Hijack from greater than > light speed? The small

[Mordred]

I think you got killing vectors wrong see this reference and tell me what you think

http://www.physics.usu.edu/Wheeler/GenRel2013/Notes/GRKilling.pdf

[UltraPolymath]

Is that on the middle right not calculus equations? Oh yeah, I'm good. That's like nothing compared to all the equations pertaining to topology I have written on papers, I can string together the next couple hundred spheres and where they go in an equation, rather simple equation but the graph would be impossible on paper

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

I think you got killing vectors wrong see this reference and tell me what you think

http://www.physics.usu.edu/Wheeler/GenRel2013/Notes/GRKilling.pdf

What do I think about that?

I think about reverse engineering in the equations. It's what I do. Thanks.

[Mordred]

Like I stated you hadn't shown a single killing vector in your document. The killing equation is in that paper.

[UltraPolymath]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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

I'm agnostic to that faith. Saying it doesn't is not being objective but on the other hand, saying it does is not being objective. We're being inductive, not deductive. Inducing is step 1, what's step 2? Deduction, I'll admit making such a claim as I did might be frowned upon here, obviously. We don't know what material Smolin was reading before writing his article. Why do you assume it was his own material when he says this stuff is new and very new? New can be not something going around in circulation within the established channels yet.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Like I stated you hadn't shown a single killing vector in your document. The killing equation is in that paper.

But I definitely described one in that quote.

That equation has the word limit in it, more evidence that I immediately knew what you meant in page 1

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

Considering I had personally met him at a lecture definitely by the way the post above with your drawings is rather basic stuff. You might want to study how to apply the above to symmetry groups.

[UltraPolymath]

Tell me, does the killing vector have anything to do with maxima or minima?

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Considering I had personally met him at a lecture definitely by the way the post above with your drawings is rather basic stuff. You might want to study how to apply the above to symmetry groups.

I don't just study, I dissect. I know knowledge is the goal but what I have shown is a rate of acquisition of that knowledge is above normal, because I've been in the classroom and I know what average is.

[Mordred]

No maxima and minima of a function is different

http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/mc-ty-maxmin-2009-1.pdf

Killing vectors involve the inner product of two vectors

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

25 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No maxima and minima of a function is different

http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/mc-ty-maxmin-2009-1.pdf

Killing vectors involve the inner product of two vectors

Then the minima correspond to halfway between the particle pair production and the killing vector in the syntax of my document excerpt I just quoted. Which is, topologically, where the crescent deformations slow to 1/9^28 c. Does that make sense?

And c is the maxima, where, topologically, the spheres before they get deformed into that crescent spheroid or after they become a sphere at the killing vector.

If only I had said it like that two pages ago.

I could have saved some face.

Trust me, I knew that's what you meant two pages ago to begin with, all of this has been an exposay of my model.

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

Your still not making sense, your mixing terms.

In mathematics, a Killing vector field (often just Killing field), named after Wilhelm Killing, is a vector field on a Riemannian manifold (or pseudo-Riemannian manifold) that preserves the metric. Killing fields are the infinitesimal generators of isometries; that is, flows generated by Killing fields are continuous isometries of the manifold. More simply, the flow generates a symmetry, in the sense that moving each point on an object the same distance in the direction of the Killing vector will not distort distances on the object.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_vector_field

 

[UltraPolymath]

Yes, that is my maxima.

I even used the word continuous, that's where the particle oscillation frequencies are redshift phonons

5 hours ago, UltraPolymath said:

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.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

No it wasn't, you know there is really very little in your paper that is accurate. LCDM has been tested to a high degree of accuracy that the cosmological Principle of a homogeneous and isotropic universe is accurate. We can also test for the relative densities of faraway galaxies using the Luminosity to mass relation. They don't have higher densities the farther away they are.

Secondly trapped light in particles is absolutely nonsense. All particles are field excitations, Bosons such as the photon has different symmetry relations than do fermions. This is described by the Pauli exclusion principle. The great attractor is part of our local group it isn't nearly as far away as the CMB.

If were in a black hole then our universe cannot be homogeneous and isotropic. Greater physicists than I have tried to model out universe in a BH it takes a great deal of extra terms such as torsion and time dilation just to counter the effects.

Really the paper you have has so many holes in it that it would take several pages to go through them all 

[UltraPolymath]

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No it wasn't, you know there is really very little in your paper that is accurate. LCDM has been tested to a high degree of accuracy that the cosmological Principle of a homogeneous and isotropic universe is accurate. We can also test for the relative densities of faraway galaxies using the Luminosity to mass relation. They don't have higher densities the farther away they are.

Secondly trapped light in particles is absolutely nonsense. All particles are field excitations, Bosons such as the photon has different symmetry relations than do fermions. This is described by the Pauli exclusion principle. The great attractor is part of our local group it isn't nearly as far away as the CMB.

If were in a black hole then our universe cannot be homogeneous and isotropic. Greater physicists than I have tried to model out universe in a BH it takes a great deal of extra terms such as torsion and time dilation just to counter the effects.

Really the paper you have has so many holes in it that it would take several pages to go through them all 

paragraph 1:

Oh come on the whole reason there's still a such thing as theoretical physics is because of quantum weirdness, Dark matter, mysteries

Paragraph 2:

Again these strings are not the particles themselves, only where they intersect with one another, also later down that document I correct myself and put the largest most disperse vacuum as the logical center, the bootes void. Besides the CMB's distance would be a lot closer yet the oldest light further at the other side of the diameter that's a larger CMB if you're at the edge you need a common center to even state where you are relative to the oldest light, if it takes less time to orbit a region like the bootes void than for the CMB's light to reach you you have what's called an optical illusion because you're being hit by the walls from an equal distance

Paragraph 3:

Is our universe really homogenous? We see near the horizon blue super-giant suns, galaxies barely formed, and generally larger black holes at the center. Yet evidence of black hole evaporation was recently found, we have dark flow which is my strongest point here, also supermassive black holes out there near the CMBR before they would have had time to even form according to bbt models

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Mordred]

First off the standard model of particle physics is an 18 parameter model that is so successful it has predicted the bulk of the SM particles long before detection of those particles. Quantum entanglement is poorly understood by Laymen but that isn't as true among Physicists that recognize the Probabilistic nature of a correlation function and the preparedness of the experiment. The cosmological Principle applies to the mean average mass density this is taken at a scale of 120 Mpc. Obviously LSS exist but it is the mean average mass density over a large volume that is important. Yes dark matter and DE still have to be solved as to their cause however there is strong evidence that both exist.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people use the factors you mentioned as an excuse to never learn any of the mainstream physics theories and figure they can rewrite physics and describe a ToE in a few pages when they don't even know what a ToE entails. Believe me its frustrating for me when I have two degrees in physics. My primary degree is in Cosmology  my secondary is particle physics. So trust me your no where close to a model that has any practicality.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[UltraPolymath]

Everything that can be learned on the subject has to come from learning mainstream physics, Not sure what you mean.

There's a difference between knowing what has been put together as a best solution, and innovating.

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[swansont]

10 hours ago, UltraPolymath said:

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.

Perhaps you missed the "testable" part.

The rest of this reads as word salad.

 

 

[Mordred]

7 hours ago, UltraPolymath said:

Everything that can be learned on the subject has to come from learning mainstream physics, Not sure what you mean.

There's a difference between knowing what has been put together as a best solution, and innovating.

Then perhaps you should apply some mainstream physics. You haven't anything mainstream in your theory. Nor does anything in your theory match up with observational evidence

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[Ghideon]

16 hours ago, UltraPolymath said:

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 part of the article that is open to access does not mention String Theories that turns the LCDM inside out.

On 8/24/2019 at 9:53 PM, UltraPolymath said:

my mathematical model was recently recognized

The claim is incorrect. I would expect more rigor when claiming "recognized", "referenced", "interested" or similar in the context of scientific or academic writings. Smolin did not recognize your model. And from what @Mordred has provided so far there seem to be very little reason for Smolin to ever be interested. 

 

Side note: Mordred's concepts, for instance Wicks rotations, is easy to lookup on the web and plenty of reliable sources exists. Why does the web not provide easy-to-find definitions of many of @UltraPolymath concepts such as "fractal redshift photons", "matrioshka doll spacetimes" or "self-cannabolism in reversed time linear m-branes"? Fractal, redshift and photons are of course familiar things but that does not mean "fractal redshift photons" is a useful innovation.

 

[UltraPolymath]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

The part of the article that is open to access does not mention String Theories that turns the LCDM inside out.

The claim is incorrect. I would expect more rigor when claiming "recognized", "referenced", "interested" or similar in the context of scientific or academic writings. Smolin did not recognize your model. And from what @Mordred has provided so far there seem to be very little reason for Smolin to ever be interested. 

 

Side note: Mordred's concepts, for instance Wicks rotations, is easy to lookup on the web and plenty of reliable sources exists. Why does the web not provide easy-to-find definitions of many of @UltraPolymath concepts such as "fractal redshift photons", "matrioshka doll spacetimes" or "self-cannabolism in reversed time linear m-branes"? Fractal, redshift and photons are of course familiar things but that does not mean "fractal redshift photons" is a useful innovation.

 

None of those terms were in my original document they are referring to math I did based on fractional dimensions with an e(36) [base 36 dimensional calc] wherein beyond the cosmic event horizon or within the interior of a black hole the vacuum has respectively a Planck length of 10^-11 meters and a different Planck time as well or wherein within the interior of a black hole it is lp/lt = 1.95x10^26 m/s based on mainstream I repeat MAINSTREAM equations such as plancks reduced constant, gravitational constant c cubed or c to the power of 5 in the denominator and also the Planck mass, f=ma, black hole evaporation formula all mainstream all the basis for my 36 dimensional space superstring theory only has 11 dimensions

16 hours ago, UltraPolymath said:

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.

SELF NOTE That's f(-x,y) for gradient vector 1 which had the denominator of 25 not 5 for 9 spheroidal strings (iteration 2) at t=1 that's the interior of 9 Planck particles merged

Which has a maximum of 1/9^28th (calculated by the Planck mass for your maximum) of 25 so at t=24 in there you 24/9^28 sub Planck transforms. Which is why we normally start at a real astronomical as in cosmological sized number of planck volumes, not just 9

How many Planck volumes are in a galaxy? Billions of those galaxies merge into one universe over time which is why you need 3 Planck scales before redundancy sets in, two 6 dimensional branes, and voila 36 dimensional space

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Then perhaps you should apply some mainstream physics. You haven't anything mainstream in your theory. Nor does anything in your theory match up with observational evidence

Plenty of mainstream equations were used in calculating the metrics and what would turn into the values for the matrices and if you believe mother black hole universes don't match observations with an observational incomplete homogeny (dark flow, bootes void etc evidence against) or this that and the other thing then just remember there's two parameters regarding black hole evaporation which my topology would test

For both a normal black hole and a mother black hole. It can also be applied to tests for quantum scale molecular modelling, quantum effects like eraser or entanglement observations of dark matter and dynamic dark energy, all adding parameters where LCDM falls short

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Ghideon]

11 minutes ago, UltraPolymath said:

beyond the cosmic event horizon or within the interior of a black hole the vacuum has respectively a Planck length of 10^-11 meters

Where can I find a mainstream observation supporting that Planck length* is different beyond the cosmic event horizon**? 

 

*)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length 1.616255(18)×10⁻³⁵ m
**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon#Event_horizon

 

[UltraPolymath]

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Where can I find a mainstream observation supporting that Planck length* is different beyond the cosmic event horizon**? 

 

*)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length 1.616255(18)×10⁻³⁵ m
**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon#Event_horizon

 

The CMBR. Why cant we see older light than that? If the Planck length is screwed beyond an event horizon. We take that same observational data in mainstream and assume something else, that that is when we poofed into existence when Lamaitre was basically just saying let there be light for the Vatican he is the sole perpetrator of bbt. That's a matter of interpretation of the cmb data and redshift. We have 3 competing constants ffs

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath

[Strange]

1 minute ago, UltraPolymath said:

The CMBR.

!

Moderator Note

If you are not able to provide meaningful answers, this thread will be closed.

"The CMBR" is not a reference as requested.

The CMBR is not beyond the cosmological event horizon.

 

[UltraPolymath]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

If you are not able to provide meaningful answers, this thread will be closed.

"The CMBR" is not a reference as requested.

The CMBR is not beyond the cosmological event horizon.

 

Jesus give me time to elaborate

Wait an hour before slapping a moderator warning not 3 seconds

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, UltraPolymath said:

The CMBR. Why cant we see older light than that? If the Planck length is screwed beyond an event horizon. We take that same observational data in mainstream and assume something else, that that is when we poofed into existence when Lamaitre was basically just saying let there be light for the Vatican he is the sole perpetrator of bbt. That's a matter of interpretation of the cmb data and redshift. We have 3 competing constants ffs

!

Moderator Note

And if you keep posting things like this which are both scientifically and historically illiterate, the thread will be closed.

 

[Ghideon]

20 minutes ago, UltraPolymath said:

The CMBR. Why cant we see older light than that? If the Planck length is screwed beyond an event horizon. We take that same observational data in mainstream and assume something else

I fail to see how that assumption is observational support for a different Planck length beyond the cosmic event horizon. Where can I find a mainstream observation supporting your statement?  

[UltraPolymath]

57 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I fail to see how that assumption is observational support for a different Planck length beyond the cosmic event horizon. Where can I find a mainstream observation supporting your statement?  

Yet you can see how it is observational support for an existential origin...is that because of cosmological redshift?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hubble-tension-headache-clashing-measurements-make-the-universes-expansion-a-lingering-mystery/

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1168298/black-hole-universe-conformal-cyclic-cosmology-stephen-hawking/amp

Also every galaxy we have found that doesn't have a central black also has no dark matter, which was testable parameter in my model.

My model predicts via a tree like law that parallel universes or "mother black holes" merge and cause dynamic cosmological redshift, which is also applicable to lcdm and testable

The applicability that is not recognized extends the lcdm in two ways, it uses a 3 dimensional string topology to form rotating particles made of dimensionless points (earlier in the thread I said the were 1 dimensional that was a typo) via phase intersections in dimension 1 pi curves within the length contracting strings to form a deterministic quantum scale precision for molecular and cosmic scale modelling and then you have the Planck scale shifts for dark matter or dark energy which goes beyond the cosmic event horizon and within the black hole event horizon in order to recreate specific cosmic conditions that have a triple layer of uniqueness out of a maximum of 5 different Planck constants before redundancy steps in. Murphy's law, this tells us everything that can happen.

There's really 60 dimensions there but only 48 of them are used to find 36 complete dimensions, or only 36 out of 48 that interact (great grand mother, grand mother, moth black holes in a tree like law each containing 6D past by 6D future topologies interacting in the present). All of these out of infinite dimensions repeating the same behavior in an infinite onion layer of infinite different Planck constants. Existentially you have infinite spheres without a real size going infinitely far back in to relative to any given perspective, and a second infinite number of spheres going forward into time, and they sort of interact to form those crescent deformations, the quantum eraser representing by those pointers in page 1 as a pair of assymetric bi-vectors for past and future gradients interacting in the present. Why spheres as opposed to cubes? What does a shape become when infinite corners are added to it? A concentric curve, a circle, a sphere.

Which I think is preferable to a random and finite existential interpretation. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by UltraPolymath