A single unbreakable dynamic membrane

[pelastration]

Hi All,

 

This is my first post here on this forum. Glad to be here. This forum looks and feels much better than PhysicsForum, and more open and tolerant.

 

I want to give more insight about a holitic theory I developed in 2002, and of course I am open for critics and questions.

 

My theory is about cosmology and the growth of complexity, from fundamental particles, atoms, molecules to complex organisms.

 

Pelastration is a coupling mechanism in spacetime development. The term pelastration combines PEnetration and eLASTic and STRAtification (layers).

 

I see spacetime as a real physical phenomenon. To me spacetime is a dynamic oscillating membrane, non-breakable and stretchable to almost the infinity.

 

This membrane can restructure locally in sub-sets.

 

Pelastration is the penetration of one (passive, Yin) part of the spacetime membrane by another (active, Yang) part of the spacetime membrane.

 

After a pelastration, a new local area (or discrete area) is created where the penetrating part is covered by a double passive part. This way a new multi-layered locality is created, which is called a holon, and (only) appears to be independent from the spacetime membrane although it is made out of local membrane, thus is really a sub-set of the membrane.

You can visualize a holon as a bell, with a clapper (yang) and a surrounding cup (yin).

 

Holons are dual, thus yin and yang, + and -, etc.

Holons can have hundreds of such internal layers.

 

Being sub-sets of the dynamic membrane the layers of a holon interact with each other, and can create sub-holons in that holon. This way a holon "is" Information, and will osccilate in a specific way. This explains that in-formation is related to in-structure. When the structure of a holon changes also its frequency changes, thus the value of holon-information is altered. You can visualize this as the bell, with a clapper and a cup. When the clapper hits the cup you have sound, and when the cup hits the clapper you also have sound. This sound is the frequency of the bell. That frequency 'IS' information! But THAT information depends on the structure of the bell (clapper + cup). If you add a bolt or metal plate to the clapper the sound (information, frequency) of the bell changes!

 

I claim that his theory offers solutions to a number of questions, such as the nature of: Consciousness, Gravity, Extra-sensory perception, Synchronicity, Reincarnation, Bohm's Implicate order, Bob and Alice, Alain Aspect, etc.

 

 

 

So my prime postulate is that all events in physics and mind are caused by causal actions of a single non-breakable (!) dynamic membrane (surface).

On my webpage you can see the basic ideas.

The membrane can create holons when a active (yang) surface-peak penetrates a passive (yin) surface-peak.

 

Some essentials:

 

Neutral energy or Stress energy (Attraction, Gravity) is the first force, and all other forces in Physics are just emanations or manifested results (causal effects of different appearence) from this first.

 

Our various 'realities' and 'dimensions' are restructured spacetime. Spacetime can be visualized as a giant totality of an unbreakable but almost infinite elastic membrane in constant movement (oscillating waves: the ripples of spacetime).

 

Due a mechanism of 'pelastrations' the original membrane can create - locally - zones of multi-sheeted spacetime, called holons (cfr. quantum packages of entangled spacetime). They look like multi-layered tubes (cfr. Strings). Holons can be imaged as origami enfolds on a Riemann crumpled ball of paper (the original Riemann Space).

 

Holons can be created on micro or macro level (cfr. Galaxy holons, particle holons).

 

Local friction between oscillating Spacetime-layers will create other (local) oscillations and new couplings which we observe as Thermodynamics effects, and the ElectroMagnetic, Strong and Weak forces which are actually considered different forces in Physics.

 

Since spacetime is an indestructible surface it has two sides and holons can be created/enfold on both sides (cfr. influence of dark matter/energy).

 

The basic oscillations of spacetime are chaotic ... but in a local holon the chaos becomes 'structure' and is entangled/fixed for a given time. When oscillating conditions are in favor these first holons create new inter-holon couplings resulting in holons with more complex multi-sheets of spacetime.

 

Mass increases when more spacetime layers are added. The more the mass increases the more fixed positions happen between holons (cfr. atom-binding to molecules). We see that in our 3D-world.

 

By this cosmological concept every type of 'reality' is interconnected with every other type of reality, this is what we call 'gravity'. One move in one reality influences other realities. Spacetime is also a conductor of oscillations, we call this 'membrane causality'. Therefor non-local communication between holons is possible.

In this concept there is hierarchy and historical integrity of the layer positions. Therefor it is non-commutative (cfr. sequence to put socks and shoes).

 

In this concept there is no uncertainty, everything is causally founded. There is no mystic superposition à la Quantum.

 

Holons can interact in several ways. The kind of interactions will provoke the outcome. De Broglie pilot-waves are in this approach significant. 'Field-effects' are in fact contact-effects of holons surfaces.

 

This approach offers the engineering image that joins General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and is not contradictory to the Standard Model.

 

On the mathematical level the theory is in fully accordance with the Catalan Numbers, since spacetime layers can couple to higher dimensions in a specific non-commutative way. Prof. Van Oystaeyen (a specialist in non-commutative geometry/Univ. Antwerp) confirmed that I introduced a new logic entry in noncommutative combinations (category theory). The combinations that are possible by the 'pelastratic' infolding are exactly the number of combinations of the Catalan numbers. Since I postulate a nonbreakable spacetime membrane you get a noncommutative combinations tree. Till today nobody applied the Catalan numbers in Cosmology.

 

A leading authority in Knot Theory, Prof. Lou Kauffman, confirmed during the ANPA Conference 2004 in Cambridge that the pelastration approach is a new way to have spacial knots.

 

Finally I extended the Triangle of Pascal with two outside layers of zero's to make it conform with my theory. Indeed the actual Triangle doesn't tells all the story, like ... where do the ones come from?

 

Looking for your reactions!

 

Dirk

[pelastration]

No reactions received yet.

 

To explain the pelastration approach more I posted a number of movies on youtube.

From a topological point of view the magic "quantum entanglement" can be demystified. You get a multilayered "space" (a holon) when parts of the Membrane are coupled. Remember, the membrane is non-breakable. Check: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3PhqGAdy5s.

 

Other movies on: http://youtube.com/user/dirklaureyssens .

[Graviphoton]

Dirk, friend, what teaching have you had in physics?

[mooeypoo]

Please don't let rudeness drive you away, pelastration... your post was lost in time, but now that it's back up at the top of the queue, I'm sure it will receive proper attention and analysis of the contents of your thesis rather than anything else.

 

 

btw, I'm watching the video -- Isn't the idea about membranes vibrating close to what String Theory is hypothesizing? It would be good to see any references you have to your analysis, pelastration, so it can be better based..?

 

 

[edit] -- and, I must say, the "Layered" human seems QUITE the over-simplification of biology, specifically when compared to the universe. What are you basing it on?

 

~moo

Edited June 3, 2008 by mooeypoo

[pelastration]

Hi mooeypoo,

 

Please don't let rudeness drive you away, pelastration... your post was lost in time, but now that it's back up at the top of the queue, I'm sure it will receive proper attention and analysis of the contents of your thesis rather than anything else.

 

OK thx.

 

btw, I'm watching the video -- Isn't the idea about membranes vibrating close to what String Theory is hypothesizing? It would be good to see any references you have to your analysis, pelastration, so it can be better based..?

 

If you would say that my oscillating membrane tubes are strings then you have resemblance with ST, but ST is a background dependent approach (strings move in fixed space and time) where I postulate that a background membrane (type of "real" space-time) is very dynamic (background independent) and IMO non-breakable (so no tearing allowed, no intersections and no cutting/re-glue allowed = magic tricks).

 

More resembling are the braneworld scenario's, like these about bouncing membranes. But when you accept that membranes can bounced then automatically you need to accept that smaller membrane parts can penetrate other - large and less dense - membranes and membrane parts. Then you get - locally - multi-layers, where under certain conditions these can couple/entangle to types of temporal unions (appearing to be entities, because they act and move as one).

 

Such geometrical entanglement can happen on large - macro - level and on the smallest - micro - level. On micro level such unions (holons) will be called in traditional physics "subatomic or fundamental particles", each having their own characteristics and structure. These "particles" are ruled not by quantum superpositions etc. but by the way the real entanglement (orientation, local membrane dynamics, etc.) between the two local fields or the clusters of two local fields happens.

 

For those who still live in a Bohr atom model of particles being little planet-like balls read what Frank Wilczek (arXiv:physics/0511067-v2, dd 11 Nov 2005) says : “In modern quantum mechanics, an electron is no longer described as a particle in orbit. Rather, it is described by a vibrating wave pattern in all space … In Schrödinger’s account light is emitted or absorbed when the electron’s vibrations set the electromagnetic field – aether, if you like – in motion, by the same sort of sympathetic vibration that leads to the emission of sound by musical instruments, when their vibrations set air in motion. These regular, continuous processes replace the mysterious “quantum jumps” from one orbit to another that were assumed, but not explained, in Bohr’s model."

 

Taking this a little farther you can ask yourself what makes the essence of "space" and what makes a "field".

 

In my approach a single elastic membrane (a real 2D-field) makes locally 3D-space(s) (frames of reference) with at least three dynamic coordinates. Below our visible and measurable 3D-world is a giant complex of continuous building up and decay of various such 3D-space-boxes (holons), (membrane <-> particles <-> atoms <-> molecules <-> objects/living organism) . Since these 3D-space-boxes are build of the same membrane - that is locally entangled/coupled - automatically follows that they are inter-connected and thus have "a continuous relationship, called attraction, between them". So between ALL existing "particles" is a membranematic covariance - an elastic property - that only becomes measurable above a certain threshold of complexity. For this reason the observer will influence during experiments the outcome, because himself too is build up of "subatomic particles", like the measuring and excitation machine is, like the mirrors and furniture is, and like the emitted energy is, and all these "particles" inside the different variables are - below - Planck scale interconnected. This explains HUP.

 

A few years ago Lee Smolin (Perimeter) started LQG (Loop Quantum Gravity) where abstract spin-networks (or "braids") create spin foam making that way a type of (quantum) space-time. LQG is said to be the replacement of ST. BTW, Lubos Motl - still at that moment a respected stringist - wrote me in 2003 that Lee Smolin's "theories are not that terribly different from (yours)". Louis Kauffman (Knot theory) told me in 2004 or 2005 that I invented a new type of knot.

 

[edit] -- and, I must say, the "Layered" human seems QUITE the over-simplification of biology, specifically when compared to the universe. What are you basing it on?

 

Our cell growth starts with three layers - endoderm, mesoderm and ectoderm. The most simple holons start with 3 layers. DNA and genes are about geometry, with specific unique structuring. On macro level - like galaxies with a central black hole(s) and an outer halo - we also see three layers. And when black holes decay we see how matter of the two outside layers go back (are attracted) to the center.

 

dirk

 

Dirk, friend, what teaching have you had in physics?

 

-)

 

Graviphoton, multi-layered friend, I had enough teaching to understand in general the major models in physics, and non of them actual answer the fundamental questions ... even most of them cause more questions than before and some models even like quantum mechanics ask me to "believe" in magic (Q-superposition, Q-collapse, ...). I prefer a Occam razor approach, using causality.

 

(reposted my answer, by accident I deleted it. Sorry)

Edited June 3, 2008 by pelastration
multiple post merged

[pelastration]

Frank Wilczek, Noble prize winner in Physics, points to the essence in physics: “How is it possible to construct heavy objects out of objects that weigh nothing?. Only by “creating mass out of pure energy.”

 

I explain the solution on a webpage with an animate gif.

 

This is the image. It shows that a non-breakable membrane can create topological sub-sets with contain duality.

 

 

All the constructs you see are "made" on the SAME membrane!

So ALL is connected and interacting (attraction, gravity).

Edited September 24, 2008 by pelastration
additional info

[mooeypoo]

yes, but.. what... is .. that?

[Klaynos]

yes, but.. what... is .. that?

 

Oh oh I know this one! It's coloured lines!

 

So you've got some pretty pictures now what maths did you use to generate those?

[mooeypoo]

*shriek*

 

math!???!!! In a scientific proof!?!?!?!

 

*shriek*

[pelastration]

yes, but.. what... is .. that?

 

That Mooeypoo is dynamic image of how the singularity can create local structures (every-thing, objects, humans, etc.)

 

Membrane: the membrane is a metaphor for the cosmic singularity.

Where in Hawking's et all. view the singularity is an abstract "point" that explodes in a Big Bang, my point it that the singularity can - as an alternative - be seen as a hollow point. A hollow point means: a limiting boundary.

 

An essential question is: Can Hawking's point of singularity explode in zillions of separated pieces? Yes or No?

What force makes that this H-point to explode? External force? Internal force?

Since there is NOT-THING except the singularity there cannot be an external force. So the explosion is due to internal force!

Thus - in such line of thinking - the singularity destroys itself. Commits suicide.

It's like a person tries to commit suicide by holding his breath. It doesn't work.

Do you like such logic? I don't.

 

So the logic alternative is to consider the singularity to be a hollow point. Where the hollow point is - as a starter - a sphere. A closed 3D-surface.

Since we want to explain the complex and dynamic universe that spheric surface MUST be dynamic.

Dynamic, but at the same always staying a singularity! So a dynamic singularity.

Such a dynamic singularity is ONLY possible IFF the surface cannot be broken or cut or thorn in pieces.

So the dynamic singularity (a closed surface) has a non-breakable property.

The dynamic surface represents PURE ENERGY. It's neutral energy.

 

Frank Wilczek asks: "How can Pure Energy become objects ?"

The answer is: By structuring. By folding in a way that parts of that pure energy are locked (entangled or knotted) together in structured UNIONS.

These unions will be SUB-SETS of the singularity, and be located on the dynamic surface. And these basic surface unions will be able the combine and build up hierarchically to larger and more complex unions, where the more complex ones - above the observers thresholds - will be called "objects".

In this approach all sub-sets have automatic dynamic properties and interconnectivity since they all are part of the same dynamic surface. They are still part of the singularity. That explains why all objects are influencing each other (attraction, called on Earth: gravity). So there is fundamental interconnectivity between all sub-sets.

Examples of Sub-sets: fundamental particles, quarks, photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms, molecules, cells, organs, animals, humans, stones, plants, stars, planets, ... every-thing. They can also be called "holons". Which are wholes (units) that are composed by parts which are themselves also parent wholes. So a holon is a union that asks as a whole.

 

B) How can the structuring of Pure Energy (a non-breakable dynamic closed surface) happen?

I call the singularity a dynamic membrane. On this membrane surface are oscillating tubes (peaks), which of course part of it.

 

Next image shows how one (active) tube of the membrane pelastrates (penetrates) a passive tube. The result is that the active tube is covered by two parts of the passive tube. This new new multi-layered zone is a holon or sub-set of the membrane. This zone has now structure.

This means also that the three layers will have joint motion relative to the outer space and other holons, but also will have internal interactions (like friction, heating up, etc.).

 

To make it more easy to understand I show next image.

 

 

The basic equation for a coupling is simply: x + 2y , where x is the number of layers in the active peak and y the number of layers in the full passive peak.

I.e. an active peak with 7 layers pelastrates a passive peak with 11 layers, results in a new holon having 7 + ( 2 x 11) = 29 layers.

 

This action of adding and coupling happens step by step ( in a chain of progressive steps) in the animated gif that I gave in my previous post.

 

BTW, that animated image wasn't generated by a program, but by adding separate images designed in Illustrator.

 

People having difficulties in 3D-thinking my check my youtube movie on this. In that

I show a transparent 3D-model of the coupling.

[Klaynos]

So you've got some pretty pictures now what maths did you use to generate those?

 

I don't like being ignored....

[pelastration]

I don't like being ignored....

 

Klaynos, I replied in the newest post: "BTW, that animated image wasn't generated by a program, but by adding separate images designed in Illustrator. "

[Klaynos]

So it's not a mathematical diagram so it's meaningless.

 

Thanks

[pelastration]

So it's not a mathematical diagram so it's meaningless.

No correct. It is a mathematical diagram, but for the design and the dynamic effects I used separate images.

The coupling equation that is applied is x + 2y. See long post of today.

[mooeypoo]

The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion - there's a huge difference.

I think you should read a bit about the theory.. your claims against the theory are not really representative of what the theory actually SAYS.

 

This is by far not the best resource, but it is a good place to start from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

[Klaynos]

No correct. It is a mathematical diagram, but for the design and the dynamic effects I used separate images.

The coupling equation that is applied is x + 2y. See long post of today.

 

In that case you should be able to write down the equations and derivations that create all the lines... You seem to be refusing to do that though.

 

x+2y is not an equation.

[YT2095]

The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion - there's a huge difference.

 

there is?

[iNow]

there is?

 

If it was an "explosion," what was it exploding into?

[pelastration]

The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion - there's a huge difference.

I think you should read a bit about the theory.. your claims against the theory are not really representative of what the theory actually SAYS.

 

This is by far not the best resource, but it is a good place to start from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

What the theory "actually" says. I think you do word games. ;-)

I think you should read a bit about the theory on the CERN site (Large Hadron Collider)

 

Do you agree that a "sudden giant expansion" that is about 100,000 faster than a H-Bom explosion can be called an "explosion"?

See next quotes on this CERN (Geneva) site.

General CERN Site.

 

Quote 1:

"The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

 

The Big Bang was like no explosion you might witness on earth today. For instance, a hydrogen bomb explosion, whose center registers approximately 100 million degrees Celsius, moves through the air at about 300 meters per second. In contrast, cosmologists believe the Big Bang flung energy in all directions at the speed of light (300,000,000 meters per second, a hundred thousand times faster than the H-bomb) and estimate that the temperature of the entire universe was 1000 trillion degrees Celsius at just a tiny fraction of a second after the explosion. Even the cores of the hottest stars in today's universe are much cooler than that.

 

There's another important quality of the Big Bang that makes it unique. While an explosion of a man-made bomb expands through air, the Big Bang did not expand through anything. That's because there was no space to expand through at the beginning of time. Rather, physicists believe the Big Bang created and stretched space itself, expanding the universe. "

 

Quote 2:

"Astrophysicists have uncovered a great deal of compelling evidence over the past hundred years to support the Big Bang theory. Among this evidence is the observation that the universe is expanding. By looking at light emitted by distant galaxies, scientists have found that these galaxies are rapidly moving away from our galaxy, the Milky Way. An explosion like the Big Bang, which sent matter flying outward from a point, explains this observation."

 

Wikipedia is not always reflecting the fully correct answers. But even your wikipedia says: "Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition, rather explaining the general evolution of the universe since that instant." ()

 

There several opinions about the Big Bang, and even "authorities" change after time ideas.

The original idea of the Big Bang came from Georges Lemaitre. Lemaître himself described his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation"; it became better known as the "Big Bang theory,"

If I remember well Hawking spoke - at least initially - of an explosion in his book "A brief History of Time".

 

But it's clear that CERN refers to an explosion.

 

Image Big Bang.

[Klaynos]

The big bang was not an explosion from a point.

 

It was the expansion of all space at once... Where the big bang happened was everywhere, that is fundementally different to an explosion I can show you the site where a H-bomb went off I can't show you where the big bang happened because it happened everywhere. The sites you linked to are not aimed at the scientific community and therefore the language is a bit slack...

 

I'm also going to point at my post above again...

[pelastration]

The big bang was not an explosion from a point.

 

It was the expansion of all space at once... Where the big bang happened was everywhere, that is fundementally different to an explosion I can show you the site where a H-bomb went off I can't show you where the big bang happened because it happened everywhere. The sites you linked to are not aimed at the scientific community and therefore the language is a bit slack...

 

I'm also going to point at my post above again...

 

Klaynos,

 

"Everywhere" was concentrated on 1 point. The Cern site puts it clearly "While an explosion of a man-made bomb expands through air, the Big Bang did not expand through anything. That's because there was no space to expand through at the beginning of time. "

So by the explosion new additional space was created.

 

But don't forget that I am against the Big Bang Theor(ies)! My approach is that there was violent but smooth sub-set expansion on a membrane. These sub-sets create 3D-space(s). That's what you see in those images.

 

If it was an "explosion," what was it exploding into?

 

To me ... in Zillions of separated pieces!

The question is than: Are they still ... interconnected?

IMO ... they are no longer connected.

They will try to combine again in fundamental particles, but since the original elastic attraction (interconnectivity) is lost ... we lose the concept of unity.

 

My point is that gravity is related to a fundamental elasticity between all objects.

Main science believes that such attraction is caused by some mystic Highs bosons, where these are separate elements.

 

In that case you should be able to write down the equations and derivations that create all the lines... You seem to be refusing to do that though.

 

x+2y is not an equation.

 

You like z = x + 2y ?

 

I see the dynamic membrane as the essential background, and it represents pure energy (potency).

 

∞ = ∞ potency

 

The basic equation is always correct, either it starts with 1 = 1, or 0 = 0, or ∞ = ∞ .

 

If we start with infinity (∞) as the basic value of spacetime, then:

 

∞ =∞

∞ = ∞ potency

∞ = ∞ + ∞ + ∞ + ∞ + purple ∞ + yellow ∞ + red ∞

∞ = ∞ + [restructured ∞] + [restructured ∞] + [restructured ∞] + purple ∞ + yellow ∞ + red ∞

∞ = ∞ + [(Active part F pelastrates Passive part G)] + [(Active part K pelastrates Passive part L)] + [(Active part V pelastrates Passive part W)] + + purple ∞ + yellow ∞ + red ∞

∞ = ∞ + [Macro Holon package G(f)] + [Micro Holon package L(k)] + [Micro Holon package W(v)] + purple ∞ + yellow ∞ + red ∞

 

Now millions of combinations are possible, just some examples:

1. The Active part F and/or the Passive part G of the [Macro Holon package G(f)] can create new holon Micro packages inside itself (sub-sets) on any of it's boundaries.

2. The [Micro Holon package L(k)] may penetrate the purple ∞ zone becoming: new Holon package [ ∞ layer over [Micro Holon package]]

3. [Micro Holon package W(v)] can penetrate in the [Macro Holon package G(f)]

4. etc .........

[Klaynos]

You've still posted no maths.

 

You are proposing something other than big bang, so you'll need to mathematically model the expansion of the universe, we're pretty sure we know what happened up to a microsecond after the big bang, so you need a theory that matches that MATHEMATICALLY and makes experimentally testable predictions which have to be mathematical and match the experimental data BETTER than BBT else this is bunk.

[Royston]

I see the dynamic membrane as the essential background, and it represents pure energy (potency).

 

I'm sorry, what is pure energy ?

 

The basic equation is always correct, either it starts with 1 = 1, or 0 = 0, or ∞ = ∞ .

Well that's meaningless really, but carry on...

 

If we start with infinity (∞) as the basic value of spacetime, then:

Hang on, where are you getting this value from ?

 

∞ =∞

∞ = ∞ potency

∞ = ∞ + ∞ + ∞ + ∞ + purple ∞ + yellow ∞ + red ∞

∞ = ∞ + [restructured ∞] + [restructured ∞] + [restructured ∞] + purple ∞ + yellow ∞ + red ∞

∞ = ∞ + [(Active part F pelastrates Passive part G)] + [(Active part K pelastrates Passive part L)] + [(Active part V pelastrates Passive part W)] + + purple ∞ + yellow ∞ + red ∞

∞ = ∞ + [Macro Holon package G(f)] + [Micro Holon package L(k)] + [Micro Holon package W(v)] + purple ∞ + yellow ∞ + red ∞

What does any of this mean...you need to define your terms, plus are G(f), L(k) et.c functions, what functions ? Can you please write them out in full, something like this...

 

[math]D(E) = B \sqrt{E}[/math] where [math]B = \frac {2 \pi L^3 (2m)^{3/2}}{h^3}[/math]

 

Then if someone asks me the derivation, I'll run them through it. (note, I'm having a break from revision so had a look at your website, and couldn't find any math explaining these holons.)

 

Sorry, but it looks like a load of nonsense to me.

[Klaynos]

Then if someone asks me the derivation, I'll run them through it. (note, I'm having a break from revision so had a look at your website, and couldn't find any math explaining these holons.)

 

Sorry, but it looks like a load of nonsense to me.

 

Agreed, I also looked before asking.

[pelastration]

You've still posted no maths.

 

You are proposing something other than big bang, so you'll need to mathematically model the expansion of the universe, we're pretty sure we know what happened up to a microsecond after the big bang, so you need a theory that matches that MATHEMATICALLY and makes experimentally testable predictions which have to be mathematical and match the experimental data BETTER than BBT else this is bunk.

 

No, the topological correctness is there! No doubt.

It's not that since the mathematical formulation is not there that the approach is wrong. That I concepted new geometrical knots is confirmed in 2004 by Lou Kauffman (Knot theory).

 

Conceptually the dynamic image I gave, with all it's sub-layers, is made of one membrane surface. I don't need a formula to claim that. It's pure logic. 1 = 1.

 

However I am in contact with a well-known mathematician - specialized in differential geometry and topos - to come to equations. It's a very complex concept since it involves dynamic surface, flexibility, density, etc.

 

And yes I have a number of predictions, such as a nuclei-channel in the Hydrogen atom, the speed of light, etc.

 

And Klaynos, maybe you can reflect a moment on what Michio Kaku said: "Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; math is nothing but bookkeeping."