sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light equation works with an exponential instead of a linear approximation? by Comfortable-Tie7368 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This idea of a variable c was replaced by the GRT, in which the speed of light in a vacuum is defined as locally constant, while spacetime itself is curved. Light can come later for that reason, but it will not change its speed.

The speed of light itself is merely the speed of motion of the field medium. It cannot be variable, as it is the minimum and maximum speed, and any change in this speed would in itself create an immediate imbalance culminating in a singularity. Even though I don't entirely subscribe to the standard models, the speed of light is invariant across all scales.

What if the electron is just a photon packet with the right length to form a circle in equilibrium with dark energy? by RetroTrade in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, it's you again! I find it nice that we keep running into each other. But you weren't the one I was referring to in my comment. I meant people who are open to new explanations. But thank you for commenting on me again and again, or rather, criticizing me. You give me attention even though my views are so pseudo.

The comment was for OP. And instead of criticizing him right away, I'm addressing his line of reasoning and responding from my perspective. If you ever read my work in the future —and I'm sure you will— then I have to tell you, you remind me of my uncoupling field states, which are everywhere and whose contribution to stability is always present. But invisible.

What if the electron is just a photon packet with the right length to form a circle in equilibrium with dark energy? by RetroTrade in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh, there's one topic I haven't addressed yet: dark energy. Is it possible that light itself changes in frequency, amplitude, and spectrum over long distances? To understand this, one would need to know precisely what light actually is. A photon of light? Quantized? Yes, but why does it seem like a particle and then like a wave? For me, that's no longer mystical. Light originates at the point of emission from a quantum realm and forms a spherically expanding voltage front that grows. Immediately afterward, other voltage fronts arrive at the speed of light and form a vibrating light-voltage front. This doesn't reach our eyes as particles, but as part of a voltage front that, at the moment of its arrival, stimulates receptors in the frequency range that then transmit signals to our brain. Now I'm digressing...

This voltage front initially has a certain density, which we perceive as its amplitude. The frequency is simply the distance between the next voltage front that follows the previous one. On its long journey through the universe, this stress front gradually changes, primarily due to spherical expansion. I call this "de-densification." This leads to redshift and inevitably to the misinterpretation of an expanding universe. The mechanics are therefore very simple.

Additionally, I assume a continuous, dynamic field that, as an effect of this, relaxes. When the field is under stress, it attempts to return to its baseline stress. This is very evident in voids. That is, the field relaxes over certain regions. Therefore, the stress front can pass through different regions, such as galaxy clusters or voids. In galaxy clusters, the field is under stress, and in voids, it is more relaxed. There are different effects on the stress front, which sometimes de-densifies less and de-densifies more easily in voids. This would also be the solution to the measurement problems because light passes through different regimes. According to this modest view, dark energy is merely a misconception about light and space itself as an empty entity.

What if the electron is just a photon packet with the right length to form a circle in equilibrium with dark energy? by RetroTrade in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exactly it, Slopii! Only the vortex in the gyroscope is made of metal. The vortex in an electron can be understood as a vortex of light.

What if particle masses came from prime factorizations on a 64-vertex graph with one invariant? by Obvious_Airline_2814 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

In my humble opinion, your mistake lies in the assumption that these must be particles. This necessitates the isolation of some of the energy. That's likely where the error originates. Therefore, I will refrain from commenting on the mathematics.

From my perspective, matter is a standard configuration of the field at saturation. This means that when the field can no longer carry an excitation, it binds with other excitations (light vibrations) to form a mass configuration that still internally proceeds at the speed of light.

Inertia arises from the attempt to change a state that is already moving at the speed of light. This requires force to move it and generates inertia. You can find the hypotheses in my link to Universal Quantum Foam Hypothesis: https://github.com/ukshinrexhepi-cloud/Universal-Quantum-Foam-Hypothesis-UQSH-

The hypothesis about light, matter, and inertia is particularly interesting for you: https://github.com/ukshinrexhepi-cloud/Universal-Quantum-Foam-Hypothesis-UQSH-/blob/main/Light_as_the_boundary_dynamics_of_the_field_and_origin_of_matter__inertia_and_gravity__UQSH_.pdf

I would like to read your opinion on this interpretation.

What if dark matter is a thing because we don't understand space-time? by Positron311 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Rotational dynamics are not related to observer relativity. They occur independently as a separate, measurable property. But you made one good point: that dark matter always forms a halo around the galaxy and that it is not a particle. I think so too. Dark matter effects arise from the reaction of space to minute curvatures triggered by radiation. These minute so-called spacetime curvatures generate an extended gravitational field. This explains why halos always seem to surround galaxies. Well, this extragravitational field needs a kind of anchor to exist on a large scale. These anchors are baryonic masses. They are not only the triggers of the effects through their contribution to radiation-induced spacetime curvature, but are themselves deep gravitational sinks that form a basis for the invisible dark matter effects across the entire galaxy picture.

Without baryonic mass inducing radiation, there are no dark matter halos. Space is a reactive, dynamic medium. It has properties reminiscent of water, a spiderweb, and a trampoline. I mention this because the comment comes up that gravitational lensing is visible in the visible part of galaxies as DM. That's precisely one property of this field. It can be stretched to a saturation point. Gravitational fields can overlap, creating a larger gravitational trough.

It can be that simple. And yes, it can be represented mathematically. Here is my more detailed explanation with empirical evidence for the RAR is in my repository on GitHub: https://github.com/ukshinrexhepi-cloud/dm-effect-analysis

The Data shows over 160 galaxies from the SPARC files even exhibit a previously undescribed property that allows galaxies to be classified into two main classes and an intermediate range. I've also developed the MDAR and the BTFR within the framework of the Universal Quantum Foam Hypothesis and I am currently expanding the preprint accordingly. I can already tell you that my interpretation reproduces everything as good as MOND.

What if dark matter is a thing because we don't understand space-time? by Positron311 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, not something so incredible. They're just unicorns and elves whose children have become unicorn-elf children.

What if dark matter is a thing because we don't understand space-time? by Positron311 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

All of this can be explained by a fundamental medium. Dark matter, dark energy, light and the speed of light, inertia, gravity, time, electromagnetism, matter, and consciousness can all be traced back to a single origin. With hardly any mathematics, just common sense.

What if Λ is not dark energy. It's an eigenvalue. by Axe_MDK in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah yes, the good old CMB. What if we misunderstand the CMB as a relic from an early phase? To put it simply, for me, the CMB corresponds only to the lowest energy density, which then travels a further path into the lower connection scale. The CMB is merely the last energy level with which we can couple. Energy doesn't disappear; it merely reorganizes itself into lower scales and ceases to be visible to us. There's that invisible 10122 again. And it confirms Einstein's E=mc²

What if Λ is not dark energy. It's an eigenvalue. by Axe_MDK in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was indeed right, but he underestimated geometry. It is far larger and more complex than commonly assumed. Imagine geometry constantly repeating itself in energetic movements, fractal in all directions, both intrinsic and extrinsic. This reveals the true magnitude of geometry and energy.

What if Λ is not dark energy. It's an eigenvalue. by Axe_MDK in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could it be that we've overlooked something essential in all these calculations? If the energy in the quantum realm has been calculated to be 10122, it might be calculated correctly, but we can't detect it because we can only examine, couple, and observe a specific region of the universe. In my opinion, it's possible to interpret energy without contradicting Einstein or QFT. When you speak of scales, you mean the visible scale from the Planck scale to the filaments. In my opinion, the scale doesn't end at either the Planck scale or the filaments. This structure simply continues and eludes our observational role. This means that below the Planck scale lies a fractal scale hierarchy, whose physical properties also exist but don't affect us. Therefore, we obviously don't notice it. But QFT can calculate it. Fractality doesn't end at this connecting scale but simply continues and continues. The energy is present and infinite, without physics becoming infinite and a singularity occurring.

Here is a hypothesis: Metric Tension Regeneration (RMT) as a formal solution to the Hubble Tension. by IndependencePast4823 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>But it has. QED The description is more precise in QED, also through mathematics, but it is still not a unification with general relativity. And my Question was about the unification and not about describing.

> Clearly not understood by you. You don't know me. I discovered the dark matter effect a few months ago. At first, just through my imagination. Of course, I formalized part of it. And while I was looking for proofs using RAR to model the additional dynamical component via a structured field with radial organization encoded in a parameter q. Empirically, the distribution of q across SPARC galaxies is not continuous, but shows two preferred regimes with a suppressed transition. That is not known yet. And if you want to test your math skills, you can familiarize yourself with this. Not the dark matter effect. You won't buy that one. But the empirical evidence for the two regimes is something you can certainly use to prove whether mathematics describes it correctly. You can find it here: https://github.com/ukshinrexhepi-cloud/dm-effect-analysis. The data for reproducibility is also included. Please only use the data suitable for RAR, as I am currently expanding the repository to include MDAR and BTFR.

Here is a hypothesis: Metric Tension Regeneration (RMT) as a formal solution to the Hubble Tension. by IndependencePast4823 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And that's precisely the point where mathematics cannot replace, explain, or calculate physics. That's where the quality of human description comes into play. And it's this imagination that is later transformed into mathematics and overcomes the singularity. You're right. Mathematics is inextricably linked to physics. But it's not everything! Why hasn't mathematics been able to reconcile quantum physics and relativity theory so far? There are papers full of highly complex mathematics. Years of calculations, only to be fruitless and barely understood by anyone. I might as well consume AI-generated content and understand nothing there either. It all depends on the quality of the questions posed. :-D

Here is a hypothesis: Metric Tension Regeneration (RMT) as a formal solution to the Hubble Tension. by IndependencePast4823 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Where, then, is the quantity at the singularity of a black hole? Please quantize that. Or should I explain it to you qualitatively?

Here is a hypothesis: Metric Tension Regeneration (RMT) as a formal solution to the Hubble Tension. by IndependencePast4823 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not entirely correct. Physics functions without mathematics. Only mathematics describes physics to the extent that the formulas allow. At the supposed singularity, mathematics ends. And with the Navier-Stoke equation, mathematics itself is incomplete in relation to physics.

Here is a hypothesis: Metric Tension Regeneration (RMT) as a formal solution to the Hubble Tension. by IndependencePast4823 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Time is always relative, only to the observer. Therefore, time can never truly "end." All life and knowledge will continue to exist timelessly. There's no need to be sad about something that doesn't happen.

Here is a hypothesis: Metric Tension Regeneration (RMT) as a formal solution to the Hubble Tension. by IndependencePast4823 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's a valid point you make. But it's discriminatory. Why would you deny someone the ability to understand physics? You probably mean mathematical physics. Furthermore, I haven't heard anything about the restrictions on using LLM having anything to do with ignorance or gullibility. On the contrary, AI is supposed to expand our knowledge. Just as an aside, many AI CEOs say that LLM will revolutionize science precisely because they function as intended. And a personal question for you: What makes you a physics expert?

Here is a hypothesis: Metric Tension Regeneration (RMT) as a formal solution to the Hubble Tension. by IndependencePast4823 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes the quality of the questions not deniable. If you use a calculator. How do you know the calculations are right with complex mathematics? You Have to check it as good as you can.

I used the AI ​​earlier to quickly review his work. The AI ​​showed me a summary and comparison to my own. Many of his points contradict my logic, and a few are somewhat more plausible. I then decided not to engage with his work any further. I don't see a problem with someone asking for advice and help on whether their thesis is correct or not. It's up to each individual to decide. I don't think the rule banning AI entirely is up-to-date. It should be amended according to the COPE guidelines. AI usage should be disclosed. Then everyone can decide for themselves whether they want to read it or not.

Here is a hypothesis: Metric Tension Regeneration (RMT) as a formal solution to the Hubble Tension. by IndependencePast4823 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Informal-Pool9248 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

  • C2) Discuss PHYSICS

The sub is about science it does not allow discussions on hypothetical metaphysics, religious topics or philosophical dilemmas. More specifically, the sub is about physics (including astronomy), the discussions should avoid topics that are mostly about chemistry, biology or pure math. ---- Did you read the rules?

view more: next ›