New Equivalence Principles?

[Shustaire]

Ah, but that is all starting to change. Are you familiar with the amplituhedron?

 

 

It is a geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.

The traditional machinery of quantum field theory, involving hundreds of Feynman diagrams worth thousands of mathematical terms, is reduced to just one geometrical function.

 

While I hadn't heard of this at a glance at the arxiv, which unfortunately is extremely short it looks to be part of twistor theory.

 

edit supersymmetric Yang Mills. I have seen a few papers on this but not too familiar with it in terms of being able to apply it myself.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

Unfortunately Poly that's not really true. You cannot find an internal structure to an electron for example neither under a Penning trap nor the strongest microscope available.

 

"We can't see it so it's not there!"

Ah, but that is all starting to change. Are you familiar with the amplituhedron?

 

 

It is a geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.

The traditional machinery of quantum field theory, involving hundreds of Feynman diagrams worth thousands of mathematical terms, is reduced to just one geometrical function.

The scientific community under payroll, distracting real physicists from the true nature of reality since 1919!

[OceanBreeze]

Anyway, if that is a so-called proving ground, it certainly isn't within the scientific method - peer review at least is tackled by people capable of knowing some basic facts. I know of no reasons other than the sheer enjoyment of the moderators, to tolerate that many clowns with so very little knowledge but loads of arrogance for good measure.

 

You seemed to think highly of that forum, until not a single person agreed with you.

 

I've proposed the theory here where there is a couple of science minded people with degrees. So if there are any objections, you might find it here:

 

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?169315-Black-Holes-and-Larmor-Radiation-and-Why-I-think-Big-Bang-is-Wrong

[Super Polymath]

I had a discussion with Lisi Garret, creator of E8 theory and told him the axioms I arrived at using relativity.

 

 

He had no objections... so if you can find a better authority than that, please find them, otherwise, trust me when I say when people say bullshit questions that are unintelligible, please trust me. 

Regarding the 4 square roots of seven it would require two photon compactments, 4 photons into one with 1/4 the volume (16 times the density of a red shift peak charge photon), to produce the electron in that 7 vector + 1 spherical coordinate system. Of course beginning as an electron upon the very first topographical transformation (difference of geometries) where time t=1. Where total time Tt/2 is the phase space electron neutrino ghost particle, then all other transformations after Tt/2 + 1 is the positron. At 1/(1.8143212e+27 x 45) the volume of a Tt/2+Tt(.1) positron charge you get a rindler effect via entropy where dark flow=unruh gravitation around the parameter of that sphere-volume, a microverse that represents the entropy of the cosmos in it’s current rate of expansion.

 

You can envision the vacuum radiation of that microcosm in order to redefine what a photon is when referring to the photon sphere of the swarzschild radius of an anti-proton, which is a sub-planck singularity arising at the 33rd photon compactment (8 billion photons into 1/8billnth volume of the photon).

Edited July 30, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Shustaire, swansont,  mordred, ocean breeze acquired they're education in these matters formally, were told about what has existed beyond the standard for a century.

 

thats why you & vmedvil kept getting banned, and why shustaire keeps pushing for point like particles even though she clearly knows better.

 

it's called the standard model and higgs boson jokingly

[Vmedvil2]

Shustaire, swansont,  mordred, ocean breeze acquired they're education in these matters formally, were told about what has existed beyond the standard for a century.

 

thats why you & vmedvil kept getting banned, and why shustaire keeps pushing for point like particles even though she clearly knows better.

 

it's called the standard model and higgs boson jokingly

 

No, I got banned because of thread hijacking.

[Super Polymath]

wink wink

 

you arent a radical muslim, why u hijacking stuff

Edited July 20, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Vmedvil2]

wink wink

 

you arent a radical muslim, why u hijacking stuff

well they were afraid I was going to take over the world with my Thread control technology, I am a Evil Genius at heart.

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

incorrect I push the piontlike characteristic are accurately described by wave equations.

 

particle wave duality is explained treating both point-like and wavelike as both being describable as a wave. This is the basis of QFT. Which has far far greater successes  than String theory. Though if you properly understand String theory is very similar to QFT.

 

shustaire keeps pushing for point like particles even though she clearly knows better.

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

Though if you properly understand String theory is very similar to QFT.

Yeah, they're both lies.

[Shustaire]

All models have applicable degrees of accuracy to real measurments. If they work extremely well to describe what we measure then they are not lies. QFT has plenty of experimental backing while String not so much.

 

Its been successful enough to predict the SM model of particles to measurement long before the particle being discovered. Including variations such as penta quarks and diquarks.)

Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire

[OceanBreeze]

I had a discussion with Lisi Garret, creator of E8 theory and told him the axioms I arrived at using relativity.

 

 

He had no objections... so if you can find a better authority than that, please find them, otherwise, trust me when I say when people say bullshit questions that are unintelligible, please trust me. 

 

 

 

Oh and Ocean, this applied to Shaula as well. I find it implausible for anyone who claims to have some knowledge of physics, to make so many errors, including people who might qoute her, like you did, thinking it had substance. That's what annoys me at the site, it's a playground for trolls disguised as a ''proving ground.''

 

 

So Garrett Lisi is a foremost expert on physics, in your opinion? As far as I can tell, his biggest claim to fame is that he is a surfer who also dabbles in theoretical physics well outside of the mainstream.

 

He did not "create" the Lie algebra or the E8 mathematical structure; that was done over a period of years at MIT by a team of mathematicians and he was not involved in that work at all.

 

What he did was to write a paper with a greatly exaggerated title of “An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything” which hijacked E8. His theory was more smoke than fire and he is probably the only one who is still interested in it today.

 

Furthermore, do you have any evidence that you asked him about this latest crackpot idea of yours, and that he “had no objections” to it? What does “no objections” even mean, anyway? It is quite possible for him to have no objections to your ideas without even reading about them!

 

In particular, when you say that:

 

“A black hole moving fast relative to an observer at rest will appear hot” And

 “An observer moving at relativistic speeds will measure the black hole to be cooler”

 

You are in fact denying the principle of relativity, as there is no difference between the observer moving or the BH moving!

 

You are the biggest crackpot posting on this forum and the only reason you haven’t been banned (as you have been on several other forums, multiple times) is because this forum allows crackpots like you to post and flourish as long as you post something that looks “mathy” even if it makes no sense at all!

 

So, carry on, crackpot, but nobody takes you seriously!

[Vmedvil2]

Likewise, things are relative, an observer moving fast relative to some black hole at rest will measure the system to be cooler than measuring it in the rest frame. The is because the rate at which an action of matter occurs in the vacuum begins to slow down as you begin to speed up. The outside literally begins to slow down, which led Einstein to speculate the clock tower and bus thought experiment.

 

Just like photons that are in motion a BH can slow down too, you are correct in saying the time for the actual particle interactions inside the BH will slow down, just as in spinning BH hawking radiation rate slows down due to the relativistic motion of the BH disk. It is very frame dependent I agree with Dubbel's assessment in this matter. Actually as BH get larger hawking radiation rates start to slow down due to this effect of increased mass along with more time dilation within the BH along with increased spin rate, which is counter intuitive. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Vmedvil2]

Photons do not have a frame of reference as such: In fact, Einstein often dreamed what it would be like and the only thing he conclude from it was that maybe time stops completely. Nevertheless, even though photons do not have a reference frame, we do, anything with mass does, and as your spaceship reaches those relativistic speeds, the outside will appear to slow down. 

 

That is interesting then that photons slow down their movement rate when in motion upon the axis that they are not moving in, but photons do indeed have a frame which is the Null Cone or Null Frame. Photons are always at a relativistic limit which is exactly at the fastest any particle can move their movement is the movement equivalent of a BH's gravity, basically at the limit of relativity actually BH pull things at near or at the speed of light which light cannot escape, which BH pull things at the Null Cone or Null Frame after hitting the event horizon, but in many ways light can be analogous to a BH, if light can relativistic slow down then so can a BH, which says that your thoughts on the matter of decreased time speed within a BH is correct just like a photon can slow down in rate of time even objects that extend into Null Cone can slow down due to time dilation which is interesting. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Super Polymath]

Light can slow down - but it always moves at the speed of light. Remember, we drew on a thought experiment of how someone sitting outside a black hole may see light take a long time to get anywhere and this is because of the curvature of the black hole capable of stretching the distance in which light has to travel. So light in this instance, always travels at c but because of a space dilation has to travel further. 

Time & space don't always get to maintain the same proportions. For a planck particle and above, they do, but length doeen't contract as much as time dilates when we're looking at the behavior of trapped light becoming heavier particles, these particles may indeed represent locations where the metrics are changing

[Vmedvil2]

I have a interesting equation for you then for length contact of a object within a BH's Event Horizon by fusing SR length contraction with the Schwarzchild Radius if C ≠ V_o and V_B = C

 

 

If C ≠ V_o and V_B = C then

 

-V_o²/((L'/L₀)² - 1) = C² 

 

Then

 

R_s = -2GM_B((L'/L₀)² - 1)/V_o²

 

OR

 

L' = L₀(1-((V_o²R_s)/(2GM_B)))^1/2

 

I think that explains any objects within the event horizon of a BH's Space.

Edited July 21, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Super Polymath]

This is because the particle is moving at relativistic speeds proportional to the length contraction it's already experienced when condensing from light, any charge manifesting from it is uncontracting that length as it's frame gets dragged across a decompacted photon medium