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

[SuperPolymath]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Trust me I have studied fractal geometry there is no danger in that happening

Actually it's fractal cosmology. Mandelbrot designed fractal geometry from the Julia sets to fix problems in electrical currents through country-wide cable grids 

[Mordred]

Yes I know and its chalk full of problems that you won't understand so would be a waste of time explaining to you

would you like me to list some of the more common paradoxes that arise from it? ie HdeV paradox?

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

The only problem I can tell is lax in regards to how complex nature really is. Just like how Max Born merely treated a symptom in this infinite condition of reality by assigning a wave of probability that completely avoids the issue of energy, reduced from matter, having it's own reduction. Einstein even set out for a steady state model, & after it all he still sat on action at a distance as bunk till the day he died. However more tedious, fractal cosmology is still a common resort for people with phds in particle physics 

Edited November 27, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Tell you what, let me know when you take the time to study the topic. Till then I have better things to do than try to teach someone unwilling to listen to what is actually involved in the theory. You don't even wish to properly understand the model your trying to push on others which is a complete waste of time.

[SuperPolymath]

Just now, Mordred said:

Tell you what, let me know when you take the time to study the topic. Till then I have better things to do than try to teach someone unwilling to listen to what is actually involved in the theory. You don't even wish to properly understand the model your trying to push on others which is a complete waste of time.

I'll tell you what, let me get prepared and I'll make a topic in speculations for model building but you have to be willing to delve into hardcore fractal cosmology while lecturing me on the basics

& by prepared I mean courses in the very particle physics which I hope to debunk. So I hope you'll still be here in a few years when I attempt to pick up where this left off. I'll be looking this over a lot so I don't forget where I want to challenge the standard model & quantum interpretation & everything old school that you stand for. 

[Mordred]

As long as your prepared to understand the mathematics gladly but keep in mind its far more involved than you may realize.

[SuperPolymath]

& I hope you turn that bachelor's into a PhD by then

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

As long as your prepared to understand the mathematics gladly but keep in mind its far more involved than you may realize.

Obviously it is but there's bigger things than you realize in regards to a microverse interpretation. It is a steady state, that white hole in which we reside, that black hole in anti de sitter space, that never goes away. It may shrink or grow infinitely, but it never goes. Like the proposed micro black holes at the center of each atom, as per my ideas they were broader than our cosmic event horizon at one point & will be again as per my theory. Do you understand?

[Mordred]

We will see if we can get you past the first chapter. Ie to understand the Hausddorff set itself. In particular the Haussdorf jump from infinity to zero

I myself will be using Kevin Falconers textbook of which I have a hardcopy of entitled Fractal geometry.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

29 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I myself will be using Kevin Falconers textbook of which I have a hardcopy of entitled Fractal geometry.

You do realize it's going to be a while before said topic is made, right?

You did read a couple posts ago what I'd need to start learning the basics for what I'm trying to show mathematically

But I've spent about a year on this conceptually, so it's not going to change. I don't know why youd be biased to the concepts I've expressed as opposed to the quantum interpretation based purely on a lack of mathematical acumen. The concepts are the same regardless of what is used to express them. Pictures, words, math

One can't PHYSICALLY test the concepts without math, but they can test it logically. I don't know why it hasn't gotten more embrace. It solves the antimatter problem, logically. Again it can't be physically tested because it can't be plugged into a set and modelled yet but you read the thread

You could test it physically with what you know already. It would just take a very long time

Edited November 27, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Probably because in order to understand any mathematical model requires understanding of the math. 

Fractal geometry is a mathematical topic. The importance is the math not the images.

The math is what generated those images not the other way around.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Probably because in order to understand any mathematical model requires understanding of the math. 

Fractal geometry is a mathematical topic. The importance is the math not the images.

Yes but by your reasoning it's not worth your investigation because I'm not spending time & money on it myself. But you know that, as far as speculative cosmology, it's golden. It just doesn't agree with the Planck length, therefore it doesn't agree with anything but literally the hardest math. But don't you think the right theory of everything would use the math you'd least want to do? Because you said "I've studied fractal geometry, and there's no danger of that [discrediting most of what's behind the standard model] happening" but you didn't even model it

Then Strange puts me in the negatives for daring to learn how model it myself. Lol, I should have let you mislead everyone, take an L, & stayed rep neutral.

Edited November 27, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

There is no danger as every model employs the various mathematical mehods. This includes fractal geometry in terms of developing symmetry relations.

It wont replace any model but instead gets implemented into other models. Study enough papers and you will see these metrics being employed in numerous applications and incorperated into other models. Not replacing them but integrated into them.

Primary example the Baker-Cambell Haussdorff is useful in QFT and is often included in QFT textbooks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff_formula

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

You seem to be under the misconception that the mathematics are more important than the concept. This is why physics hasn't yielded a single major advance since GR. Even string theory is a joke as far as what it's yielded, the fruits of it, compared to GR. 

I mean, what seems more conceptually sound to you?

A: that a subatomic particle, the smallest unit of measurement, is a small expanding universe just like ours because it seems to behave just like our universe as per particle wave duality. And that you can always find smaller objects in nature

B: that a subatomic particle has no smaller components, is the mystical building block of nature, & turns into pixy dust as a wave. & that objects cannot be smaller than a Planck length (these are OLD school, like Capernicus, philosophies still taught in today's world)

[Mordred]

No physics is the lanquage of mathematics. You are not talking physics without involving the math.

It is you that is under the misconception. The purpose of physics is to make predictions of interactions. You cannot do that without the mathematics. You aren't even discussing physics without the math

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No physics is the lanquage of mathematics. You are not talking physics without involving the math.

It is you that is under the misconception. The purpose of physics is to make predictions of interactions. You cannot do that without the mathematics.

Yes but if the model is built on a poor concept it won't be any good!

Einstein & Mandelbrot, & even Isaac Newton, were out of box thinkers before they were half way through learning the math.

25 minutes ago, Mordred said:

There is no danger as every model employs the various mathematical mehods. This includes fractal geometry in terms of developing symmetry relations.

It wont replace any model but instead gets implemented into other models. Study enough papers and you will see these metrics being employed in numerous applications and incorperated into other models. Not replacing them but integrated into them.

Primary example the Baker-Cambell Haussdorff is useful in QFT and is often included in QFT textbooks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff_formula

 

That's not what you said. You said "I can do everything with SO(10)" & then attempted to discredit fractal cosmology saying you've already been exposed to those articles I cited before as they were published after arguing about how much fractal geometry complicates things further than even SO groups do. Good! The right model will probably end up being the most difficult to solve, that's usually how things work.

Edited November 27, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

You claimed fractal geometry as a replacement but I showed it as being incorperated into SO(10) lie groups

[SuperPolymath]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You claimed fractal geometry as a replacement but I showed it as being incorperated into SO(10) lie groups

Never once did I claim that & you just now went back on what you said earlier with that link in your post before this. Which still looks to me not exactly the same as its heavy incorporation in the more recently dated links I shared specifically (which actually word for word say some the things I said in my thread before even seeing these articles without me even knowing the basics) (which means it's being incorporated more & more). No, I claimed that a non-steady state model, a big bang singularity, a limit in how far the scales reduce in natural interactions being that of a Planck length, & the quantum interpretation should all be discredited for the advance of science.

Edited November 27, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Maybe when you understand how that equation has been applied you might understand.  As it doesn't address any issue you just posted.

Nothing about fractal geometry will address the BB singularity. Nor does it address your complaint on the universe not being steady state.

 

5 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

There are other ways than what you're familiar with, ie field theory, string theory, etc that are better geared towards my potential microverse theory

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3866471/

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=72482

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0007224

For example where does that equation support microverses ? Is that a conception you got from seeing the smaller and smaller identical images ? so you figure this supports microverses?

Ie Tiny universes residing within our universe at below the Planck scale?

You will be disappointed to learn that equation is being applied to a particular type of sinusoidal waveform. One that has an extremley small period that gradually extends to larger periods between cycles along the x axis. 

Specifically a signal with an extremely short wavelength whose wavelength increases over time. Which can be applied to redshift.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

Yes but moreover the infinities used in measurements are greatest in fractal geometries, even more so than the SO(11) mentioned in the heterotic string theory that used toric geometry in another link I shared.

Furthermore, the second link refers to the particle wave as psuedo-energy, & does it in a way that implies that this notion is novel. Now a pseudo-energy is not a probability, & it is much closer to the diffusion of an expanding subatomic particle that my theory depicts as a literal micro universe going from the hot dense qg-plasma CMB-like state of a solid measurable subatomic particle into the micro galactic-stellar era of it's wave function beneath the minimum luminousity, or "pseudo-energy", that any tool on our cosmic scale could measure.

But mostly because fractal cosmology implores a thing which you probably aren't familiar with called scale relativity, it leads to special relativity beyond the speed of light due to fractions of the Planck length or fractions of Planck time, & I know you are familiar with the lorentz transformation.

This discredits action at a distance, replacing it with gravitational micro-waves (frame dragging) for QE (that is measured by fiber optics to be within 4 orders of magnitude greater than C) but it does away with the quantum interpretation (this notion that little act differently than big things) entirely because microverse interpretation implies that it's just scale relativity making subatomic particles in a vacuum act just like our universe does at a scale of 13 billion light years across. Or makes all of the pseudo-energy surrounding the proposed micro bh at the center of an atom act like a million of our universes would at a million billion light years if they were surrounding a black hole with an event horizon of over 10 billion light years across.

I'm getting exhausted but I'll keep going, the third link speaks of negative energy. & no not negative charge or negative spin. Literally reality inside out.

Remember my idea about a black hole being a perpendicular universe with negative dimensionality?

This goes back to what I said earlier-"fluctuations in the density medium of reality" (matter, energy, pseudo-energy, atoms,particles, waves, gravitons) are not particles. These fluctuations in the reality medium on all scales can't be some graviton, I say they are caused by distortions in spacetime that result in what we perceive as gravity - gravity is behind the 4 forces & comes from a negative spacetime trying to occupy our spacetime simultaneously. This is mathemically the simplest explanation possible, a universe that's entropy will vary in order to achieve an equilibrium with it's opposite 

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

 sinusoidal waveform.

It's still closer to my idea than what you were feeding vmedvil in this topic.

I need my idea modelled. Trust me, it will be a lot more "fractized" than whatever subordinate theory was behind article I could link to, that is, once someone has figured the math for its sets. Waaay more infinities.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

 One that has an extremley small period that gradually extends to larger periods between cycles along the x axis. 

Specifically a signal with an extremely short wavelength whose wavelength increases over time. Which can be applied to redshift.

Where entropy is greatest there will more complexity in a system. Ie, the vacuum will have more expansion, & thus will have the most anthropic microverses. But these fractal equations, regardless of their applications,  will look more like my theory, they are kind of at the verge of my ideas.

Edited November 27, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

You know I try the simplist explanations possible with you but you fail to understand a single word of it in the glory you figure your idea will solve.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.309.929%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ved=0ahUKEwiXwsv-td7XAhXojFQKHf88A88QFggiMAE&usg=AOvVaw34fzNnWF9rcgxD1zCw81j4

Do yourself a favor google the term fractal signal processing.  That is how fractals are applied in QFT and Cosmology applications.

 

then follow that up and google the term Gaussian signal processing.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

16 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You know I try the simplist explanations possible with you but you fail to understand a single word of it in the glory you figure your idea will solve

 

Well, maybe because sometimes you speak broken English. I understand everything but the bolded part. What do you mean by "in the glory my idea will solve"?

No, I understand that the links are using fractal analysis to get more accurate signaling than otherwise possible, but this "fractal analysis" is very literally defining a wave differently than the standard model does in order to do so, is it not? Why would you have to define a wave as a physical thing with curves & a contour in order to measure it. Perhaps the standard model is wrong? Perhaps now there's something better than a wave of probability? That's why, if I were you, I'd start trying to develop a new interpretation other than more of the same.

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Vmedvil]

33 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Well, maybe because sometimes you speak broken English. I understand everything but the bolded part. What do you mean by "in the glory my idea will solve"?

No, I understand that the links are using fractal analysis to get more accurate signaling than otherwise possible, but this "fractal analysis" is very literally defining a wave differently than the standard model does in order to do so, is it not? Why would you have to define a wave as a physical thing with curves & a contour in order to measure it. Perhaps the standard model is wrong? Perhaps now there's something better than a wave of probability? That's why, if I were you, I'd start trying to develop a new interpretation other than more of the same.

 

 

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Maybe when you understand how that equation has been applied you might understand.  As it doesn't address any issue you just posted.

Nothing about fractal geometry will address the BB singularity. Nor does it address your complaint on the universe not being steady state.

 

For example where does that equation support microverses ? Is that a conception you got from seeing the smaller and smaller identical images ? so you figure this supports microverses?

Ie Tiny universes residing within our universe at below the Planck scale?

You will be disappointed to learn that equation is being applied to a particular type of sinusoidal waveform. One that has an extremley small period that gradually extends to larger periods between cycles along the x axis. 

Specifically a signal with an extremely short wavelength whose wavelength increases over time. Which can be applied to redshift.

Guys, this is not a political debate this is science. You sound like two political parties fighting about global warming or something. 

Edited November 27, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Sometimes its an unfortunate necessity when one person is too far in denial of accepting any attempt to understand how the standard theories currently works.  That statement  also addresses the bolded part. You can't teach the standard model to someone that isn't willing to accept the teachings. 

 One of the reasons for understanding Gaussian noise and fractal signal processing is that not all datasets include nicely formed curves.

 When you take a collection of datapoints you end up with a series of seemingly random dots on an x,y graph. This is an example of Gaussian noise. So one has to find a way to curve fit those seemingly random dots in order to do a Fourier transformation and arrive at an equation.

 Or in another example the waveform isn't a nice and tidy sinusoidal signal but looks like a lot of various overlapping random signals that finding an equation to describe that waveform is seemingly impossible. This is where fractal geometry can be useful.

 Situations where the signal has numerous variations in either amplitude or wavelengths being another.  

 Try reading a signal in a superposition state of multiple overlapping signals that is constructively and destructively interfering with itself and isolate the overlapping individual signals.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Sometimes its an unfortunate necessity when one person is too far in denial of accepting any attempt to understand how the standard theories currently works.  That statement  also addresses the bolded part. You can't teach the standard model to someone that isn't willing to accept the teachings. 

 One of the reasons for understanding Gaussian noise and fractal signal processing is that not all datasets include nicely formed curves.

 When you take a collection of datapoints you end up with a series of seemingly random dots on an x,y graph. This is an example of Gaussian noise. So one has to find a way to curve fit those seemingly random dots in order to do a Fourier transformation and arrive at an equation.

 Or in another example the waveform isn't a nice and tidy sinusoidal signal but looks like a lot of various overlapping random signals that finding an equation to describe that waveform is seemingly impossible. This is where fractal geometry can be useful.

 Situations where the signal has numerous variations in either amplitude or wavelengths being another.  

 Try reading a signal in a superposition state of multiple overlapping signals that is constructively and destructively interfering with itself and isolate the overlapping individual signals.

Yes, You know I am just screwing with the two of you but seriously yes Mordred where you are like the second picture and Polymath is like the first in that 50 post debate.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Vmedvil

[SuperPolymath]

That's what the vacuum is, a soup of radiation from all different sources. It's amazing we can even receive signals probes way out in the edge of the solar system with all that interference. That's why there is no perfect vacuum & why most of the baryonic matter is in the vacuum radiation of great voids between galactic superclusters.

This isn't why I cited those links. Vmedvil was trying to make an invariant equation based on toric geometry & SU(n). I was showing something along the lines of what he'd need to use.

We're not just talking about distinguishing signals, we're talking about ftl communication using quantum entanglement. Obviously far beyond the standard model, especially since a lot of it is based on incorrect interpretations. 

Small things acting differently than our macroscopic world is an illusion, it could just be special relativity beyond the speed of light in sub Planck particles that compose "psuedo-energy", a concept adopted out of necessity in fractal analyses  happened helped with isolating individual signals. That simple understanding would need to use different math than anything you've been indoctrinated with, Mordred.