Theory of Everything "Prime Mechanics"

[Baron d'Holbach]

15 minutes ago, Mordred said:

One claim for example involved how you described gravity counter to experimental evidence with regards to Newtons shell theorem which in turn falsified your claim of General Correspondance. which literally means any theory must be reducible to known Newtonian physics. Another claim I didn't bother wasting time challenging is you continual references to some Aether. One can readily contest that in regards to M&M type experiments which have advanced to a far greater precision than you will find in any textbook.

What the heck? 

 Your statement is incorrect. Again another one I caught you on... Hey man... You will convince others you are the gospel truth person but I am catching you!! LOL! 

Newton's shell theorem does not contradict the concept of gravity or falsify the principle of General Correspondence. And the shell theorem describes the gravitational field inside and outside a spherically symmetric mass distribution. I am not talking about that...

Newtons gravity is earth based, Einstein's gravity is cosmos based, and Delamotte's gravity is the the origin of origins. 

Prime Mechanics is 100% Newton and Einstein's Gravity. It is the Full and Final description of gravity. 

Aether is irrelevant, no need to bring this here. I reuse Newtons Aether and transform his version to the cosmological constant aka Prime Energy aka Dark Energy. It is not what you think, of course because you not aware of prime mechanics work still. 

 

[Mordred]

I stated you did not the standard model shall I cut and paste the relevent section here from I believe page 2 ?

On 5/11/2023 at 6:41 PM, Baron d'Holbach said:

Yeah, it was great. Prime Numbers is the key. 

This is not a conventional dimensions, but a field. A geometric field of manifolds that build upon itself. This is Gravity as a self building block (Prime Matter aka Dark Matter). The degree of freedom and everything is involved. I follow General relativity 100%. Prime Mechanic is beyond it, as a expansion. Gravity is a closed and open system. The 11 dimensions are within it. Within Gravity as a orientation. 

 

 

Hence, Elemental gravity = GEM = Gravitational Elemental Matter = Gravity, Energy and Matter. 

 

 

On 5/13/2023 at 1:44 PM, Baron d'Holbach said:

That's old school way of thinking. Gravity is Spacetime. Space is gravity. 

My mathematical proofs are all the equations and even new discovery that will all be popping up soon. Example, gravity created light. That was stated in my work and its been discover by physicist now. And this will only be the beginning. it took 4 years until General Relativity to be proven right. 

So, technically all my proofs are my equations, models and countless predictions. I rather see a disprove of my equations, models and notations. 

Unless Prime mechanics gets billions of funding to properly study and build a gravity machine. The proof will be in the simple simplified equations, notations and soon to be discoveries. 

try those statements under Newtons shell theorem with g=0....

go ahead give the mathematical proof not blooming claims and verbatim words but the mathematics showing you have gravity in a field mass distribution 100% uniform. Under GR gravity results from the curvature term. Not a homogeneous and isotropic distribution where k=0.

Your model indicated gravity as a prime always existing. As some form of matter GEM if I recall. Which in itself is problematic as matter is the fermionic group of SM particles and do not include bosons. Pauli exclusion principle.

ask yourself the following how do you have gravity prior to having a mass term to curve spacetime ? Your model states that gravity creates the SM particles if I recall. So where is your initial mass term? if all particles are in thermal equilibrium and indistinguishable from photons ie 10^-43 seconds. Prior to electroweak symmetry breaking.

one of my questions you never did answer after you posted the scalar field equations you have is how are you handling vectors and spinors you never did give me an answer.

 

 

35 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

 

Newtons gravity is earth based, Einstein's gravity is cosmos based, and Delamotte's gravity is the the origin of origins. 

 

 

Newtons gravity is not strictly Earth based yeesh, Boy would all the astrophysicists love you for that statement they rarely need GR to handle planetary orbits...

You might consider looking under Newton approximation solutions under GR. I had posted the relevant equations on this thread way back at the beginning.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Newtons gravity is not strictly Earth based yeesh, Boy would all the astrophysicists love you for that statement they rarely need GR to handle planetary orbits...

?

Newtonian gravity, is an Earth-based theory. It describes the gravitational interactions between objects on a relatively small scale, such as the motion of planets, moons, and objects on Earth. Newton gravity does not provide cosmological phenomena's, on a very large scale os the cosmos. Only Object based. 

its technically an object based theory aka Earth based. 

Now hold on I was trying to write the answer to your other questions. No wonder why I missed your questions. You literally asking a thousand at a time LOL!  I might sleep and wait until tomorrow now.  

[Mordred]

Uh huh 

\[f=\frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}\] used for planetary bodies  aka precursor to Keplers laws.

Do you not believe this is applicable  go ahead take a uniform distribution apply the above formula in a uniform mass distribution where the sum of forces at any chosen point on a field will equal zero which is what Newtons Shell theorem shows.

Your the one that has the non standard definition of gravity prove under the above circumstance gravity will exist and lead to particle production.

Every modern theory is reducible to Newtons laws its part of their mathematical proofs. Including GR aka Newton approxination

Edited May 22, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

used for planetary bodies

with a approximation. But on Earth based it is next to 100% correct. 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Baron d'Holbach

[Mordred]

Yes but your statements don't comply with it. Gravity is a property of spacetime. Not a fundamental. Your model has it as some fundamental. The onus is up to you to prove it

[Baron d'Holbach]

Yes, I have the impossibility job. Technically the hardest science question of all time. No other one can trump this. I am still finishing off your previous question at 2am. better to rewrite it again tomorrow or sloppy input it here now... Lets see. 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Baron d'Holbach

[Mordred]

Well your job is to defend and prove your model. My job in essence is to challenge it.

If it helps think of it in those terms. If you cannot prove or properly defend your model then it still needs work

[Baron d'Holbach]

Not even close. its done and complete. 

I answered everything that needs to be answer. 

If I missed anything, that's all nit-picking and irrelevant. My main job was to create the big bang from gravity and its done. 

S = ∫ d^11x √|g| [(1/2) g'^μν ∂_μ φ ∂_ν φ - V(φ) + Λ(g') θ(z)θ(1-z) - 1/2κ^2(R' + m^2(z)h') θ(z)θ(1-z) + L_m' θ(z)θ(1-z)]
Here, the step function θ(z)θ(1-z) ensures that all terms in the equation are active within the range 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, while outside this range, the terms effectively become zero.

Breakdown:

Integral notation: The expression starts with the integral symbol "∫," which represents integration over space. The term "d^11x" represents the differential volume element in 11-dimensional spacetime.
Square root of the determinant of the metric: The expression continues with "√|g|," where "g" represents the metric tensor and "|" denotes the determinant. Taking the square root of the determinant is a mathematical operation commonly used in the theory of general relativity.
Kinetic term: The next term is "(1/2) g'^μν ∂_μ φ ∂_ν φ," which represents the kinetic energy of a scalar field φ. Here, "g'^μν" represents the inverse of the metric tensor, and "∂_μ φ" denotes the partial derivative of φ with respect to the μth coordinate.
Potential term: The expression includes "- V(φ)," which represents the potential energy of the scalar field φ. The specific form of the potential function V(φ) is not provided.
Λ(g') term: The term "Λ(g') θ(z)θ(1-z)" introduces a coupling between the scalar field φ and a cosmological constant Λ. The function θ(z) is the Heaviside step function, taking the value 1 for positive arguments and 0 otherwise. This term is multiplied by θ(z)θ(1-z), which restricts its contribution to a specific region in the z-coordinate.
The Heaviside step function θ(z)θ(1-z) ensures that this term is only active within the range 0 ≤ z ≤ 1.
Curvature term: The expression includes "- 1/2κ^2(R' + m^2(z)h') θ(z)θ(1-z)," which represents a curvature term. Here, "R'" represents the Ricci scalar curvature of the metric, and "h'" is a tensor related to the metric perturbation. The factor "m^2(z)" introduces a mass term that depends on the coordinate z. Similar to the previous term, this term is also multiplied by θ(z)θ(1-z) to restrict its contribution.
This term involves the curvature of spacetime. It includes the Ricci scalar curvature (R') of the metric tensor and a tensor (h') related to metric perturbations. The term also incorporates a mass term (m^2(z)) that depends on the coordinate z.
Matter Lagrangian term: The final term is "L_m' θ(z)θ(1-z)," representing the Lagrangian density of matter fields, denoted as L_m'. Similar to the previous terms, this term is also multiplied by θ(z)θ(1-z) to restrict its contribution. It describes the dynamics of the matter content in the theory.
The integral is performed over 11-dimensional spacetime, denoted by the coordinates "x." The notation "d^11x" represents the differential volume element in this 11-dimensional spacetime, which is a generalization of the usual 3-dimensional space. The integral symbol "∫" indicates the integration over all possible values of the coordinates.
The coordinates "x" represent the points in the 11-dimensional spacetime over which the integration is performed. The determinant of the metric tensor, denoted as "|g|," provides a scalar quantity that characterizes the scaling of the coordinate system, and taking its square root, as denoted by "√|g|," ensures the action functional is coordinate-invariant.
Overall, the action functional represents the total energy associated with the field theory, considering the kinetic and potential energy of the scalar field, contributions from the cosmological constant and curvature, and the dynamics of matter fields. The step function ensures that certain terms are only active within a specific range of the z-coordinate.
 

[Mordred]

Have you truly done everything you need if so then supply the killing vectors describing your manifolds under your 11 dimensional g_{ij} to prove invariant. Google Cartan killing vectors to get a handle on it.

Its amazing you continually resort to copy and paste of the same repeated information yet cannot directly perform the calculation I asked here .

Edited May 22, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

I'm going to sleep its 230am here. You too much lol! 

I want that Supersymmetry Chirality math discoveries from you on your thread. 

Prime Mechanics pg. 76

[Mordred]

No I don't want your model. I know how Supersymmetry works under SO(MSSM) and SO(32) twister theorem as well as under Pati Salem.

You still haven't shown your model works at the rudimentary core of the model. How you define gravity itself.

The above applies a scalar field works great for spin zero particles  doesn't work well for vector fields ie spin 1/2 spin 1 or spin 2 particles.

But then we're still back at how are you handling vectors and spinors .

The inherent problem of a scalar field should be obvious. Magnitude only no directional components ie vector being magnitude and direction 

Example 

\[\mu\cdot\nu=\nu\cdot\mu\] describes the symmetry of two vectors under the Minkowskii metric Covariance and contravariance you need covectors or in older terminology one forms  hopefully you know the dot refers to the inner product of two vectors   cross product is needed for spinors

Edited May 22, 2023 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

We have gatekeepers in the science world if you haven't noticed. Saying the say old stuff and the same old ideas and using the same old models. 

This isn't the strong argument you seem to think it is. For one, it's wrong. Theories are constantly being changed and updated to represent our best current explanations. And for two, some things are too simple and elegant to change very much, especially when they work so well. You can come up with all kinds of new ideas for a door leading into a house, but in the end a solid panel in a frame with hinges, locks, and a knob is a hard concept to top. Golly, we've been using the same technology for centuries!

[MigL]

As Mordred has already stated, re-pasting the same quotes from your book, and making the same arrogant claims, proves nothing.
Mordred has also brought this up previously, and you haven't provided any answer.
At ime 10^-43 sec, the universe is isotropic, homogenous and in thermal equilibrium.
It is composed of only radiation, with no pockets of matter, or mass.
There is no curvature to this 'space-time' ( I, and many others, would call it quantum foam ).
Since gravity IS space-time curvature ( according to GR ), there is obviously no gravity either.

So how can it possibly create anything ????

I haven't changed my mind about your theory being bull, and you seem to be convincing more and more people everyday, that I'm right.
 

[Genady]

Stew of Everything:

Quote

George said it was absurd to have only four potatoes in an Irish stew, so we washed half-a-dozen or so more, and put them in without peeling.  We also put in a cabbage and about half a peck of peas.  George stirred it all up, and then he said that there seemed to be a lot of room to spare, so we overhauled both the hampers, and picked out all the odds and ends and the remnants, and added them to the stew.  There were half a pork pie and a bit of cold boiled bacon left, and we put them in.  Then George found half a tin of potted salmon, and he emptied that into the pot.

He said that was the advantage of Irish stew: you got rid of such a lot of things.  I fished out a couple of eggs that had got cracked, and put those in.  George said they would thicken the gravy.

I forget the other ingredients, but I know nothing was wasted; and I remember that, towards the end, Montmorency, who had evinced great interest in the proceedings throughout, strolled away with an earnest and thoughtful air, reappearing, a few minutes afterwards, with a dead water-rat in his mouth, which he evidently wished to present as his contribution to the dinner; whether in a sarcastic spirit, or with a genuine desire to assist, I cannot say.

We had a discussion as to whether the rat should go in or not.  Harris said that he thought it would be all right, mixed up with the other things, and that every little helped; but George stood up for precedent.  He said he had never heard of water-rats in Irish stew, and he would rather be on the safe side, and not try experiments.

Harris said:

“If you never try a new thing, how can you tell what it’s like?  It’s men such as you that hamper the world’s progress.  Think of the man who first tried German sausage!”

 

[Baron d'Holbach]

No one is forcing you to adopt my model. You have your 1960s to 2023 models. I’ll wait until 2100 for the next breakthrough with those models. All those ideas I master and yawn. It is 2023, I do not see a breakthrough with those archaic, not forward models, ideas, and concepts.

 

All right, Baron, go make your own, right?

Correct, I reinvented Physics. Created my own model. Design my own path and self-discover Everything beyond the military-industrial complex useless particle accelerators that has stalemated itself into oblivion.

Question to be... "If you do not like our military-industrial complex machines, what is better? "

Gravity Machine.

All your questions and others are the same 1960s ideas, concepts, and questions.

“What is 10^-43, what is 10^-43, what is the damn 10^-43?”

The same old 1960s; those are the wrong questions and ideas.

 

Let us repeat 1:

Newton’s Gravity is Earth-Based

Einstein’s Gravity is Cosmos Based

Delamotte’s Gravity is Origin Based

 

Let us repeat 2:

Newton explains the objects, Einstein explains the curvature, and Delamotte explains the origin within Gravity itself as Gravity is a open and closed system. That can be open within itself. Gravity can generate and create toward the equilibrium point within itself, at the center of itself.

 

Let us repeat 3:

Newton’s Gravity is an object-based Gravity

Einstein Gravity is a Cosmos, grand scale based

Delamotte’s Gravity has internals and externals that acts as an open and closed system. Open to the ground state, the vacuum state, can be extracted for Potential Energy.

WHAT?

Let us repeat 4:

Gravity can be sliced like an atom, open to the ground state, where Dark Matter can be extracted and manipulated, and harvested for potential Energy.

Gravity is a closed state that Einstein, and Newton’s Gravity takes center stage.

WHAT!?

Let us repeat 5:

Gravity is an open and closed system that is internal and external. On the outside, aka closed system, it is Einsteins’ laws, and in this, at an object level, is Newton’s laws.

WHAT!?

Let us repeat 6:

Gravity is a internal and external system. Gravity is a two-system phenomenal.

I call it "Elemental Gravity"

Let us repeat 7:

Gravity Closed system has Newton and Einstein’s ideas. Gravity Open System has internals that generates the vacuum state, where Dark Matter is created and generated between 0 and 1. At the center at ½, in where Dark Energy is produced as 1. 

WHAT!?

I repeat Gravity’s closed system is a like a compressization system (Curvature) that generate inside Gravity’s Open system to generate Dark Matter.

Let us repeat 8:

Gravity is based on Zeta ½, we can create a system that using prime numbers for pin-pointing mass distribution.

This leads to the densification towards ½, where a rarefication happens, and the physical universe aka Big Bang, starts and expands from a negative and positive interaction.

WHAT!?

Let us repeat 9:

I am not explaining the 1960s stalemate ideas. I am creating the machine that will generate and create Aether.

WHAT!?

Let us repeat 10:

Lastly, Prime Field is the Model. The tools are zeta ½, and all Prime Mechanics ideas are used to create the Field, and pin-point all the matter and generate a rarefication at the center ½ and create Aether.

Afterward, Gravity closes, and Einstein and Netwons ideas take center stage, leading to Darwin’s evolution. That is the Theory of Everything.

                                                              —Prime Mechanics 

  Page 88-89 

 

"I am not explaining your 1960s models. I never intended." 

 

 

[Mordred]

Ok obviously I'm wasting my time trying to help you improve your model. You obviously believe its the greatest creation of mankind. Even though You haven't shown you can answer accurately any of my concerns with it. After all I do have degrees in Cosmology and particle physics but what do I know.

You still haven't even shown me how you handle an extremely important aspect in physics which are vectors. I'm done wasting my time .

I have read the same copy past posts of yours dozens of times. They did not then not do not now address a single concern I had with your model.

Why you keep believing reposting the same stuff over and over again supplies the answers I have no idea.

You should have been able to directly prove your model can conform to Newtons laws of inertia by simply supplying the required derivatives and transformations from your 11 dimensional spacetime to a simple Euclidean frame. After all you so have tensors in your model. Vectors and spinors are fundamental to those tensors. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

15 minutes ago, Mordred said:

its the greatest creation of mankind.

Ha, Thanks

The field will be represented as a physical system (dimension), and the system will be based on vector space, calculated with matrix math, built, measured, and mapped with geometric, symmetrical shapes, with tensors and subsections establishing curvature manifold fields. The operation operates in a trajectory wave with an equation from Prime Laws at each dimension.
Mapping this field (Prime Field) will be placed inside a scalar field, a vector field that can be mapped and measured at each point of a region with added tensor operations and motion activation, such as spinor for a generated with long Compton wavelengths, to create energy.
J^μ = -F^μν * D_νΛ
The equation is a long chain, explaining a step continuation. 
That includes:
Yang-Mills          Noether’s theorem    Gauge Fields
Hilbert space         Hamiltonian/Lagrangian    QCD    
 

[Mordred]

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Your the only one that feels he has an accurate and usable model.

[Baron d'Holbach]

Oh I am not, I just like Prime Mechanics alot, btw, I told you PM can scale, I am taking notes. All you are is just making PM even stronger. Nothings has been disproven but expanding in my model.  

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Baron d'Holbach

[Mordred]

whatever you wish to believe. Makes no difference to me. I can guarantee no one will ever use your model. I've helped examine enough dissertations in cosmology based applications to know that.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

Its okay, At least it is out. Its mine and its here, its for everyone to extract ideas, concepts, philosophy and a vision.

 

[Mordred]

1 minute ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Its okay, At least it is out. Its mine and its here, its for everyone to extract ideas, concepts, philosophy and a vision.

 

Anyone can get published, its one of the easiest things to do. Doesn't mean its worth anything 

[Baron d'Holbach]

Just now, Mordred said:

published

A big deal to me, as I am not from academia. I am literally from the jungles with two machetes. So, yes, it means everything.

Like I mention before, me and you and everyone here have an expiry date. Humans must continue onwards before the inevitable happens to us. 

[Mordred]

Academia is easy to publish in so is Amazon and Research gate. Getting a validated peer review, that's the major Hurdle. Having PH.D's recommend and apply your methodology. That's a major hurdle. Do that then you know for fact not feeling you have something worthwhile.