(September 8, 2016 at 11:22 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: Arki, can you explain your "theory" to me as if I am three? I failed to decipher your wall-of-theory back there...

Sure.

The universe is like a bubble in an ocean with no top, bottom or sides. There is only one ocean and it's infinite.

Our universe is not the only bubble in the ocean and they are all patterned the same...because there is only one ocean and it's infinite.


Getting a little more illustrative, Think of infinite white light; no matter where you pull that light apart (prism) you will get the same distribution of the same colors in the same order. So it is with the distribution of forces within each and every universe from the infinite unified state.


The only major difference between my starting state and the Big Bang theory is that my singularity has no border, is not surrounded by a nothing space that does not exist that our perspective should not be in, as shone in every media representation. I correct for that error of perspective and treat the prior to beginning singularity as an infinite field of matter in equilibrium.

(September 8, 2016 at 2:15 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

---

(September 8, 2016 at 10:46 am)RozKek Wrote: This is his general response, such intelligent, much wow, veri surprise

And your response is to take quotes out of context and smash them together?

Arkilogue Wrote:Some people say "Goddidit" and stop there on the surface.

Others (like myself) want to know exactly how God did it and pour through the sciences and religions both ancient and modern to collect the proper amount of data to apply to such a vast question and depth of process.

Some take what others tell them about God and believe or disbelieve, some wrestle with God for themselves.

RozKek Wrote: I'm going to take you seriously when you show me your Nobel Prize.

iow, where the fuck is your evidence?

Arkilogue Wrote:So it takes a world wide appeal to consensus for you to consider anything new? Quite the handicap you have there.

Here you have it in context, what a difference, you're at fault at both points. If you have evidence, then getting a nobel prize and a world wide appeal would be easy wouldn't it? Idgaf about a world wide appeal at the moment, my point was, where's your evidence? You've yet to show any evidence, you only repeat your 'theory' when asked for evidence, you link quite bad sources. Why don't you hook yourself up with a physicists and check your theories? Are you afraid?

edit: sorry for the painful quotes, too tired to fix em

(September 8, 2016 at 2:23 pm)Alex K Wrote: I've seen so many of those "post-predictions of dark energy" or particle masses, which are usually based on some vague words and piles of numerology, but without a consistent underlying theory. Do you have a prediction for the scalar to tensor ratio? Or actual math for your inflation claims? What about the quartic divergences of the standard model? Is your scheme consistent with the known properties and predictions of the Standard Model?

Yes. But I'm, late for work already and will get back to you in several hours. Thanks =)

(September 8, 2016 at 2:42 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: The only major difference between my starting state and the Big Bang theory is that my singularity has no border...

Neither does the BBT's singularity.

(September 8, 2016 at 2:42 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: I correct for that error of perspective and treat the prior to beginning singularity as an infinite field of matter in equilibrium.

Matter? You do know that matter didn't form till after expansion started, right?

(September 8, 2016 at 3:31 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(September 8, 2016 at 2:42 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: The only major difference between my starting state and the Big Bang theory is that my singularity has no border...

Neither does the BBT's singularity.

(September 8, 2016 at 2:42 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: I correct for that error of perspective and treat the prior to beginning singularity as an infinite field of matter in equilibrium.

Matter? You do know that matter didn't form till after expansion started, right?

Don't be so impatient, I'm sure we'll see his maths outlining the matter creation soon enough

(September 8, 2016 at 3:34 pm)Alex K Wrote: Don't be so impatient, I'm sure we'll see his maths outlining the matter creation soon enough

I can't wait!

(September 8, 2016 at 2:43 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 8, 2016 at 2:23 pm)Alex K Wrote: I've seen so many of those "post-predictions of dark energy" or particle masses, which are usually based on some vague words and piles of numerology, but without a consistent underlying theory. Do you have a prediction for the scalar to tensor ratio? Or actual math for your inflation claims? What about the quartic divergences of the standard model? Is your scheme consistent with the known properties and predictions of the Standard Model?

Yes. But I'm, late for work already and will get back to you in several hours. Thanks =)

I'm holding my breath.

(September 8, 2016 at 3:31 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(September 8, 2016 at 2:42 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: The only major difference between my starting state and the Big Bang theory is that my singularity has no border...

Neither does the BBT's singularity.

(September 8, 2016 at 2:42 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: I correct for that error of perspective and treat the prior to beginning singularity as an infinite field of matter in equilibrium.

Matter? You do know that matter didn't form till after expansion started, right?

Exactly. Very unfortunate that it is always visually presented erroneously. Has anyone here ever seen the singularity represented from the inside? Because there is no outside....

The atomic matter we are familiar with didn't start forming until a few nano-seconds after inflation. Atomic "matter" is 99.9999999999996% empty space...even the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. There is a very very tiny amount of real substance, flung into and extremely specific and reliable nested structure basically described as a spherical border made by a point, flying around in probability field around a larger spherical center....which is also a spherical field of motion made by smaller points.

The fundamental substance of matter is neither created nor destroyed. The "creation" (unfolding, lofting, "prismation") of a universe simply flings it into atomic form and motion in a stabilized vacated space.

---

(September 8, 2016 at 3:34 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(September 8, 2016 at 3:31 pm)LostLocke Wrote: Neither does the BBT's singularity.
Matter? You do know that matter didn't form till after expansion started, right?

Don't be so impatient, I'm sure we'll see his maths outlining the matter creation soon enough

The model predicts the spatial patterning of matter. Matter creation is unnecessary.
Space "creation" for the fundamental matter to take atomic form and move (time) is what is necessary.

While part of me wishes I could spit it out to you in a neat mathematical sentence, the majority of me is glad i can't....for a number of reasons. I'm 100% certain it can be though.

---

Prediction of order in the Standard Model of particle generation:

In this model, the prior to inflation state is a field of matter (quagma, quark gluon soup) in gravitational equilibrium taking up all available space forever. The minimum geometry for a 3d space in tension equilibrium is a tetrahedron. 4 points, 6 lines.

A single quantum (finite measurable wave-form, single motion of action) of this unified state is a single universe, and to create that space, an equal/opposite reaction of the original substance occurs. This is a radial reaction...the substance moves both inwards and outwards to vacate space between two curved structures: A central sphere of absolute mater that is "still" and an outer sphere shell of absolute matter now flung into motion (between other universes). The finite space of a universe is between these two curved features and they both exert gravitational influence.

Because the substance moves relatively both outwards (up) and inwards (down), the new geometry of the field between the two is an upward tetrahedron superimposed over a downwards pointed tetrahedron. A "star-tetrahedron", it has 8 points and 12 lines. 8 "modes of change" and 12 "modes of expression". This would be the fields macro and micro unit cell like a lattice, not a single star-tet.

So if this star-tetrahedron describes the micro/macro field of the universe, inter-penetrating and surrounding all universal phenomena, I look to subatomic particle organization to see if there is any 8 or 12 fold structural order.

There are 12 fundamental fermions and 8 gluons that bind them together into atomic form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Pa...luons.html

Also found "The Eightfold Way"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics)
In physics, the Eightfold Way is a term coined by American physicist Murray Gell-Mann for a theory organizing subatomic baryons and mesons into octets (alluding to the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism). The theory was independently proposed by Israeli physicist Yuval Ne'eman and led to the subsequent development of the quark model.

As an interesting side note into the study of vibration, the naturally arising mathematic order in music gives us the 8 note octave with 12 semitones.
http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~mrubinst/tuning/12.html

(September 8, 2016 at 2:15 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: My model predicts the expansive dark energy constant to within .5%
Predicts a slight negative curvature of space-time.
Predicts rapid initial inflation followed by slow plateau of increasing expansion.
Predicts 5 times more matter entangled with the creation of ours.
Predicts a six fold division of the CMB and hemispheric asymmetry.

Oh, I get it now. You don't know what "pre-" means.

Okay, so Arki I can see that you have learned about wikipedia, and how links work. This explains why some of your vocabulary sounds sciencey. Now show us anything you HAVEN'T linked. Show us your scientific and mathematical contribution to our understanding of the universe. No more links, please, or vague talk about circles inscribed with transdimensional doohickeys. Tell us, exactly, how you have arrived at your conclusions, and are so confidently sure of them that you have stated them as facts, even using words like "obviously."

(September 8, 2016 at 7:34 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: As an interesting side note into the study of vibration, the naturally arising mathematic order in music gives us the 8 note octave with 12 semitones.  
http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~mrubinst/tuning/12.html

It does nothing of the sort. The naturally arising "mathematic order" of sound very quickly leads to unacceptable levels of dissonance, and tuning systems are a (largely failed) attempt to reconcile the mathematical chaos. It relies on the deliberate DE-tuning of notes in order to mediate a variety of harmonic and melodic functions in something like a piano keyboard, while still keeping close enough to harmonics that the ear will accept it.

It doesn't work very well, by the way. The major/minor chords in a 12-tone system sound like total shit. It's only because we hear this shit all the time that we've come to accept say a piano sound as "beautiful." If you hear a scale tempered to a single key, and then listen to an equal-tempered piano, I guarantee you'll feel like throwing up. The major and especially the minor thirds are noticeably sour, for example, and the leading tone, if derived from the V chord's natural harmonics, is pretty far from any of the harmonics of the tonic.

It seems to me you've been thinking about the numbers 8 and 12, and you want to make a numerological link to sound. But you might as well start making numerological links to the number "10," on the basis that we have 10 fingers-- it's a useless relationship to draw, or to think about.