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

[Mordred]

Amazing enough even then. Though they may not read every post. You see that quite often in numerous replies where they quote a particular post but don't read the full thread.

[Vmedvil]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Amazing enough even then. Though they may not read every post. You see that quite often in numerous replies where they quote a particular post but don't read the full thread.

You have a point if this forum didn't have a >> button I bet they wouldn't read this far tho.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

lol yeah it is a bit of a lengthy thread with a lot of misdirection.

[Vmedvil]

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

lol yeah it is a bit of a lengthy thread with a lot of misdirection.

Yes and No everyone had their own thoughts about this subject, somewhere right, somewhere wrong like on the QM part ultimate it did actually for something like a Mandelbrot set.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

agreed, anyways hope your back on track as to how to approach the topic. Its a huge subject that is far more involved and interconnected than many realize. One of the most useful aids I found was learning how to simplify the larger group theories under U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) any orthogonal group regardless of how many dimensions can be reduced to those.

Ie the double cover of orthogonal groups

[Vmedvil]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

agreed, anyways hope your back on track as to how to approach the topic. Its a huge subject that is far more involved and interconnected than many realize. One of the most useful aids I found was learning how to simplify the larger group theories under U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) any orthogonal group regardless of how many dimensions can be reduced to those.

Ie the double cover of orthogonal groups

Ya, people give summations compared to Integrals little credit but when they help they really do, ya I had no idea how to bring SNF and WNF into the fold.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

I agree they can, any methodology has its appropriate applications and range of applications. Hence why its best to understand a vast majority of methods.

If your not adverse to buying a textbook pick up "Mathematical methods for Physicists" by Arfken.

https://www.amazon.ca/Mathematical-Methods-Physicists-Comprehensive-Guide/dp/0123846544

You will find this aid incredible as it is not specific to any theory but provides the tools to understand any

[Vmedvil]

16 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I agree they can, any methodology has its appropriate applications and range of applications. Hence why its best to understand a vast majority of methods.

If your not adverse to buying a textbook pick up "Mathematical methods for Physicists" by Arfken.

https://www.amazon.ca/Mathematical-Methods-Physicists-Comprehensive-Guide/dp/0123846544

You will find this aid incredible as it is not specific to any theory but provides the tools to understand any

Well, ya, I have to thank Hawking's book Universe in a nutshell when I got lost on one part. Chapter 2: The Shape of Time and Chapter 4: Predicting the Future. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

I always only buy textbooks that a full of the mathematical detail. Heuristic written books will always lead you down garden paths.

[SuperPolymath]

1 hour ago, Vmedvil said:

Yes and No everyone had their own thoughts about this subject, somewhere right, somewhere wrong like on the QM part ultimate it did actually for something like a Mandelbrot set.

I will misdirect you again too, because anyone working on a UFT should read  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30597-the-theory-of-everything/

The universes within universes depicted in that thread might seem too cartoonish and bizarre to be true, but that has to be how the universe works.

Theres a reason I keep linking that. QM needs to be radically altered, particles, waves fields, energy, matter, these are euphemisms for the density medium of reality as positive spacetime is distorted by a negative  spacetime trying to occupy the same infinite plane simultaneously. That's why your screwed up black hole shape a few pages ago looked like a logarithmic spiral. 

Scale relativity in an infinitely reducible universe with no Planck length/time/c barrier means that inside of a photon or around the electron orbiting an atom, is an expanding universe just like ours but a lot smaller & faster. That's why infinities always arise in quantum field theory. & that's just like in the mandelbrot set, as you zoom in the same structures, the same shapes, reemerge again & again ad infinitum. & that is so consistent with the fact that time is relative. It's infinitely relative. The scales are infinite.

Understanding that reality is like an onion with infinite layers is key to mastering a theory of everything. That and understanding that all forces ultimately come from the concept of yin & yang.

Edited November 26, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Polymath, you really shouldn't be giving advise on how physics works when you admit you don't understand the mathematics.

That is like taking advise on surgery from a Carpenter.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

that has to be how the universe works.

How can you possibly know that? And why should anyone believe it?

[SuperPolymath]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Polymath, you really shouldn't be giving advise on how physics works when you admit you don't understand the mathematics.

That is like taking advise on surgery from a Carpenter.

Math is yin & yang.

[Mordred]

No it is not. Math is a lanquage with precision. Attempting to push your personal ideas is also a very bad move. You would be much better off if you study the math involved under physics before trying to push your personal conjectures. All your doing is providing misdirection and distractions that will mislead other serious posters who wish to properly learn physics. Quite frankly you would be better off studying some of the mathematical detail I have been posting including those references.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

How can you possibly know that? And why should anyone believe it?

Why does physics get more complicated when you reduce the amount of what's being measured? Why do infinities always arise at the quantum level?

Just now, Mordred said:

No it is not. Math is a lanquage with precision. Attempting to push your personal ideas is also a very bad move. You would be much better off if you study the math involved under physics before trying to push your personal conjectures. All your doing is providing misdirection and distractions that will mislead other serious posters who wish to properly learn physics.

Because all you're doing is complicating the simple truth that every action has an equal reaction. & even when you complicate it you find that truth again & again.

[Mordred]

No I am teaching the proper method. Scalars, Vectors and spinors under symmetry...

Simple

That is what is involved in group theory and all that fancy notation Dubbelosix posted.

[SuperPolymath]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No I am teaching the proper method. Scalars, Vectors and spinors under symmetry...

Simple

Yes it's necessary, yes I applaud your efforts & agree with everything you've said. But I also think it's not a bad thing to keep certain logical concepts in mind, like that thread I keep linking. I also think that idea is something that's been known for centuries.

Edited November 26, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Which does no good unless you can apply the mathematics to all those images to show how to mathematically define and describe each image. Even under the Mandelbra sets. You have the mathematics that apply to simply the pixel coloration.

[SuperPolymath]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Which does no good unless you can apply the mathematics to all those images to show how to mathematically define and describe each image. Even under the Mandelbra sets. You have the mathematics that apply to simply the pixel coloration.

That's what I hope someone will do.

[Mordred]

Like I recommended earlier that will require you to open a separate thread to avoid forum rules violations on thread hijacking then I will gladly help you understand the Mandelbrot sets.

[SuperPolymath]

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Like I recommended earlier that will require you to open a separate thread to avoid forum rules violations on thread hijacking then I will gladly help you understand the Mandelbrot sets.

What good would that do? It would take you years to turn that into a full model, we're talking about applying a plethora complex equations such as the schwarzchild metric to those sets. & even if you did develop it into a theory that could presented to physics journal A, I wouldn't understand it.

[Mordred]

So you expect others to do your work for you? What good would that do? Your the one pushing this idea of yours yet expect others to do your work in producing a model using the Mandelbrot sets.

It doesn't work that way. I have my own research interests and models that I develop without any assistance from others. 

I have been working on Higgs field applications to the FRW metric for over 4 years now. Yet you expect to take the easy route?

[SuperPolymath]

41 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So you expect others to do your work for you? What good would that do? Your the one pushing this idea of yours yet expect others to do your work in producing a model using the Mandelbrot sets.

It doesn't work that way. I have my own research interests and models that I develop without any assistance from others. 

I have been working on Higgs field applications to the FRW metric for over 4 years now. Yet you expect to take the easy route?

You'd obviously get the credit though if you thought the idea was good enough to pursue. 

I understand that it's a house without a foundation, certain things said there would have to be changed, such as the 5 dimensions. You need to add the string theory dimensions of charge, flavor, etc. 

But that shouldn't take away from it looks like when it's built a foundation. I would do it myself if I had decades, but the microverse theory just makes sense, even without a foundation. See how many problems we're linked in that thread that it addressed, it even addressed the current issue you're dealing with regarding why there was so little negative spin in the first observable atoms all antimatter in the cmb which I touched on earlier. But all that would have to be added into that thread before I made a topic but I hope the thread ends up doing what I posted it to do & that is catch the interest of someone who can add that foundation

I've spent so much time on getting someone else to adopt some of the concepts knowing I'd never get credit for it because it would lead to innovations like ftl communication, stable fusion & nano replication of precious materials. I could buy a car for a dime & go into an avatar body in a real life version of the matrix

There is no rule of thumb amongst physicists to ignore every idea they're hit with simply because they come from a layman. Think about how many epiphanies in physics were the result of a road-sign, an advertisement, or the musings of a stoner buddy. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Why would I use Mandelbrot sets when the Symmetry groups themselves do a beautiful job all on their own. There literally isn't very many cosmology applications that I cannot define and describe via SO(10) it encompasses all the standard model of particles including the Higgs. This has nothing to do with ideas from laymen etc that is one of the most common cop out excuses we hear all the time on these forums.

In all honesty the only ideas that ever gain any form of advancement is when the mathematics is applied. No one including Einstein instantly developed a single equation. Those pop media eureka moments come after years of hard and diligent work.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, SuperPolymath said:

Why does physics get more complicated when you reduce the amount of what's being measured? Why do infinities always arise at the quantum level?

So there is no reason for anyone to take it seriously. It is just a fairy tale you have made up.