Non-unifying Geometrized Newton-Cartan Gravity

[Strange]

Can you clarify what you mean by ESP. It may be something I am not familiar with based on the context of your comments.

[inSe]

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Can you clarify what you mean by ESP. It may be something I am not familiar with based on the context of your comments.

Entangled state particle

[Strange]

1 hour ago, inSe said:

Because they were "able to address and read out every single quantum bit individually" which is the whole point behind why ESP signaling is thought to be impossible because it supposedly can't be read/measured out without changing the whole system effecting entangled states.

That isn't the reason. The reason is that there is no information transferred.

 

[inSe]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

That isn't the reason. The reason is that there is no information transferred.

 

Thats according to a certain interpretation. Over a dozen physicists attempted to contradict bells theorem in that regard in my OP. I'm working on mathematically disproving bells theorem for a return to Einstein's principle of locality under ops interpretation. A lot of that involves the sphere-like sub-planck scale particles in the geodesic I described in the previous page. The issue is computing power, the interpretation uses too many operations to construct the graphical branar geometry using those sphere-like granule coordinates.

So I need to learn how to condense that geometry in the previous page into a simplified equation that successfully falsifies Bell's theorem in regards to non-local particle states.

Edited April 26, 2018 by inSe

[inSe]

On 4/25/2018 at 11:47 AM, inSe said:

Good, you concede via omission that the dispersion of the clouds of ion gas was directly culminated by the redshift of the photon vacuum radiation. I know my astrophysics.

 

Back on topic:

So I'm thinking in order to turn my OP into a geodesic we take a koch snowflake, iterate it (600 billion light years over ten to the power of negative thirty five meters) times. Take each triangle and turn them into cones. Take the circles at the base of the cones and transform them into spheres. Turn half of the spheres inside out

now we have it so they make contact with a parallel inversed copy of this operation at the highest iteration & conduct a branar cancellation where outside in sphere meets inside out sphere. That's your coordinate system. Assuming space, time, matter & energy are apart of one continuum, cancelled by a negative continuum.

You would need to connect koch snowflakes first, do this for the inversed parallel operations:

Fold that into a sphere. This accounts for every 360 degree angle frame drag of the brane built from the original singular Koch snowflake representing a cosmos that we can only observe 1/45th of. You notice things only rotate in a phi fashion

These world sheets could be simulations run by matrioshka brains to find the real universe as it is for interstellar spook action signalling (because in this theory it is possible to tell how observing one particle will effect all entangled particles between, say, a star system in Andromeda & earth's). Which our satellites might pick up as intelligible transmissions that use Unified Field Oscillations.

However these Koch snowflake based world sheets are taken from the base of the cones of the triangles to find the circumference of the deleterious spheres of the granule coordinates, these Koch snowflakes would be based of an infinitely many different variations in angles of isosceles triangles, with each iteration being statistically randomized (50-50% chance) in deciding whether the next iteration will point the newly formed isosceles triangle inward or outward. Eventually you will get the real universe within the operations before the world sheets consume themselves.

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by inSe

[inSe]

On 4/25/2018 at 11:47 AM, inSe said:

Good, you concede via omission that the dispersion of the clouds of ion gas was directly culminated by the redshift of the photon vacuum radiation. I know my astrophysics.

 

Back on topic:

So I'm thinking in order to turn my OP into a geodesic we take a koch snowflake, iterate it (600 billion light years over ten to the power of negative thirty five meters) times. Take each triangle and turn them into cones. Take the circles at the base of the cones and transform them into spheres. Turn half of the spheres inside out

now we have it so they make contact with a parallel inversed copy of this operation at the highest iteration & conduct a branar cancellation where outside in sphere meets inside out sphere. That's your coordinate system. Assuming space, time, matter & energy are apart of one continuum, cancelled by a negative continuum.

You would need to connect koch snowflakes first, do this for the inversed parallel operations:

Fold that into a sphere. This accounts for every 360 degree angle frame drag of the brane built from the original singular Koch snowflake representing a cosmos that we can only observe 1/45th of. You notice things only rotate in a phi fashion

 

On 4/26/2018 at 6:48 PM, inSe said:

These world sheets could be simulations run by matrioshka brains to find the real universe as it is for interstellar spook action signalling (because in this theory it is possible to tell how observing one particle will effect all entangled particles between, say, a star system in Andromeda & earth's). Which our satellites might pick up as intelligible transmissions that use Unified Field Oscillations.

However these Koch snowflake based world sheets are taken from the base of the cones of the triangles to find the circumference of the deleterious spheres of the granule coordinates, these Koch snowflakes would be based of an infinitely many different variations in angles of isosceles triangles, with each iteration being statistically randomized (50-50% chance) in deciding whether the next iteration will point the newly formed isosceles triangle inward or outward. Eventually you will get the real universe within the operations before the world sheets consume themselves.

 

The granular coordinate system made from this geometric process forms a unified field, that is, an aether that waves through all particles. Unlike observable or experimentally measurable fields in mainstream affine gauge theories, this aether field coordinate system remains three dimensional beneath the Planck length where additional energy can be stored, masquerading as virtual particle states. This geometric process built upon iterations of a Koch snowflake can be graphed & carried out for an angstrom divided by a Planck length of iterations by exascale computers, or memristers if you don't wish to waste enormous amounts of energy on these micro world sheets. This aether field should produce particles whose trajectories match that of those randomly generated by any modern mainstream field theory only these will be sphere-like particles in which the aether waves, with this aether being a scattering of these particles mirroring the virtual particle state.

On 4/26/2018 at 1:14 PM, swansont said:

For some kinds of inelastic scattering, but you need to have a mechanism to add energy, because shorter wavelengths have more energy. For other types of scattering, the wavelength increases. And there's elastic scattering.

 

Tesla's model of gravity adds energy, as does other models of gravitational electromagnetism, and sonoluminousense. This one defines the underlying mechanisms.

On 4/6/2018 at 3:10 PM, inSe said:

Non-unifying Geometrized Newton-Cartan Gravity

 

The Fundamental Interactions
 

I hypothesize that the quantum eraser is the only fundamental interaction. This interaction is between two boundless and inverted branes that are perpendicular to one another.

 

Physicists seem to be thinking of Eigen values when I use the word "branes". This is geometrized Newton-Cartan gravity; vector calculus does not apply here. This is classical physics, not quantum mechanics. When I say brane I mean a conceivable geometric structure, three dimensions in the literal sense, not the metaphysics of some incomprehensible angle that forms a tesseract. View time as the second & a half dimension. A third dimension has time dilated to a stand still, but this fractal counterpart has time contracted as a dynamicalized version of that static temporal state. Time in this theory isn’t being thought of as a third dimension moving through the 4th dimension.

 

William James Sidis, in The Animate and The Inanimate he becomes the second savant to predict the existence of black holes after Einstein. His black hole was different than Einstein's, it was a shard of a reverse universe, existing perpendicular to our own.

That is the black hole in this theory, but this theory goes far more into speculative depth…

 

(The reverse dimensionality is simply a matter of perspective, the reverse areas of the brane in my thesis represent volume mediums with negative densities, and the only points in our universe that are truly invisible via microwave spectroscopy are black holes.

 

Whatever is visible in the microwave spectrum would be fundamentally composed of areas in the brane that represent positive density mediums. Six dimensions in this sense does not represent new angles that are beyond perception, they are just three positive plus three negative dimensional volumes. Contact between positive & negative density mediums leads to zero, equal nullification of both areas in an inversive brane.

 

This is the essence of gravitation, the original pull that begins the infinite pendulum of cosmic evolution. Also why the white holes wrap around black holes like a hollow sphere (and in ADS, the inside out of this brane, the black holes form a hollow sphere around the white holes & black is the new white), until the black hole dissolves the hollow spherical quasar around it & vice versa. *This process is why local increases in thermal density will eventually increase entropy locally as well.

 

[*That's how energy conservation is temporarily broken, that's why every antiproton becomes a proton & why there seems to be more matter than antimatter. It takes longer for fleeting energy to aggregate into matter than for matter to break apart into energy*])

               

…which leads to an equation that yields Einstein's tensor when accounting for frame dragging, because v(g) will equal c.

 

Yes, yes, "retrocausality" is a result of the "quantum eraser", but in this framework it isn't a "quantum mechanical" eraser, it's a fracturing & re-organizing of the third dimension in two inside out branes on infinitely, yet paradoxically finite, scales (because at some point an approximately measureable part of reality does get erased). If you want to out-think a computer, than you must be able to use paradoxes. Computers can't process a paradox, a human mind can.
 

Cantor & Zeno's infinitesimals are like pneumonic devices that I’ve used to see a larger mathematical picture here. A basis for concepts like scale relativity as a process in which mechanical structures like black holes can be found at every point in space.

 

λmax is the maximum amount of entropy that can occur in a given medium volume. What my thesis says is simply that the perfect three dimensions of the brane are chipped away when that maximum amount of available entropy is lower - this is time contraction. The reverse of it is time dilation. If time goes, space goes. If space goes, everything surrounding that space gets closer together because the space separating those spaces no longer exists, ergo gravity.

 

Electromagnetism and the strong & weak nuclear forces arise from the resulting fracture pattern in that part of the brane. If the brane gets fractured away at points located all around the observer in every which way, everything appears to be moving outward. Not so, gaps in reality are just being filled creating the illusion of expansion.

 

The speed of light in this theory will be relative, not constant, because my f(n) equation will yield a fraction, meaning that it will employ fractal geometry. As the addition of luminal velocities can become superluminal only in two dimensional spaces, it can also be superluminal within any dimension that's less than 3.

There's somewhere between 2 & 3 real physical dimensions any given point in space and time, so:

~|2x|+/-~|2x|=n; 6>n>4; & 2>x>1

f(n)=(λmax)•((4π/3)r^3)

c=c•x where f(x)=6/(n/(4π/3)^(1/3)) where n>6

c=c•x where f(x)=4/(n/(4π/3)^(1/3)) where 4>n

n=the speed of gravitational wave propagation

 

We're talking about potential interactions that are incredibly fast (involving a velocity that carries attractive or repulsive forces) & small (smaller than the spacetime foam). These events can barely be said to have even occurred in the first place. In this simple loophole we circumvent Bell’s inequality and we allow dark forces & unification to be made classical (non-QCD). The microscopic pilot wave is an aggregate of infinitesimal quantum eraser phenomena; gravity itself is a collection of these pilot waves.

Ex.)

How fast is the speed of light in a dense medium such as the heart of the sun?

C at the center of the sun (which is 160 billion times denser than the surface) is 0.00551512557 m/s (covering the sun's radius in 4,000 years spending the vast majority of that time in the core).

My equation gives the average speed of light throughout the entire sun in m/s:

I found lambda max for the sun online:
http://studylib.net/doc/18286845/hw-solution

Link says 504 nm, or 5.04 x 10^-7 meters

f(n)=(5.04 x 10^-7)(((4π/3)(*695,700,000)^3)

*Radius of the sun in meters

f(n)=7.1086177 x 10^20

c(f(n))=c•x where f(x)=6/(n/(4π/3)^(1/3)) where n>6

c(f(n))=299,792,458(6/(7.1086177e+20/(4π/3))^(1/3))

c(f(n))=325 m/s

The speed of light 13.5 billion years ago was around a million times slower due to ions. As evidenced by a cosmic event horizon that was only a few thousand light years as opposed to the current one which is 13 billion light years.

The entire universe was about as dense as the sun, so the speed of light during the CMB & my measurements on the average speed of light from the inner layers of the sun to the outer layers of the sun, are about the same.

For the average velocity to be in the hundreds of meters per second with a starting velocity in the hundredths of meters per second means that the speed of light would have to increase by 4 orders of magnitude when it escapes the inner layer of a star, & then from there light would increase by 6 orders of magnitude, back to normal speeds, as light escapes the outer layer of a star.

Regarding the universe's current density, on the very large scale, the illusion of gravity c(f(n)) is a few percents faster because the volume area is massive yet not very dense at all, lambda max is a high integer on that scale, all that free redshifted entropy. This is why expansion overcomes light on that scale.

Ex)

λmax of background radiation is 1.07 mm, a radius of superluminal galactic expansion is like distance between milky way & Andromeda, 2.5 million light years

f(n)=(0.00107)(((4pi/3)(2.3651826181452 x 10^22))^3)

f(n)=1.0405037 x 10^66

f(n)>6,

c(f(n))=(299,792,458)(6/((1.0405037 x 10^66)/(4pi/3))^(1/3))

c(f(n))=2.8614552 x 10^-13 m/s

This will be used as mathematical evidence for dark energy as the result of superluminal gravity waves from beyond the known universe later.

On the very small, the width of a hydrogen atom within the pseudo energies of the sinusoidal waveform of a photon in the virtual blueshift of Earth's atmosphere, lambda max is equally miniscule, so faster than light. We see this phenomenon in neutrinos, cherenkov radiation & entangled particles.

Ex)

λmax of chloranil radical anion = 450 nm. Elements such as these would have a radius of about 79 picometers.

f(n)=(4.5 x 10^-7)(((4pi/3)(7.9 x 10^-11)^3)

f(n)=9.2935662 x 10^-37

Recall;

c(f(n))=c•x, f(x)=4/(n/(4pi/3)^3) where 4>n

c(f(n))=299,792,458(4/(9.2935662e-37/(4π/3)^(1/3))

c(f(n))=2.0799896 x 10^45 m/s

So it would require very faint gravity to overcome the speed of light within that range at that low level of thermodynamic conductivity. This is where we come into pilot g waves (micro expansion), which carry cherenkov radiation, neutrinos, & which also entangle particles (atomic nuclei) at that level. According to fiber optic measurements, c(f(n)) for these faint pilot waves would have to be 2.0799896 x 10^-49 m/s in order to overcome gravity & entangle particles at that range. So how is QE possible? It's the atomic oscillation frequency, the collection of particles phasing in & out of virtual states to create a hologram that acts like solid matter. In the virtual states, expansion occurs, & everything exists in a virtual state for the longest duration (longer than when it's "there"). In virtual states, you're left with a collection of micro vacuums in which this pilot wave of the components of gravity (gravitons) can surf the expansion of those microvacuums superluminally linking everything together in one big wave function (pilot wave liken to the as-of-yet unproven higgs field). This will be covered in depth later.

 

The Cosmology
 

Let's talk about the oldest observable light:

http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/45/i_screenimage_18245.jpg

This was a primordial cloud of gas & cosmic dust. It was heavy in most places, tremendously so. Everything was so compact that it was causing interference patterns in photons, enough so that they travel slower. Hopefully it was the result of Ion interference, because if not that would mean light has mass. ;-)

There's no proof that the universe was ever denser than it was then. There’s no physical proof of zero time, and there’s no physical proof of a big bang. Since the early 1990s it's been well-documented that there exists mass beyond the CMB; dark flow. Now there's more evidence than ever, cosmic bruising, the Bootes Void, etc. The source of these mass disturbances in the cosmos may be more of the universe from beyond the cosmic event horizon emitting Unruh radiation in the form of gravitational waves, that part of the universe would now be over 600 billion light years away.

 
Gravity is not a static field; Newtonian expansion shows that frame dragging is a constant. GWs propagate at the speed of light (demonstrated by LIGO in 2017), so GW expansion (given it's the same as the current rate of expansion) involves the addition of luminal velocities for scale relativity: there could be superluminal GWs! Consider for a moment that if adjacent bodies are in a later state of expansion than the fully expanded CMB is now, than just as the current speed of light is faster than it was 13 billion years ago, the speed of GWs propagating from those ultra-low density, ludicrously wide bodies could be faster than anything you could imagine due to scale relativity, time becomes triply relative, quadruply relative, ad infinitum, to us.

The fastest GWs have traveled the farthest to get here and have therefore lost the most strength. This gravitation doesn't have to be able to overcome mass to cause the expansion of the universe. This is because of the holographic principle, but we'll get to that later.

Extra-cosmic gravitation would be unobservable, because we're closer to the stronger sources, & further from the weaker sources, yet the thing stretching the vacuum of space out is the amount by which the stronger gravity is winning the tug of war against the weaker gravity. Picturing that is like picturing a frame-dragging observer himself being frame-dragged from a 360 degree angle; it’s like three separate Rindler effects occurring simultaneously.

From this picture we can derive equations in order to define the effects that this extra-cosmic gravitation will have on our cosmos:

The stronger GWs win the tug of war over the weaker GWs, so we can attribute 68% of missing mass to their effects as they travel 27% of the length of total GWs involved in expansion, losing less strength as they get here at the same time as the GWs we attribute to 27% of the missing mass pulling from the opposite direction having traveled 68% of the length of total GWs involved in expansion.

Recall earlier that the velocity of light dilates by 299792458/2.8614552e-13 over 2.5 million light years. Therefore, the speed of light is only viable over a distance of 2500000(9.461e+15)/1.0476923e+21=22.5758078016 meters in a near perfect vacuum (lambda max of the vacuum)

Length of strong GWs (where v(g)=c) = 22.5758078016 x 299792458 = 6768056912.18 meters

Total Length of GWs = length of the strong GWs/.05 = 135361138244 meters

Length of left weak GWs = length of GWs x .27 = 36547507325.9 meters

length of right weak GWs = length of GWs x .68 = 92045574005.9 meters

Velocity of left weak gravitational waves = length of left weak GWs/length of strong GWs times the speed of light = 1618879273.21 m/s

Velocity of right weak gravitational waves = length of right weak GWs/length of strong GWs times the speed of light = 4077177428.81 m/s

Velocity of right weak GWs/velocity of left weak GWs = rate of expansion in a vacuum over total length of GWs = 2.51851851851 m/s

Now the speed of light over the total length of GWs is found in the same way we found the speed of light over the length of 2.5 million light years:

λmax of background radiation is 1.07 mm, the radius for total length of GWs = 135361138244/2 meters

f(n)=(0.00107)(((4pi/3)(67680569122))^3)

f(n)=12.4380444e+31

f(n)>6,

c(f(n))=(299,792,458)(6/((2.4380444e+31)/(4pi/3))^(1/3))

c(f(n))=0.09999714934 meters

Now we can find the velocity increases of c for every 22.5758078016 meter increase in the length of the GW with rate of expansion for total length of GWs = 2.51851851851 / the speed of light over total length of GWs = 0.09999714934 = +25.1859031496 m/s per 22.5758078016 meters.


Let’s see if that checks out, 2500000(9.461e+15) = 2.36525e+22 meters. 2.36525e+22/22.5758078016=1.0476923e+21 m/s. 299,792,458 + 25.1859031496(1.0476923e+21) = 2.6387077e+22 meters ✓s within approximation. 

C dilates by 2.8614552e-13 over that same distance, 299,792,458/1.0476923e+21 = 2.8614552e-13 ✓
Okay moving on.

In this theory the universe has no outer boundary limit. So eventually matter arrangements will repeat within larger & smaller structures. Black hole evaporation will be used to find a higher & lower cosmic scales using the proton’s frequency rate of one billion times per second, the size of a proton is 10⁻¹⁵ m and the Schwarzchild radius of its central black hole will give you the rate at which black evaporates.

The Schwarzchild radius is 2.484e-54 meters (just type proton into where it says earth). The rate of evaporation is 8.41e-17 seconds (just type proton into where it says earth). That’s just the vanishing rate of the proton; oscillation frequency is more for how long it would take for another proton to form plus the time it took to evaporate. Protons form at a rate of 1e-9 - 8.41e-17 = 9.9999992e-10 seconds. Now that’s enough information to use in order to finally acquire enough evidence to either confirm or deny my hypothesis.


But protons do not have λmax of a vacuum, that’s the problem, so for a proton we must use the original equation f(n)=(λmax)•((4π/3)r^3);c=c•x where f(x)=4/(n/(4π/3)^(1/3)) where 4>n to find the contraction of c with the λmax of a proton ≈ 395 nm. However, in the special case of black holes the equation must be modified. 

First of all, it’s 4πr^2 because the quasar within the Schwarzschild radius of the proton is a hollow sphere. Secondly, λmax of the proton’s quasar is the proton’s normal λmax but to the negative power of the proton’s length divided by twice the Schwarzschild radius

f(n)=(3.95e-7^-(1e-15/2(2.484e-54)))((4π)(2.484e-54)^2)=7.753772e-107

c(f(n))=4/(7.753772e-107/(4π))^(1/2) = 1.610306e+54 m/s

So a black hole with the mass of the sun (1391400000 meters) has a Schwarzschild radius of 2953 meters & will evaporate in 6.61e+74 seconds.

f(n)=(5.04e-7^-1(1.3914e+9/5906)) x ((4π x 2953)^3) = 2.3886249e+25 m/s

c(f(n))=6/(4π(2.3886249e+25^(1/2))=9.7693891e-14 m/s

1.610306e+54/299,792,458/9.7693891e-14=5.4981971e+58

5.4981971e+58/8.41e-17=6.5376898e+74 seconds ✓

Ladies & gentlemen we have ourselves a theory.

Further investigations

 

Assuming that the electron/positron is a nanoscopic primordial CMB cloud (& it acts like one); we use its oscillation frequency to find the moment of the big crunch in our universe (which is basically caused by overlapped radiation from dissolving galaxies being sprayed by the matter jets (the magnetic dipole moments) or the outflows of its accretion disk (magnetic monopole moments) of a superverse proton) by using the dilation of c equation to find the adjustment to our relative time-frame for that frequency:

The electron most likely has a radius of 10^-12 m, & λmax of about 4e-7 m (visible spectrum is where electrons like to hide).

f(n)=(4e-7)(4π/3(1e-12)^3)=1.6755161e-42

c(f(n))=4/(1.6755161e-42/(12π^(1/3)))=4.1957466e+43 m/s

The CMB had a radius of 6.9 billion light years, or 6.52809e+28 meters, & λmax of about 1,000 nm.

f(n)=(1e-6)(4π/3(6.52809e+28)^3)=1.1653249e+81

c(f(n))=6/(12π(1.1653249e+81)^(1/3))=1.5124155e-28 m/s

4.1957466e+43/1.5124155e-28=2.7742023e+71 seconds

Or 8.7958221e+60 years, the few SMBHs caught in the big crunch will only be less than half-evaporated, so this can't be right! Grrr
So, we use the time contraction of c equation to find a much larger planck length to see how many electrons fit into a super electron, this will give us a new size for the CMB, so that this process can be redone for a more accurate date for the big crunch.

Okay, there's 6.52809e+28 meters in the radius of the CMB, using (4π/3(1e-12)^3), you can fit 1.165325e+123 electrons into the electrons of the next cosmic scale. Let's see if my math confirms that number using super lp:

2.7742023e+71/299,792,458/6.58e-15=1.4063439e+77 m/s. Planck length over planck time equals 296846011.132 m/s.

 

1.4063439e+77/296846011.132=4.737621e+68 m/s as your new planck length over planck time. 296846011.132 x 5.39e-44 equals lp, so super lp equals

 

1.4063439e+77 x 5.39e-44 = 7.5801936e+33 meters. 7.5801936e+33/4.737621e+68=1.6e-35, which is the planck length (lp). There's 3.125e+22 planck lengths in the length of an electron.

 

7.5801936e+33 x 3.125e+22 = 2.3688105e+56 meters for the superverse electron. Does not confirm, the CMB should be 2.3688105e+56/2=1.1844052e+56, 1.1844052e+56/6.52809e+28=1.8143212e+27 times larger than what we can see. We can't see so much of the CMB for the same reason we can't see forever into the past, it's from a combination of redshift & the fact that the ion interference makes light fade into oblivion eons before it gets near us. For our next dilation of c equation:

f(n)=(1e-6)(4π/3(1.1844052e+56)^3)=6.959684e+162 cubic meters

c(f(n))=6/(12π(6.959684e+162)^(1/3))=8.3359856e-56 m/s

4.1957466e+43/8.3359856e-56=5.033294e+98 seconds, which is 1.5958446e+88 years. Which fits for the evaporation rate for most supermassive black holes (<100 million solar masses). But the few that are the largest in the universe, such as this one, they may grow to become superverse protons during a second or third cosmic life cycle. In the microverse, proton formation could bind cosmic rays, allowing them to exist in the long treks through the expanding vacuum of space. This also explains dark matter from a microverse's perspective. Exceptionally large SMBHs that were too large to evaporate in the previous cosmic life cycle may be the origin of this primordial SMBH. It could also explain this galaxy, which seems to lack a central black hole as well as dark matter. I'm very aware of the evaporation rate it was crucial in moving my did hypothesis to theory, but in cyclic models if one survives a big crunch it will have already undergone quite a bit of evaporation. Enough so to bind a galaxy with low mass per unit volume in it's dying troughs of life. I believe that there absolutely was a maximum solar mass BH at it's inactive center when it's photograph was taken. But being beneath the minimum for a supermassive black hole, we wouldn't have been attempting to spot anything beneath that minimum which would require much more sensitive observations.

Now, on the note of micro black holes, the only reason a solar mass black hole could bind a galaxy would be because it was lacking dark matter, those overgrown protons that are in most other galaxies. Plus, second cosmic life cycle die hard SMBHs heat up when they get blasted at the birth of a new universe (in a cyclic cosmology of course). 

These protons are really just giant black holes in the microverse. The electromagnetic polar jets of radiation of the primordial CMB would be the polarity of a giant electron. The neutron is a monster of a neutron star in the microverse. Relatively nearby is the proton, if you're an observer within the microverse it's a quasar unlike anything you could imagine in power-scale, a gazillion times larger than that behemoth within the core of the IC 1101 galaxy (which is by far the largest SMBH we know about at 4e+10 to 10e+10 solar masses). The giant proton-quasar feeds the neutron, this kronos of a pulsar. Well, normally the pulsar feeds the quasar since the BH possesses a greater density of "mass", but most cases the proton is positively charged as opposed to the anti-proton.

For most of its life, the anti/proton's quasar material is attracted to the neutron/micro-pulsar. Now, however, please note all neutron-proton nuclei begin their life-cycles with the proton actually being a negatively charged anti-proton in this Theory - but their life cycles end with the it being a normal positively charged proton feeding the neutron with matter emanating from the single down quark of the proton to the single up quark of the neutron before the cycle repeats with the reverse of that: with the neutron feeding the proton.

This means that its down quarks are a holographic compilation of magnetic dipole moments, the up quark is a hologram composed of a collection of briefer magnetic monopole moments - & vice versa for protons. Virtual particles aren't really what we think they are. Between negatively charged states, micro-expansion takes over, because positively charged protons are dispersing thermal picoscopic gasses, fleeting from evaporated black holes, & it takes a lot more time for new protons to form than to evaporate as shown during the oscillation frequency. This solves the antimatter problem.

https://i.imgur.com/YZFSQIy.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ZWp0Ehz.jpg

This is much more versatile than QM, it works in explaining virtually any quantum effect. For instance, let's use the quantum venn diagram paradox;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs&t=25s

https://i.imgur.com/VxO1oaS.jpg

The non-virtual photons adopt new polarities as they expand, aka wave, through the vacuum mediums of the quantum sub-foam microverse. More polarizing filters=greater variety of polarities.

Quark-gluon plasma is the absolute densest state matter can take. We see it in the cores of neutron stars, discs of quasars as matter is folded upon itself by compressing spacetime (gravity/mass/dark matter) around macro black holes, & in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

But in this hypothesis it's more like a black star in a fully classical, not just semiclassical, framework of gravity.

Any denser, & matter is just a macro black hole as there's no space between micro black holes. It's composed of micro quasars with micro black holes at their cores, barely held apart by micro expansion. Unlike vacuum radiation & the atomic world, these microverses are non-anthropic (no stellar eras) because less entropy equates to less complexity. Quark-gluon plasma is the only state of matter composed entirely of microverses that are exclusively the same as itself. Atoms & vacuum radiation will have microverses with atoms, quark-gluon plasma & vacuum radiation within them, quark-gluon plasma is only composed of microverses that are entirely filled with quark-gluon plasma.

 

I want to look at how particles of different kinds might be entangled in this theory: Forward moving gravitational waves in front of relativistic particles yank particles with perpendicular trajectories at intersection points, this allows particles to communicate faster than the speed of light. It's like an array of electrons through the 16,000 meter copper wire continuously getting T-boned by the G waves of other electrons, synchronizing their spins.

 

Now this theory isn't in the normal form you'd see with it's lambdamax 4/3pi r cubed, but math is math & there's some debate as to whether the form of math we're accustomed is even real. In reality math is just the yin yang pattern of nature so my form's as good or real or accurate as any.

 

Earlier we determined that 

 

Quote

 

 

The CMB had a radius of 6.9 billion light years, or 6.52809e+28 meters, & λmax of about 1,000 nm.

f(n)=(1e-6)(4π/3(6.52809e+28)^3)=1.1653249e+81

c(f(n))=6/(12π(1.1653249e+81)^(1/3))=1.5124155e-28 m/s

 

However, we also determined that our observations o the CMB gave us only part of the picture

 

Quote

 

7.5801936e+33 x 3.125e+22 = 2.3688105e+56 meters for the superverse electron. Does not confirm, the CMB should be 2.3688105e+56/2=1.1844052e+56, 1.1844052e+56/6.52809e+28=1.8143212e+27 times larger than what we can see. We can't see so much of the CMB for the same reason we can't see forever into the past, it's from a combination of redshift & the fact that the ion interference makes light fade into oblivion eons before it gets near us. For our next dilation of c equation:

f(n)=(1e-6)(4π/3(1.1844052e+56)^3)=6.959684e+162 cubic meters

c(f(n))=6/(12π(6.959684e+162)^(1/3))=8.3359856e-56 m/s

 

So this superverse electron is 1.8143212e+27 x 13.8 billion light years. It's therefore 2.5037633e+37 light years in diameter, with a radius of 1.1844052e+53 meters.  So our dilation of c equation becomes 

 

f(n)=(1e-6)(4π/3(1.1844052e+53)^3)=6.959684e+153

 

c(f(n))=6/(12π(6.959684e+153)^(1/3))=8.3359856e-53 m/s

 

So, not only is the CMB expanding, not only is it a giant electron, not only is it spun by outside gravitational forces, but it also is going in one direction with a velocity, the gravitational waves propagating at the speed in which it's moving plus the speed at which gws propagate at a length of 2.3688104e+53 meters. We can determine from all of this the velocity at which particles become entangled in the superverse, & from that we can determine the velocity in which they become entangled in the subverse (sub-atomic world). 

 

The electron travels at 2,200 kilometers per second, Since the speed of light for a superversal electron is going to be 136.269299091 times faster than the speed of that electron, all we need is the relative speed of light for that portion of a superverse, which can be found using the length of GWs for the superverse electron (2.3688104e+53 meters) which we find by multiplying the speed of light by the length of c's gws which we actually determined earlier:

 

Quote

 

 

Recall earlier that the velocity of light dilates by 299792458/2.8614552e-13 over 2.5 million light years. Therefore, the speed of light is only viable over a distance of 2500000(9.461e+15)/1.0476923e+21=22.5758078016 meters in a near perfect vacuum (lambda max of the vacuum)

Length of strong GWs (where v(g)=c) = 22.5758078016 x 299792458 = 6768056912.18 meters

 

 

299792458(2.3688104e+53/6768056912.18)=1.0492694e+52 m/s. Now wait, that's not actually the speed of light in the superverse, but it is the speed of gravity waves for the superverse electron, which will be added to Super C/136.269299091 in order to find the rate at which electrons entangle other particles in the superverse. Earlier we found super tp & super lp, which can be used to find super c:

 

Quote

 

Okay, there's 6.52809e+28 meters in the radius of the CMB, using (4π/3(1e-12)^3), you can fit 1.165325e+123 electrons into the electrons of the next cosmic scale. Let's see if my math confirms that number using super lp:

2.7742023e+71/299,792,458/6.58e-15=1.4063439e+77 m/s. Planck length over planck time equals 296846011.132 m/s.

 

1.4063439e+77/296846011.132=4.737621e+68 m/s as your new planck length over planck time. 296846011.132 x 5.39e-44 equals lp, so super lp equals

 

1.4063439e+77 x 5.39e-44 = 7.5801936e+33 meters. 7.5801936e+33/4.737621e+68=1.6e-35, which is the planck length (lp).

 

lp:  7.5801936e+33 meters

 

tp:  7.5801936e+33/296846011.132  = 2.5535777e+25 seconds

 

To find super c we do (2.5535777e+25/5.39e-44)(7.5801936e+33/1.6e-35)/299792458=7.486864e+128 m/s (which can actually be used to find the size of structures in the super super verse because the length of this GW on the super verse scale equals the 6768056912.18 meters in which luminal GWs begin to propagate on our scale). 

 

Okay so the superverse electron travels at 7.486864e+128/136.269299091=5.494168e+126 m/s, on one side, depending on what direction it's going, the GWs of the forward direction entangles particles directly in front at a velocity of 1.0492694e+52 (velocity of gws for superverse electron) + 5.494168e+126 (the speed of the electron). But remember that as you chain link more particles via entanglement, there's a dilation of entangled velocities just like with the speed of light being dependent on the length of the GWs.

 

Recall earlier c(f(n)) for an electron was found to be 

 

Quote

 

 

The electron most likely has a radius of 10^-12 m, & λmax of about 4e-7 m (visible spectrum is where electrons like to hide).

f(n)=(4e-7)(4π/3(1e-12)^3)=1.6755161e-42

c(f(n))=4/(1.6755161e-42/(12π^(1/3)))=4.1957466e+43 m/s

 

4.1957466e+43, but remember we'd have to divide this velocity by the length of the electron times the speed of light to account for the contraction of time. 4.1957466e+43/(1e-12 x 299792458)=1.3995504e+47 m/s

 

The larger the distance being covered, the slower QE's velocity will be relative to the speed of light. Let's measure QE for a 16km copper wire;

 

V(sa)=299792458 + ((1.3995504e+47 x .136269299091)/(8.5e+28 x 16000))

 

V(sa)=1.4023517e+13 m/s. Over 46,777 times faster over a 16 kilometer distance according to my approximation, but exactly 13,800 times faster according to the measurements.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

empty space ought not be really empty. We have two good reasons to think so: first, electromagnetic signals behave undoubtedly as waves; since they propagate even through intergalactic space, there must be some thing there (everywhere), in which they do wave. Second, quantum theory predicts that vacuum has physical effects, such as the Casimir effect, which is now experimentally confirmed [1].

"Einstein had difficulties with the relativistic invariance of quantum mechanics (“does
the spooky information transmitted by these particles go faster than light?”). These,
however, are now seen as technical difficulties that have been resolved. It may be consid-
ered part of Copenhagen’s Doctrine, that the transmission of information over a distance
can only take place, if we can identify operators A at space-time point x1 and operators
B at space-time point x2 that do not commute: [A, B] 6= 0 . We now understand that, in
elementary particle theory, all space-like separated observables mutually commute, which
precludes any signalling faster than light. It is a built-in feature of the Standard Model,
to which it actually owes much of its success.
So, with the technical difficulties out of the way, we are left with the more essential
Einsteinian objections against the Copenhagen doctrine for quantum mechanics: it is a
probabilistic theory that does not tell us what actually is going on. It is sometimes even
suggested that we have to put our “classical” sense of logic on hold. Others deny that:
“Keep remembering what you should never ask, while reshaping your sense of logic, and
everything will be fine.” According to the present author, the Einstein-Bohr debate is not
over. A theory must be found that does not force us to redefine any aspect of classical,
logical reasoning.
What Einstein and Bohr did seem to agree about is the importance of the role of an
observer. Indeed, this was the important lesson learned in the 20th century: if something
cannot be observed, it may not be a well-defined concept – it may even not exist at all. We
have to limit ourselves to observable features of a theory. It is an important ingredient
of our present work that we propose to part from this doctrine, at least to some extent:
Things that are not directly observable may still exist and as such play a decisive role
in the observable properties of an object. They may also help us to construct realistic
models of the world.
Indeed, there are big problems with the dictum that everything we talk about must be
observable. While observing microscopic objects, an observer may disturb them, even in
a classical theory; moreover, in gravity theories, observers may carry gravitational fields
that disturb the system they are looking at, so we cannot afford to make an observer
infinitely heavy (carrying large bags full of “data”, whose sheer weight gravitationally
disturbs the environment), but also not infinitely light (light particles do not transmit
large amounts of data at all), while, if the mass of an observer would be “somewhere in between”, ."

More evidence:

The situation is somewhat different when we consider gravity and promote the Lorentz violating tensors to dynamical objects. For example in an aether theory, where Lorentz violation is described by a timelike four vector, the four vector can twist in such a way that local superluminal propagation can lead to energy-momentum flowing around closed paths [206]. However, even classical general relativity admits solutions with closed time like curves, so it is not clear that the situation is any worse with Lorentz violation. Furthermore, note that in models where Lorentz violation is given by coupling matter fields to a non-zero, timelike gradient of a scalar field, the scalar field also acts as a time function on the spacetime. In such a case, the spacetime must be stably causal (c.f. [272]) and there are no closed timelike curves. This property also holds in Lorentz violating models with vectors if the vector in a particular solution can be written as a non-vanishing gradient of a scalar. Finally, we mention that in fact many approaches to quantum gravity actually predict a failure of causality based on a background metric [121] as in quantum gravity the notion of a spacetime event is not necessarily well-defined [239]. A concrete realization of this possibility is provided in Bose-Einstein condensate analogs of black holes [40]. Here the low energy phonon excitations obey Lorentz invariance and microcausality [270]. However, as one approaches a certain length scale (the healing length of the condensate) the background metric description breaks down and the low energy notion of microcausality no longer holds.

----

In the Bohmian view, nonlocality is even more conspicuous. The trajectory of any one particle depends on what all the other particles described by the same wave function are doing. And, critically, the wave function has no geographic limits; it might, in principle, span the entire universe. Which means that the universe is weirdly interdependent, even across vast stretches of space.

----

The hole is quantum-mechanically unstable: It has no bound states. Wormhole wave functions must eventually leak to large radii. This suggests that stability considerations along these lines may place strong constraints on the nature and even the existence of spacetime foam.

----

In invariant set theory, the form of the Bell Inequality whose violation would be inconsistent with realism and local causality is undefined, and the form of the inequality that it violated experimentally is not even gp-approximately close to the form needed to rule out local realism (54) [21]. A key element in demonstrating this result derives from the fact that experimenters cannot in principle shield their apparatuses from the uncontrollable ubiquitous gravitational waves that fill space-time.

----

A finite non-classical framework for physical theory is described which challenges the conclusion that the Bell Inequality has been shown to have been violated experimentally, even approximately. This framework postulates the universe as a deterministic locally causal system evolving on a measure-zero fractal-like geometry IU in cosmological state space. Consistent with the assumed primacy of IU , and p-adic number theory, a non-Euclidean (and hence non-classical) metric gp is defined on cosmological state space, where p is a large but finite Pythagorean prime. Using numbertheoretic properties of spherical triangles, the inequalities violated experimentally are shown to be gp-distant from the CHSH inequality, whose violation would rule out local realism. This result fails in the singular limit p = ∞, at which gp is Euclidean. Broader implications are discussed.

----

This optical pumping scenario is implicitly based on the erroneous quantum mechanical “myth” that quantum “jumps” are instantaneous. In reality transitions between atomic levels take very, very long times, about 10 million times longer than the oscillating period of the electromagnetic radiation that drives the excitation.

 

 

A photon isn’t even a point particle in this theory, it’s a bunch of tiny galaxy clusters tugging each. A neutrino is like a decaying neutron star that is a few trillion light years in diameter.

Replace the words time dilation with time contraction, and vice versa. The speed of light slows by the rate at which time contracts, and speeds up by the at which it dilates ratrate

[koti]

41 minutes ago, inSe said:

How fast is the speed of light in a dense medium such as the heart of the sun?

C at the center of the sun (which is 160 billion times denser than the surface) is 0.00551512557 m/s (covering the sun's radius in 4,000 years spending the vast majority of that time in the core).

Looks like we have yet another Nobel in physics contender, so many of those on the forum. Its c by the way not C, and its invariant regardless of medium.

[Strange]

57 minutes ago, inSe said:

How fast is the speed of light in a dense medium such as the heart of the sun?

C at the center of the sun (which is 160 billion times denser than the surface) is 0.00551512557 m/s (covering the sun's radius in 4,000 years spending the vast majority of that time in the core).

Nope. The speed of light inside the Sun is exactly the same as outside. 

Light takes thousands of years to emerge from the Sun even though it is travelling at c. Perhaps you can work out why?

I imagine your text is full of many more such errors but ... tl;dr. It isn't worth it.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Strange

[koti]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nope. The speed of light inside the Sun is exactly the same as outside. 

Light takes thousands of years to emerge from the Sun even though it is travelling at c. Perhaps you can work out why?

There is a decent explanation here.

Edited May 7, 2018 by koti

[inSe]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Nope. The speed of light inside the Sun is exactly the same as outside. 

Light takes thousands of years to emerge from the Sun even though it is travelling at c. Perhaps you can work out why?

I imagine your text is full of many more such errors but ... tl;dr. It isn't worth it.

That's exactly what I just said. Because of the effects of time dilation they're the same.

1 hour ago, koti said:

Looks like we have yet another Nobel in physics contender, so many of those on the forum. Its c by the way not C, and its invariant regardless of medium.

I used c lower case many times. I know this. Also said it was the same if two observers are different sizes and experience time differently. If they experience time the same than over a larger distance it slows down or speeds over a smaller distance relative to our perception of time. Not all interactions here experience a uniform perception of time. Expansion and spook action causally BRIDGE bodies that are in motion with radically different relative time-frames via unruh radiation. 

That's why the transmissions Einstein received were originally deemed UFOBs. Unified field oscillation BRIDGE. Energy from the virtual states were why Tesla's electromganetic levitating saucers didn't need to recharge.

Edited May 7, 2018 by inSe

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, inSe said:

That's exactly what I just said.

Nope. You said the speed of light is less, I said it is unchanged. There is no way that can be interpreted as being the same.

Quote

Because of the effects of time dilation they're the same.

It has nothing to do with time dilation. The gravitational time dilation caused by the Sun's mass is insignificant.

[koti]

 

Quote

I used c lower case many times. I know this. Also said it was the same if two observers are different sizes and experience time differently. If they experience time the same than over a larger distance it slows down or speeds over a smaller distance relative to our perception of time. Not all interactions here experience a uniform perception of time.

This might be helpful in phrasing more coherently what you want to state in the future:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

 

46 minutes ago, inSe said:

That's exactly what I just said. Because of the effects of time dilation their the same.

No, thats not what you said. You said:

Quote

C at the center of the sun (which is 160 billion times denser than the surface) is 0.00551512557 m/s

Do you have anything to back up your claim that c is not invariant? 

Edited May 7, 2018 by koti

[inSe]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nope. You said the speed of light is less, I said it is unchanged. There is no way that can be interpreted as being the same.

It has nothing to do with time dilation. The gravitational time dilation caused by the Sun's mass is insignificant.

In this model, space, time AND matter AND energy are one continuum. So as time contracts c speeds up. As time dilates c slows down. For an observer of dilated or contracted time it seems the same. But I explained in the OP how unruh radiation in the form of gravitons can causally bridge that gap between like observers.

The redirection of photons is what shortens the wavelength in what Swanson referred to as "inelastic scattering" really that's just increased mass aka decreased volume in the photon particle aether here.

Which is what creates heavier particles. I'm repeating myself, all of this was in the OP with equations that match LCDM data

I'm pretty sure Strange & Koti are bot accounts. Same person made both accounts. They've failed my Turing test.

Edited May 7, 2018 by inSe

[koti]

9 minutes ago, inSe said:

I'm pretty sure Strange & Koti are both accounts

It’s a fluke but you actually got that right. 

Unfortunately the rest of what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense.

Edited May 7, 2018 by koti

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, inSe said:

I'm pretty sure Strange & Koti are bot accounts. Same person made both accounts. 

Is that because we can both see through your shambolic nonsense?

Feel free to report us both to the mods if you think we are sock-puppets. They will ban us in an instant if that is the case.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Strange

[inSe]

Both of their posts were within a very short interval of time. The sequence is the same, Koti posted and then Strange posted, and that has persisted in the same order. When they responded to one unedited post in that response time their responses were virtually identical. When they responded to a post that was edited in that response time, their responses were both in regards to me saying their usernames with a comeback but much different. That's bot behavior.

Automated replies.

Based on personality algorithms.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, inSe said:

Both of their posts were within a very short interval of time. The sequence is the same, Koti posted and then Strange posted, and that has persisted in the same order. When they responded to one unedited post in that response time their responses were virtually identical. When they responded to a post that was edited in that response time, their responses were both in regards to me saying their usernames with a comeback but much different. That's bot behavior.

Automated replies.

Based on personality algorithms.

Well, this is certainly a more coherent and well-reasoned hypothesis than the rest of this thread. Well done.

[koti]

2 minutes ago, inSe said:

Automated replies.

Based on personality algorithms.

You got us inSe. Your incisivness to hunt us down is almost as keen and subtle as your physics.

[Strange]

Oh no! We got those in the wrong order. I'll file a bug report on our scheduling code...

[koti]

Just now, Strange said:

Oh no! We got those in the wrong order. I'll file a bug report on our scheduling code...

LoL !

[inSe]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Oh no! We got those in the wrong order. I'll file a bug report on our scheduling code...

Say, "I am a bot"

The one on Google can be sarcastic too.

If you can write a post that says "I am a bot". With nothing more and nothing less, than I'll believe you're not a bot.

 

But if you are, on a site like this, youd be programmed to shut down ideas and I routinely see attacks against anything ftl related here, not just from these two accounts, but specifically from members of authority.  

They wouldn't program bots with that purpose to have any possible reply that openly admits its a bot. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by inSe

[Strange]

6 hours ago, inSe said:

I routinely see attacks against anything ftl related here

That will be because this is a science site.

[koti]

7 hours ago, inSe said:

Say, "I am a bot"

Why don’t you say:

c is invariant regardless of medium which it travels in, massless particles travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial reference frame of the observer.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by koti

[Silvestru]

9 hours ago, inSe said:

Both of their posts were within a very short interval of time. The sequence is the same, Koti posted and then Strange posted, and that has persisted in the same order. When they responded to one unedited post in that response time their responses were virtually identical. When they responded to a post that was edited in that response time, their responses were both in regards to me saying their usernames with a comeback but much different. That's bot behavior.

Automated replies.

Based on personality algorithms.

Low quality bots they are, inSe. Their feeble processor makes them unable to process bullsh**.

I always had a strange feeling about these two. Making assertions based on observational evidence is so 20th century. 

[nevim]

Oh my Dog, I fell in love with a bot...