Hijack from greater than > light speed? The small

[UltraPolymath]

Not without a mathematical model. The LCDM doesn't do this but my mathematical model was recently recognized:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332440-600-quantum-weirdness-isnt-real-weve-just-got-space-and-time-all-wrong/

There's also a plethora of observational data supporting it, CCC as black holes have evaporated in this universe as well as galaxies that lack a central black hole having no dark matter as well as Entanglement and The Eraser and FRBs as white holes corresponding to black holes as well as circumventing the 3 different measurements of the CC by explaining away redshift as simply newly merged extracosmic black holes added at the event horizon in the past.

Here's the full model:

https://docdro.id/3MX8QDp

Bits of it were posted here as it evolved over the past year and a half. Some of it stayed, most of it went.

13 hours ago, fredreload said:

We agree that the smaller the particles the faster it moves? We got photon traveling at the speed of light. And electrons that orbit the atom sometimes even above light speed, speculation. And we further theorized the constitution of electrons, photons, and neutrons making out of quarks. What do you think is the moving speed of these quarks? If quarks do move on the border line of light speed, what does it say about the smallest fundamental particles? Is it a form of energy?

Well no, and not even in my model. Light as in redshift is the radio wavelength. In the syntax of my model the higgs boson is the surface of the event horizon as the string intersections get too length contracted and bounce back, going both backward and forward in time respectively correlating to particle pair production and killing vectors wherever the white hole is produced when length dilation reaches fruition. It's the interior where I speculated the production of a black hole generates dark matter particles which are a fractal of the redshift photon at first but would exist in hyperbolic time (a wavelength so much higher than radio that the fractal redshift photons therein propagate at 1.95 x 10^26 m/s).

Edited August 24, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, UltraPolymath said:

my mathematical model was recently recognized

Where in the article is your model referenced?

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, UltraPolymath said:

Bits of it were posted here as it evolved over the past year and a half. Some of it stayed, most of it went.

Posted by whom?

[UltraPolymath]

21 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Where in the article is your model referenced?

 

I said it was recognized not referenced by name. My paper was probably seen on JOPA or a forum but couldn't have been referenced by name as it didn't pass the review but two things:

First and foremost the math was correct, parts of it were legitimate from the start, however in the 7th and final attempt where it didn't pass review as it was continuously evolving the number of bi-vectors for dimension 5 gradient was wrong it should have increased by factors of 5 not what I had. You can see some of the slight misnomers in the docdroid followed by text that explains the error.

2.) It wasn't dictated well or articulate enough for JOPA's standards, here is an excerpt of someone else who recognized the idea and attempted to articulate it but didn't show the geometry like I did, and by the way not even that article showed the real math that I created like the docdroid:

Quote

Dark Matter Comes To The Standard Model;The LINE hypothesis suggests that space in this universe is defined by a three-dimensional scaffolding of Planck holes (PH) that are interconnected and separated by spatial entanglement channels. With a sufficiently high infusion of localized information as energy, this space and particles therein may be contorted, amalgamated and splintered off to form matter particles of all types. These particles populate the well-known catalog of particles known as the standard model but also inform manifestations of other fundamental particles currently only hinted at and yet others remain unbeknownst. 

This focuses mainly on the fractal spacetime, as you have the bell inequality mainly as a paradox of there having to be a finite number of strings in a given volume of reality yet you clearly on a logical level are given in existence an infinite number of sphere to solve both the bell inequality and the information paradox I had to create planck transforms within every iteration of event horizon on various cosmic scales which are encapsulated within capsules of spacetimes.

However my docdroid actually explains the difference between quantum entangling tachyons which still max out at merely the speed of light in a capsule (holeum hollow black hole) in a self-cannabolizing m-brane with a lateral continuum and superluminal dark matter within the capsule (hollow black hole) of the next recurring fractal.

Entangled time and bell entanglement are not the same thing. One deals with production and killing and the other deals with the aggregate of a smaller scale of information transfer above the radio wavelength.

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Strange
Edited quoted text

[Strange]

35 minutes ago, UltraPolymath said:

here is an excerpt of someone else who recognized the idea and attempted to articulate it

!

Moderator Note

Do not quote large quantities of text from other people without attribution. 

 

[UltraPolymath]

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

Do not quote large quantities of text from other people without attribution. 

 

That's arbitrary

Even if it's just philosophy based on said person who is quoting them?

There was no math there in the quote, by removing the bulk of the text you remove any chance of someone who doesn't know calculus from understanding my docdroid

Edited August 25, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Ghideon]

Ok, not referenced. But the article also does not recognise the concepts you have posted in this thread so far; how does the article discuss "quantum entangling tachyons" "holeum hollow black hole" "self-cannabolizing m-brane" or "superluminal dark matter"?

Lee Smolin's article* states that there are phenomena that quantum physics doesn’t explain and that is reason to seek what might lie beyond current models. Nothing wrong with attempting to extend our knowledge about physics as far as i can tell. But that does not, as far as I can tell, give credit to the concepts you posted.  

 

*) Couldn't see all of the article, paywall

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, UltraPolymath said:

That's arbitrary

Even if it's just philosophy based on said person who is quoting them?

There was no math there in the quote, by removing the bulk of the text you remove any chance of someone who doesn't know calculus from understanding my docdroid

!

Moderator Note

Then provide a link to the source. That is the honest thing to do.

 

[UltraPolymath]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

Then provide a link to the source. That is the honest thing to do.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30499-how-does-individual-life-you-populate-this-universe/?p=377555

It's difficult enough to graph 3 dimensional strings, which is why I stopped with one iteration I think he explains some of it better than me verbally.

When graphing quantum behavior we focus on 1 dimensional points where the strings intersect, but there's 3^59 of them per elementary particle. Unless you're referring to the electron, then there's one, but the electron shell has that many points as there are electrons a staggering number of them. Actually times 3 from a hydrogen atom.

The dark matter and tachyons come into play with calculations and inference, which is a lot easier than their behavior which depends again on how you do the planck scale graphically.

18 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok, not referenced. But the article also does not recognise the concepts you have posted in this thread so far; how does the article discuss "quantum entangling tachyons" "holeum hollow black hole" "self-cannabolizing m-brane" or "superluminal dark matter"?

Lee Smolin's article* states that there are phenomena that quantum physics doesn’t explain and that is reason to seek what might lie beyond current models. Nothing wrong with attempting to extend our knowledge about physics as far as i can tell. But that does not, as far as I can tell, give credit to the concepts you posted.  

 

*) Couldn't see all of the article, paywall

Sorry about the paywall but what he's really saying is the determinism aspect of a good string theory like mine and how it's new. Literally just came up with it a week or less ago, fixing for that 5 factor increases per iteration.

Edited August 25, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[swansont]

What testable predictions does your conjecture make? How can it be confirmed?

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, UltraPolymath said:

The dark matter and tachyons come into play with calculations and inference, which is a lot easier than their behavior which depends again on how you do the planck scale graphically.

As far as I know tachyons are hypothetical. Does you model predict them? Require them? 

1 hour ago, UltraPolymath said:

he's really saying is the determinism aspect of a good string theory like mine and how it's new

Since he did not reference your paper how do we know it is your string theory he speaks about behind the paywall? 

[UltraPolymath]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

What testable predictions does your conjecture make? How can it be confirmed?

That would have to do with the tachyons, the evaporation rate is confirmed by Hawking Radiation, I have in my model the string vibrations only getting so slow as the Higgs Boson before length contraction turns into length dilation, these crescent string-sphere deformations were written as being continuously produced in the same locations so as to allow the cosmos to take upon locations of density juxtaposed to the vacuum where light is the vibration of that vacuum, when those length dilated reversals turn back into the original planck spheres in the least dense vacuum regions that continuous generation of those fields gets killed, this happens exactly as many times as those fields were being generated and my model predicts it as being equivalent to black hole evaporation rates.

 

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

As far as I know tachyons are hypothetical. Does you model predict them? Require them? 

Since he did not reference your paper how do we know it is your string theory he speaks about behind the paywall? 

Ah, I didn't say it was behind the paywall, do you know of any other String Theories that turns the LCDM inside out and offers a determinate quantum behavior?

The LCDM model has spacetime as expanding, this model literally has it collapsing forever. The expansion is illusory, it comes in spurts, as we merge with parallel universes (hollow black holes) the capsules, the term I use is in the docdroid is "great great grandmother, great grandmother, grandmother, mother, and daughter black holes (the daughter black holes are normal black holes" matrioshka doll spacetimes. The collapse, or generation of the interactions, is a function of self-cannabolism in reversed time linear m-branes and the quantum eraser which was the particle pair production and killing vectors mentioned just now, these tachyons. As far as the matrioshka black holes, I even calculated the current diameter of our mother black hole with a precise number, in the 10^-11 m planck length within the hollow grand mother black hole it's 400 million solar masses, in the syntax of a 1.6x10^-35 m planck length, it's more like 29 billion light years in diameter with an evap rate of 10^135 years. That size was based on observational data, the horizon of our cosmos as 700 million light years short of it's actual radius as our location in the universe orbits the center a region of least density.

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

You know what is funny about your claims Lee Smolin literally hates string theory altogether. His books clearly states such.

All your claims thus far in this thread matches none of Lee Smolin's views.

 For one thing Smolin recognizes causality. Not once has he ever claimed any violation of such in terms of the premises under GR. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You know what is funny about your claims Lee Smolin literally hates string theory altogether. His books clearly states such.

I don't like string theory either, when it has to do with the LCDM.

Strings are a product of the quantum foam, as I said earlier my model describes particles not as strings themselves, the strings in my model put the pilot in pilot waves, electrons like "pearls on a necklace" as someone described my model. In any case every string theory is different, I'm sure he and I can agree on most string theory models being difficult for the LCDM.

[Mordred]

Strings has nothing to do with quantum foam. Quantum foam of LQC is not a string theory.

Do you even know what string theory describes ? Do you know the difference between an open or closed string or the meaning of a brane ? Do you know what a Direchlet boundary condition is ?

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Strings has nothing to do with quantum foam. Quantum foam of LQC is not a string theory

Although the strings I graphed in the docdroid are 3 dimensional.

The intersections that form the particles are one dimensional and again, every model is different. For instance, it is in the syntax of my model that the spacetime itself is the strings and the electrons and positrons are one dimensional, whereas the elementary particles and composite particles are 3 dimensional, but the preon constituents at the smallest levels are points.

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

Quantum foam described the various degrees of freedom that are not described under string theory except as seperate strings nice try.

Secondly Quantum foam is a canonical treatment that utilizes Wicks rotations for its boundary conditions. It does not involve Dirichlet boundaries

String theory does not apply Wicks rotation 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Strings has nothing to do with quantum foam. Quantum foam of LQC is not a string theory.

Do you even know what string theory describes ? Do you know the difference between an open or closed string or the meaning of a brane ? Do you know what a Direchlet boundary condition is ?

Of course, my model has a form of closed strings. They are phase strings, based on planck volumes in a quantum foam.

[Mordred]

Great what are your boundary conditions. What is your maxima and minima defined as for your closed strings.

[UltraPolymath]

Here's an excerpt from my document in the OP.

 

 

 

Those pointers are bi-vectors, which determine the quantum behavior on the smallest scale.

[Mordred]

6 minutes ago, UltraPolymath said:

Of course, my model has a form of closed strings. They are phase strings, based on planck volumes in a quantum foam.

By the way you just confirmed your model has nothing to do with Smolin's

[UltraPolymath]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Great what are your boundary conditions. What is your maxima and minima defined as for your closed strings.

Those occur in the particles themselves and are at a ratio equivalent to the frequencies for photons and the higgs boson, respectively

[Mordred]

3 minutes ago, UltraPolymath said:

Here's an excerpt from my document in the OP.

 

 

 

Those pointers are bi-vectors, which determine the quantum behavior on the smallest scale.

Oh wow hold the presses physics without a single applicable equation. You need to be able To plot those graphs via an equation.

1 minute ago, UltraPolymath said:

Those occur in the particles themselves and are at a ratio equivalent to the frequencies for photons and the higgs boson, respectively

Obviously you never studied calculus.

[UltraPolymath]

I mean oscillations, not frequencies - minimum just below bottom and top quarks rather not actually a higgs boson other than oscillation frequency

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Oh wow hold the presses physics without a single applicable equation. You need to be able To plot those graphs via an equation.

 

I can do that. That's where the graphs came from anyway. It's just a lot easier to graph.

[Mordred]

If you understood the meaning behind maxima or minima you would understand my reference to calculus. Those terms have nothing to do directly with any physics theory except physics employs those terms under calculus rules.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred