Hijack from greater than > light speed? The small

[UltraPolymath]

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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.

Did you read the document.

I mean even what's in there was a simplification, I have a lot of material written down by hand here and finding the gradient vectors for 9 strings looks something like f(xy)=[-24/25,+24/25,+24/25,etc] f(x-y)=[-4/5,+n,+-+] for lt=1

The process for finding the pointers is itself a chore and a matter of breaking it down to consistent 5s or 3s and ending with the other once you know that numerator

I mean even before you graph a single spherical string at lt=0 you have to find the direction and magnitude. The sphere I graphed had that upward from left to right tilt for the direction and the magnitude just described how steep that center is.

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

None of your equations describe the maxima and minima of a graph.

[UltraPolymath]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

None of your equations describe the maxima and minima of a graph.

That specifically is one of the last things in the process of modelling.

I had the maximum already, which was the sphere. 25/25 for 9 in f(xy) if you don't care about the physics, but physics wise you need to know the entire metric ordering and for a universe the ratio has to equal c

[Mordred]

Definitely not. It is an essential step to model sinusoidal waves or other waveforms under graph. It is definitely not the last step but one of the preliminary steps.

Needless to say Smolin knows this better than I do so we can forget your false claims in your OP.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Definitely not. It is an essential step to model sinusoidal waves other waveforms under graph. It is definitely not the last step but one of the preliminary steps.

You need the metrics first, and you also need the geometry, the vectors, etc. All comes first

My paper has the metrics first, I mean I have the equation for the sphere, but not the crescent deformation, which is a process for specifically finding the maximum especially in a 3D planck volume based model like this one it's a rank +6-6 it's a rank 12 model

I admitted from the start it wasn't completed which I guess was why JOPA denied the last run, even what I had for the bi-vectors was off for iteration 2

[Mordred]

Really how do you set the range of applicability for your functions without the maxima and minima?

There are entire textbooks in Calculus that involve this process without once referring to a metric.

For example Calculus and analytical Geometry 4th edition by Douglas D Riddle.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Really how do you set the range of applicability for your functions without the maxima and minima?

Well I know what they're expected to be even though I didn't actually turn the metrics into the topology yet. The metrics tell us what they're expected to be not the other way around it's literally calculated in that paper once you know the reduced planck's constant and gravitational constant

The topology tells us what the equations cannot, it tells us behavior once the rules are already set and then if the behavior matches the equations you're good

You're gonna need a hell of threading software to visualize that topology though. The equations I can do.

Point is I fell short of actually doing the equation for the maxima and and minima but I understand the calculus and how to do it.

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

Really you didn't even recognize the terms involved in defining the limits in terms of the extremum of a function and you expect me to believe your last post ?

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

Moreover I provided the necessary syntax to do it so I don't see why JOPA had grounds to turn it down other than the number of vectors for iteration 2 being slightly off. First you need the iterations, which was in the metrics. 

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Really you didn't even recognize the terms involved in defining the limits of a function and you expect me to believe your last post ?

Yes I did, as early as my response to Swansont's second post in page 1 before you even posted

In fact I made a statement about the limits of the velocities of the strings in the last few paragraphs of the docdroid link in the OP

That's literally the maxima and minima even if I didn't label it as such I still knew what to do next, all of that was set as early as iteration 1 even if in the illustrations I got s(2) wrong for the gradients even in the docdroid as opposed to my 7th submission at JOPA I recognized that on my own/

You're correct in that I'm self taught but that goes for me, if you're taught this stuff in class you're just a cookie cutter for what's already been established and you don't turn our space time on it's head as Smolin put it

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

Uh huh so answer this question which boundary conditions apply in a closed string.

A) Neuman

B) Dirichlet

C) both

Your reply after I first mentioned maxima and minima went onto the topic of bosons. So give me your BS.

Seeing as how your model by your own admission involves string theory

what is the fundamental string representing ?

What is a brane ?

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

I feel like you're trying to ruin face using "wrote semantics" as opposed to actually showing any flaws in my model or the geometric equations that were actually in the document

I mean it's like you're an English speaker criticizing me for speaking French when the underlying comprehension is the same

Is the issue translation for encoding into a program?

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

On 8/24/2019 at 1:53 PM, UltraPolymath said:

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/

 

Let's see your track record when you first claimed the above for Ker Smolin's work and not your own.

You then claimed tachyonic action in your model. Then claimed that string theory involves LQC quantum foam.

I can post numerous claims you haven't shown in your document

Shall I go on ?

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

16 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 

Your reply after I first mentioned maxima and minima went onto the topic of bosons. So give me your BS.

 

 

Do subatomic particles not have an oscillation frequency? Would the Higgs boson not represent a minimal frequency in particle physics?

Because that's what string theory is applied to, particle physics as opposed to biology or something involving how to meld aluminum tubes

[Mordred]

No the Higgs boson does not represent a minimal frequency in particle physics. How can it with its mass value ?

Wave particle duality should answer the other question

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

No the Higgs boson does not represent a minimal frequency in particle physics. How can it with its mass value ?

Okay, do bottom or top quarks have a higher or lower oscillation frequency than electrons or positrons? Like the Higgs boson, those are all elementary particles. Only difference is you need a particle accelerator to find a higgs boson not something typically found in nature like the bottom quarks in a quark star's inner layers

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

Work out their De Broglie wavelengths.

[UltraPolymath]

The quarks have a lower oscillation frequency. Hence

"minima"

My calculus grammar may not cut it in a classroom but yet the underlying syntax is the same

And that all goes beyond Debroigle semantics and rather into observational data

Cutting corners can be advantageous for comprehension, sometimes a shortcut is just a shortcut, not a crutch

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

That's not what minima means..

Every graph has a maxima and a minima. They are the extremum of a graph.

[UltraPolymath]

30 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let's see your track record when you first claimed the above for Ker Smolin's work and not your own.

You then claimed tachyonic action in your model. Then claimed that string theory involves LQC quantum foam.

I can post numerous claims you haven't shown in your document

Shall I go on ?

I said nothing about Smolin's work, I claimed what his article was referencing when it was written less than 24 hours after a disclosure and said something about turning the spacetime inside out to achieve quantum determinism.

No I claimed it involved it's own quantum foam unlike other models but still a quantum foam as in the minimum of quantum action planck values

Everything I've claimed was claimed in some form in my document, even my response on how to go about testing predictions although I didn't make the direct connection to the equation for evap rates and the ppp vs killing vectors, yet that was mentioned in the document briefly

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That's not what minima means..

Every graph has a maxima and a minima. They are the extremum of a graph.

The document says something about the 1/9^28th of a photon volume does it not? I'm not going to repeat myself. That's where it meets half way to the field cancellation, the killing vector. Hence the limits

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

None of your mathematics shows a killing vector.

I quoted your post stating that article was a recognition for your work. Those were your words I quoted.

To quote..

but my mathematical model was recently recognized

Followed immediately by an media article describing Smolins  work not your own.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

None of your mathematics shows a killing vector.

 

Doesn't it? That depends upon what you mean by "showing" the math I did show infers such if you know what to look for, I stated in that document this:

Quote

After lt=1 there's another sphere replacing the previous one that turned into a crescent spheroidat lt=1 understand? This particle production ends eventually, but this is the last trick here, the newer ones represent the vacuum the older ones, the larger crescent intersections, represent the atomic nuclei, but when the bottom quark has a volume less than the planck volume as a culmination of string crescent intersections, length contraction and time dilation get reversed into length dilation and time contraction, this is tachyons, unlike superluminal dark matter tachyons are slower than the speed of light they simply go back in to time, but they don't go back in time they also go forward back to the origin of particle production where the crescents become planck spheres again and then the production of these crescents gets terminated you see according to black hole evaporation.

A lack of familiarity with classroom semantics and I still knew what you were talking about.

What the layman might not be able to discern is how that quote relates to the limits of a vector function

[Mordred]

Do you know how to model a killing vector?

 

[UltraPolymath]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 

I quoted your post stating that article was a recognition for your work. Those were your words I quoted.

I get real time updates, and a trend is inferred, I made a very public disclosure directly in line with that article. I said it recognized disclosure, I didn't claim it recognized said disclosure. Lack of proof is not proof of absence but I'm not saying absence of proof is proof of the contrary.

[Mordred]

So you admit that the link you posted on Lee Smolins work has nothing to do with your model yes or no.

[UltraPolymath]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Do you know how to model a killing vector?

 

Well I taught myself 3D equations from infinite angles, for 3D shapes with infinite point for the curves, what do you think?