravity well, which makes me wonder if the Energy-Mass of the Big Bang was caused by a huge Boson hitting our universe with similar properties to the photon, Gravitational waves, or Dark Energy from another universe.

Which is where this leads you to Wormholes which is where this actually agrees with Super Polymath as whatever caused the Energy-Mass of the Big Bang was not from our universe and Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Where smaller Wormholes will lead back into our universe being directed by Weak Quantum entanglement like a magnet to the Spin opposite state.

The Larger of these two would require Strong entanglement to connect with the other universe or it could be vice versa, that is unknown, but I would imagine since Strong QE is faster than Weak QE that it would be this way due to the fact that distance in space would be nothing compared to distance in universes thus a greater velocity is required to reach them then itself in a different part of space, but also you could use the logic that it is the other way around because the distance is shorter between the universe and itself in another part of space so the connection would be faster versus a slower connection between two universes being more distant.

Where the Hyper-universe which our universe would be like a BH in must be close to Thermal death with a bunch of BH in it, like our BH Universe because those would be the only thing to survive toward the big rip, because physics says that our universe will just have a bunch of BH left in it when it is close to Thermal death if expansion continues, where that logic makes endless layers of universe inside of Bigger universe where that Hyper-Universe must be approaching thermal death, where its Hyper-Hyper-Universe must have ripped already or is really close in thermal death, where the Hyper-Hyper-Hyper-Universe has to have already ripped.

Where this looks to be a repeating pattern, but you will have to wait a long time to find out.

Then again it says that all Sub universes or BH would evaporate before that point, that were smaller than 10 Billion Solar masses, which our universe is definitely larger than 10 billion solar masses, so it may not have, so it is actually possible for a BH to survive past its Hyper-universe's Thermal death era into Big Rip or actual Thermal Death, if massive enough, which no doubt is rare. 

So, why did I go off on this tangent to see something about this, could a BH survive a Big Rip of its parent universe and the answer is yes, if massive enough meaning a huge R_s  which may be equivalent to R_u

Edited November 21, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

My idea has no wormhole bridging two portions of de sitter space. De sitter space=white hole, anti desitter space = black hole. Parallel universes (white holes) =/= the interaction of adjacent universes in which you refer

 

 

 

 

It's dynamic dark energy. What's pulling these bosonic adjacent parts of the universe through each other from a big rip into a big crunch are mother black holes shrinking rapidly in a near perfect vacuum after they've flung all matter away pushing these adjacent parts of u together.

 

Just like particle wave propagation

The universe acts the same at 1.6 x 10^-35 meters as it does at 18x13 billion light years & 1.6 x 10^-(35^35) meters because that's where the forces of gravity balance out to cause energy-mass to behave like a particle-wave

A white holes parallel universe could be a virtual particle that becomes a particle when our universe absorbs it, that would patch the vacuum catastrophe but it also adds new space time to our universe, which contributes to expansion & is a prime source of dark energy.

 

but a particle wave (entropied solid-state particle) could also be a source of zero point energy like those virtual particles.

 

Black holes don't spontaneously form or completely disappear as they evaporate. They everywhere because anti de sitter space is perpendicular to de sitter space, black holes are negative dimensions overlapping our positive dimension. Everything that has mass, even a wave in the particle wavelength, is filled with micro black holes. Matter doesn't go into macro black holes, only its micro black holes, the matter jets out with less micro black holes & therefore less mass in it. That's another source of dark energy entirely

Edited November 21, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[SuperPolymath]

 

2 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

1.6x10^-35 meters as it does at 18x13 billion light years & *1.6 x 10^-(35^35) meters *

*1.6x(10^-35^(1.6x10^35)) meters*

Edited November 21, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[SuperPolymath]

It's all one white hole, no charge particles can exist adjacent in the same plane without combining into 1

[SuperPolymath]

2 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

Nvmd

Edited November 22, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Vmedvil]

5 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

My idea has no wormhole bridging two portions of de sitter space. De sitter space=white hole, anti desitter space = black hole. Parallel universes (white holes) =/= the interaction of adjacent universes in which you refer

 

 

 

 

It's dynamic dark energy. What's pulling these bosonic adjacent parts of the universe through each other from a big rip into a big crunch are mother black holes shrinking rapidly in a near perfect vacuum after they've flung all matter away pushing these adjacent parts of u together.

 

Just like particle wave propagation

The universe acts the same at 1.6 x 10^-35 meters as it does at 18x13 billion light years & 1.6 x 10^-(35^35) meters because that's where the forces of gravity balance out to cause energy-mass to behave like a particle-wave

A white holes parallel universe could be a virtual particle that becomes a particle when our universe absorbs it, that would patch the vacuum catastrophe but it also adds new space time to our universe, which contributes to expansion & is a prime source of dark energy.

 

but a particle wave (entropied solid-state particle) could also be a source of zero point energy like those virtual particles.

 

Black holes don't spontaneously form or completely disappear as they evaporate. They everywhere because anti de sitter space is perpendicular to de sitter space, black holes are negative dimensions overlapping our positive dimension. Everything that has mass, even a wave in the particle wavelength, is filled with micro black holes. Matter doesn't go into macro black holes, only its micro black holes, the matter jets out with less micro black holes & therefore less mass in it. That's another source of dark energy entirely

Well, I am going to shelf this for now, this is starting to turn from Modern physics to speculation on both our parts though I agree, honestly there is no way to experimentally prove it wrong or right for like billions of years. This is something that could not be done on lab scale and would needs to be physically watched to know. We need to see a galaxy branch off from our universe into its own universe or another universe slam into ours.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

3 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, I am going to shelf this for now, this is starting to turn from Modern physics to speculation on both our parts though I agree, honestly there is no way to experimentally prove it wrong or right for like billions of years.

My ideas are probably ahead of their time. But they are not speculation, they just are the most direct answer to the holes in any mainstream model.

 

But the full brunt of my ideas were in the last post in the link of your OP. Which I don't think anyone read or is ever going to read. Oh well, maybe they'll figure out what I already wrote in 100 years or so.

[Vmedvil]

8 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

My ideas are probably ahead of their time. But they are not speculation, they just are the most direct answer to the holes in any mainstream model.

 

But the full brunt of my ideas were in the last post in the link of your OP. Which I don't think anyone read or is ever going to read. Oh well, maybe they'll figure out what I already wrote in 100 years or so.

Ya, but what I am pointing out is this is never going to pass the observation and experimentation test in the 2000s to 2100s, where White Holes have never been seen nor Universe Fusion or fission along with Universe Death Scenarios or even if QE happens on BH. We have stacked this on guesses of mainstream science which were guesses and assumed them correct where that still is just a guess it was based on.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Vmedvil