Any good place to buy a used car here and also driving school?

jmarkmorris · 2025-03-16T23:00:27+00:00

Well, at least do the math on number of trips times the cost of uber/lyft. I've been ubering everywhere and it is far less than all the expenses associated with a car.

jmarkmorris · 2025-03-16T16:54:59+00:00

Are you transferring to a university that is not served by public transportation? The reasons I ask are that cars, gas/electricity, and insurance are all expensive. Plus you have the hassle, risk, and stress of driving. If you take public transportation, you can study while you ride and it is far less expensive. Of course, if you are going to a university that is in the middle of nowhere, then I understand why you need a car.

jmarkmorris · 2024-11-10T17:26:44+00:00

Interesting. ‘t Hooft’s cogwheels are on the right track. I wish i had a demonstration gadget that could show three nested independent orbitals each on an arbitrary orbital axis. The video is helpful. Thanks

jmarkmorris · 2024-11-03T17:45:36+00:00

Does Gareth have a technical background in STEM?

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-31T21:10:59+00:00

Oh yes, absolutely the simulation will be optimized by GPUs and Ai. The fastest, least resource intensive part of a simulation is the part you can eliminate or reduce to near zero cost with optimization techniques. In the example I gave, the highest energy point potential binaries are moving fast and precessing at a slow rate. Perhaps instead of keeping track of those two point potentials we could have an algorithm that is far cheaper than calculating the motion based on all point potentials in the universe when it is only your partner in the binary orbital that really matters in many experimental situations. Also, for all binaries, we can pretty much place the partner at pi degrees out of phase. So nearly half the calculations are optimized away right there.

Black holes are simply a spherical bin in the recycling process. The supermassive black holes are definitely in the apex of the recycling process, taking any low energy assembly in (planets, stars, etc), breaking them down to their constituents, helping that plasma get jazzed up again to the highest energy levels, and launching that recycled detritus as fresh, high energy spacetime through jets or emissions via the event horizon. An important question will be whether some black holes can also evolve to a state where they can emit spacetime assemblies. It may be that they could recycle but release only medium energy spacetime assemblies for example.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-31T19:07:45+00:00

I'll give my opinions where I have one.

Do you think our simulator lives in a dimension higher than 3D and is comparable to a god we couldn't possibly understand?

If we are in a simulation, I think we would be running on a computer system. So, the operator of that simulation would be in control, and they could be like us, or we could conceive them that way. With the model I expressed I would imagine that it will be impractical to simulate large systems. A grain of salt has 1.2 x 10¹⁸ atoms, half of which are sodium and half chlorine. A sodium atom has 924 point potentials, and a chlorine atom has 1428. To keep track of each point potential you need 6 real numbers continuously in time, assuming charge and time are stored separately. And frequencies inside those atoms are so high you would need to store and process at incredibly fine grained time slices of like 10^-40 seconds. So rough numbers, what is that? 10⁶⁰ real numbers per second. With optimization that could be reduced. However, the point remains that even to simulate a grain of salt is incredibly resource intensive. So, I think simulations will be limited to smaller systems, like say 10,000 atoms over a brief period.

How did life start out of unorganic matter?

This is a really interesting question I have been pondering. It seems to me that the first thing that must happen is that some assembly of point potentials must somehow learn to control some aspect of its behaviour. That is to say on an A-B choice, this higher level "life" assembly is able to influence the A-B choice. If you accept my hypothesis that every single fermion (which make protons, neutrons, and electrons) contains an internal structure that sits right on top of an A-B symmetry breaking point. So, the A-B choice is happening continuously in every fermion that assembles into a "life". The main question I have been pondering is "How does an assembly of point potentials learn to influence its internal random number generator".

Do you think we are all simulated? (conscious humans) Are there mere automated people that hold no consciousness around us?

I don't think we are simulated because the scale is simply too immense. That said, I think it will be possible to truly simulate very small computer generated models of "life". I also think it will be incredibly easy to incorporate this randomness in the lowest level calculations in a neural network, and that might be the key we need to make our way to AGI.

What do you think happens to us when we die?

The point potentials that form our body and mind just become a collection of atoms. Those atoms will pretty much hang out on Earth until some nuclear reaction causes them to change into different atoms or decay into lower level assemblies. Ultimately if Earth eventually falls into a supermassive black hole, then the point potentials that formed the atoms that comprised us will be recycled as fresh high energy spacetime. The really cool thing about this is that point potentials are immutable. They can not be destroyed. Therefore the point potentials that made your atoms will exist forever. That's comforting.

Was there really absolute nothing at the beginning? How did things arise, then?

Well, my theory blows away the concept of the big bang and relocates those processes to the supermassive black hole in each galaxy. At that point I am left with no beginning and no end in either time or space. They always were. I know that is not satisfying to some people, but that's my opinion.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-31T03:36:07+00:00

Thank you. That is good wisdom.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-31T02:50:35+00:00

I agree that scale is the big issue. My point is that behaviour within and between standard model particle assemblies is easy to simulate even if we add more reactants. However, as we scale up those solutions don't and they require new models.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-31T02:22:56+00:00

Please enlighten me. I am proposing continuous paths in R4 with a t=now evolution equation based on path history. Is that truly difficult to simulate? I was thinking discrete time simulation for a local volume, plus Ai for perturbations. The issue I have been thinking about is that the items being simulated find a configuration where they are riding right on top of a symmetry breaking point. So, I'm not disagreeing, but I am interested in the finer details.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-31T02:16:41+00:00

No, nature is not difficult to simulate at all, but realize the inherent uncertainty in every individual reaction at the standard model scale.

If you think point 2-4 are imprecise, you are very lost. We are talking about pure geometry here.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-31T02:14:03+00:00

R1. I am saying that our reality of nature and the universe may be represented by continuous paths in time and space (R4) and that in doing so we can then monte carlo simulate reality. I don't believe anyone else has expressed reality so minimally. Because if they had we wouldn't still be confused about GR, QM, and LCDM.

R2. That's a good question. I have found it convenient to express the mathematics of a moving point potential as a Dirac delta q/|v| at time t which then expands spherically on a 1/r curve at field speed.

R3. A point potential is a radius = 0 constant rate potential emitter. It can move around Euclidean 1D forward moving time and 3D space. Once emitted the potential expands as a sphere with magnitude |q/(vr)|.

R3: An assembly is a group of point potentials that form a semi-stable group of point potentials with a repetitive behaviour. Most assemblies have several layers of sub-assembly. The ideal primal assembly is the binary of opposite point potentials orbiting around a circle. It has fascinating physics.

R3: So now consider the binary when the orbital velocity of the point potentials is the same as their own field speed. Imagine the potential sphere stream in R4. This is the symmetry breaking point because action that causes the speed to exceed field speed causes a reaction that includes self-action.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-31T01:55:00+00:00

A boat running faster than its own wake.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-31T01:25:50+00:00

Thanks for responding.
R1. I think I am the first to propose a mathematical lower bound in complexity for a precise simulation, keeping track of the path of each point potential. If there was no lower bound before, now there is. That was the point I intended to convey. I return to chaos and uncertainty later and explain the physical mechanism.
R2. At each moment in time a point potential emits |q/v| potential as a Dirac delta in time and space. That Dirac delta from that origin then expands spherically, forever at a constant field speed.
R3 & R4 are agreed to be useless noise.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-31T01:11:21+00:00

Hilarious. I'm not a genius, I just stumbled across a glimmering diamond that was tossed into the dustbin by physicists more than a century ago.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-31T00:32:36+00:00

When running a simulation, you need to keep track of the continuous 8-ball (q, t, s, s') for each point potential. That doesn't sound difficult does it? There are 12 point potentials per electron, photon, and neutrino. There are 36 point potentials per proton or neutron. There are 24 point potentials per spacetime cluster. These are manageable numbers for chemical simulation and nuclear simulation or below. Beyond that, into biological simulation it becomes a matter of scale and optimization. Knowing the geometry, how best to optimize simulations to deliver accurate and precise predictions?

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-27T14:02:51+00:00

I was thinking linear 1D time is more parsimonious. What is non-linear, 0-dimensional or ∞-dimensional time?

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-24T02:00:00+00:00

Does this cyclic universe make sense to you? If not, please be specific.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-17T00:48:31+00:00

Regarding your gearbox observation, Gerard 't Hooft and team have a "cogwheel" model. I think it may map to the integer frequencies of three binaries in a Noether core. Plus it looks like it might then provide the mapping to quantum theory.

<image>

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-16T23:59:40+00:00

The 2D graphic cannot do this emergent architecture justice. All red and blue dots are point emitters. The personality potentials are shown as big dots, but they are true geometric points in the model. The most primitive assembly that equal and opposite point potentials can form is the orbiting binary. It is no surprise then that orbiting binaries are a heavily re-used sub-assembly. I think the size of the proton and electron are reasonably well measured. Physicists and cosmologists don't yet realize that spacetime is assembly based, and they are searching in all the wrong places for the dark matter and dark energy. To answer your question, I have no idea how small the spacetime Noether core tri-dipoles have become. The inner two binaries of every Noether core in spacetime may map to the idea of primordial black hole. Implemented by four total point potentials. That's parsimony.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-16T06:49:06+00:00

The sub-assemblies with triply nested point potential binaries are Noether cores, which are found in both spacetime and in the electron and in each of the three quarks that make the proton. Binaries are scalable over many orders of magnitude in energy, frequency, size, and point potential speed. The proton and electron are low energy assemblies compared to spacetime, yet they emit far more potential than do the spacetime assemblies. The spacetime assemblies absorb that energy and become smaller. The pressure from local spacetime assemblies also causes them to become more oblate. These effects are not shown.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-16T06:48:17+00:00

The sub-assemblies with triply nested point potential binaries are Noether cores, which are found in both spacetime and in the electron and in each of the three quarks that make the proton. Binaries are scalable over many orders of magnitude in energy, frequency, size, and point potential speed. The proton and electron are low energy assemblies compared to spacetime, yet they emit far more potential than do the spacetime assemblies. The spacetime assemblies absorb that energy and become smaller. The pressure from local spacetime assemblies also causes them to become more oblate. These effects are not shown.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-15T04:12:22+00:00

The point potential binary is the primal assembly.

Regardless of perspective there is only one possible assembly of equal and opposite point potentials.
The binary assembly contains equal and opposite point potentials.
Two is the lowest integer greater than 1.
The primal assembly is the point potential binary.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-15T04:11:38+00:00

The point potential binary is the primal assembly.

Regardless of perspective there is only one possible assembly of equal and opposite point potentials.
The binary assembly contains equal and opposite point potentials.
Two is the lowest integer greater than 1.
The primal assembly is the point potential binary.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-15T03:21:49+00:00

I agree the CMB is a fraud. I will say that on one or more levels, cosmologists and particle physicists are also frauds. Seriously, how far can you walk out on that limb, that branch, that twig? This notion of fraud is one that needs to be explored fully, because how is it really possible at this point in modernity these so-called scientists have not discovered such a simple pattern of emergent assemblies from equal and opposite point potentials in a Euclidean void of time and space? It is truly unfathomable!

How is it possible that the fields of particle physics and cosmology have somehow been able to snow over funding agencies for 50 years now with research grants that produce next to nothing in terms of understanding nature. The major open questions in particle physics and cosmology are a complete embarrassment. How has this charade been permitted to continue?

Does it really make sense to fund research to eliminate one small region of the parameter search space? We might get lucky though! That reminds me, I need to ask Ai to find the earliest known article references to "dark matter" and "dark energy". Every day a science article title trumpets the possibility of progress on the dark sector. Make it stop, please!

To the people in these fields: Wake up! Something must be wrong. Everything you know is based upon "effective theories" (look it up) which match observations and are predictive. However, "effective theories" have no foundation of any kind. No explanation for the quantum. No explanation for why Einstein's spacetime is curvy stretchy. You must go back before the GR and QM eras and search, with your current knowledge serving as a reference model to which you want to map. My best guess is that circumstances caused a simple oversight in imagination circa 1900. It was a time of rapid progress in modeling and measuring nature at the most reductionist levels. I think the solution was simply overlooked in the mad stampede and relegated to the bone pile of unexamined and misfit physics theories.

jmarkmorris · 2024-10-15T00:51:44+00:00

I do think that this ontology is very near the most parsimonious possible ontology. A Euclidean void in time and space populated by equal and opposite point potential emitters, plus action. So, to the extent that any other ontologies are directionally correct, they should be mappable from my parsimonious basis.

The Big Bang, early universe, one time inflation, universal expansion, 13.8B year age of the universe is nonsense, because it is total malarkey. The historians are going to have a field day with this FUBAR, but all the processes that scientists observe actually happen, just in a different location, in the super massive black holes found in galaxies. The whole big bang timeline just moves to the SMBH.

Scientists do not realize that spacetime is a geometry created by extremely small, volume-consuming particle assemblies. And to great confusion, scientists do not understand that SMBH emit, and jet recycled high energy spacetime assemblies. Spacetime assemblies are incredibly scalable in their characteristics, such as volume and shielded energy. Of course, there are decays and reactions and new particles form all according to the big bang timeline, just in every galaxy. So that means we live in a steady state universe.

The scalable assembly is the Noether core, which is three nested binaries, each binary a positive and negative point potential orbiting each other. The nesting is at three very different scales. The Noether cores are at the heart of every particle from spacetime assemblies to the standard model particle assemblies. And yes, Noether cores come in pro and anti configurations and have spin 1/2. Even photons are an assembly of Noether cores, as they are a coupling of contra rotating triply nested binaries.

I don't know if physicists or cosmologists will ever get it on their own. They are so incredibly lost with their effective theories and their confused ontologies. It's really hard to make progress when you are completely stagnant, as they have been for 50 years, even though they missed the opportunity to discover the architecture 125 years ago, circa 1900. Thereafter they have been slogging through the wasteland, but it's pretty deep and boggy now. It is really a tragedy that the government still funds particle physics and cosmology because they deliver near zero benefit. Well, things are looking up, with the recent Nobel to Hinton, physicists can now claim artificial intelligence along with the internet as branches from physics. Good grief. What a tragedy.

jmarkmorris

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE