Newton's Biggest Blunder

Blunders, Blunders by the Kilogram...:)

Newton's Biggest Blunder

F=m.a

Many "scientists" "criticize" Einstein for his Biggest Blunder - The Cosmological Constant...:)

Einstein, driven by theological or aesthetic considerations, believed that the Universe should be eternal, immutable. The only way to make a four-dimensional spacetime full of matter (mass) is to introduce a negative pressure to keep the Universe from going through a Big Crunch sometime after the Big Bang...:)

This introduction of a negative pressure in his model corresponded to the introduction of a constant in Einstein equations- The Cosmological Constant

Many TV scientists "criticize" Einstein for that. I place "criticize" between quote marks because it is not a real criticism. This "critique" is invariably followed by a "brilliant" new model in which one introduces a negative pressure (Dark Energy) and that restores the validity of the initial hypothesis, thus Snatching Victory (for Einstein) off the Jaws of Defeat....:)

Vicious Cycle...:)

All these quotation marks are just a tremendous red flag demonstrating that one cannot actually criticize Einstein, Newton, The Theory From The 23rd Century (String Theory - M-Theory...etc)... without redeeming those entities in the next sentence...

Too much reverence is not good for Science. One should always revere their effort, legacy, inspiration etc. Their ideas should be revised if one comes up with something that makes more sense...:)

Let's start with the great Sir Isaac Newton. I mentioned in the past that I had to revise his work for the simple reason that his work is fundamental- the bedrock of all physics. In that simple equation he created the means for absolute measurements of force, weight, mass...well... in fact, inertial mass and force are interdependent definitions, that is, one has to define Mass to be able to come up with Force...:0

Little people knew but at that moment Physics detoured, departed from any possibility of a geometrical paradigm.

I recreated Newton's Second Law (F=m.a) as a Stress/Strain relationship on the Fabric of Space. By applying that equation to two cross-sections of the 5D Spacetime I was able to recover the equations for the Electromagnetism and Gravitational Forces... The so called Grand Unification Theory...(Strong and Weak Forces were replaced by local Fabric of Space deformations and Nonlinear Hadronic Processes, respectively).

I wish I could play my TV Physicist role and redeem Sir Isaac Newton by saying that some cosmetic changes in Newton's paradigm allows Physics to regain its footing...:)

That would be great, but it would also be a lie...:)

The reason being is that Mankind built a Castle of Cards over that paradigm and only a deep redressing will do...:)

Cheers,

MP

PS_ Next we will review Gallileo Gallilei Biggest Blunder..:)

An Infinite Source of Energy

Coherent Nuclear Fusion -
The Path to Infinite and Safe Energy

----------------------------------------------

The Energy Book is available for download here
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

I wrote short blog about Coherent Nuclear Fusion sometime ago. As anything, one only pays attention to form (properly marketted ideas) as oppose to ideas simply told straight-up.

I had my equation for epsilon0, mu0 and G and any other derived cosmological constant since the beginning of times in my papers...:) I believe that only when I was able to create a picture of that equation in the forefront of my blog (right in front of your face) that that salient point was noticed.

It took time to realize that people are impervious to anything that doesn't hit them in the face..>:)

I decided to refresh another salient point or conclusion derived from my theory. I proposed the means to create an infinite source of energy in another of my postings: Coherent Nuclear Fusion.

Up to now, people have been colliding particles and trying to understanding what happens from those collisions.

That is a good start...:)

The problem with that is that this has been done in the dark and that should not be the case after I wrote my theory.

I proposed the experiment for the Large Hadron Collider: Collide particles which are traveling in the same direction, using a focusing magnetic lens... :)

This is a tremendous change in paradigm since a collider normally uses head-on collisions to maximize the collision energy...:)

This paradigm finesses the procedures used to create knowledge and nuclear fusion..>:)

The dilator paradigm and the Hypergeometrical Standard Model creates the ideological (theoretical) basis for this new kind of experimentation.

Having a focused beam of Deuterium and polarizing magnetic lensing should lead to coherent nuclear fusion processes with extremely high yield and achieved at much lower collision energy.

Needless to say, this should open a window into a new future, distant from the one we are rushing into now. Currently we are just going to extract all underground carbon and burn it...:) Any carbon taken from the ground makes Earth warmer and life worse.

Most likely I should make a picture of a beam and a two set of magnetic lenses: one to focus the beam and create fusion and another to redirect the beam back into the accelerator path.

Coming in a separable angle would be the products of the nuclear fusion. Of course, the same process could be used for coherent nuclear fission...:)

There are other sources of energy that I can envision and many unimaginable innovations (gravitational shielding, direct manipulation of the Fabric of Space, superluminal traveling, the ability to create non-interacting matter, etc)...

It will take time for me to explain everything since I can't find a single human that shows a basic understanding of this theory..>:) Maybe only the Aliens from Area 51 or those crafty scientists from Livermore..>:)

My goal is always To Serve Humans >:)

Cheers,

MP

Expanding Dimensional Hypercubes

Expanding Hypercubes

Nobody said:

***************
MP,

The Lloyd I referred to is Lloyd Gillespie at this site. He proposed a near-zero temperature of infinite space as the contractive trigger for the big bang, as an acceleration towards the common center increases the temperature and density of matter or space to he point where it reverses radially. Yet, the problem is with the "common center" of infinite space, of which it lacks, so the mechanics only work in a finite model - ingeniously I would say.

I understand that you don't wish to get into first causes, but I feel that first causes are important in understanding first philosophy which in turn is important in understanding the "things" of the universe. I agree that references to inside and/or outside of space make no sense when everything is space, but the same also must apply to inward and/or outward motion of time when everything is time-dependent, which is the prerequisite condition in formulating necessary differentials, that you seem to advocate in your theory. To make a hypercube from a point to a line to a square to a cube to a hypercube requires velocities that an infinite universe lacks, where all points of the universe remain connected leaving no room for even extremely short-lived fluctuations of the virtual vacuum, as well as any direction for the waves to propagate radially or gravitationally.

I agree with your assessment of proper time, but the accelerated force would either have to be eternal or never existent. Fluctuations can't just happen, but are time-dependent upon position becoming zero which would occur in all quarters of infinite spacetime; and would cancel in no time because there are no lapses between the universes as you've made note of.
***************

The first problem I have with Lloyd Gillespie's argument is the definition of temperature of space. Of course, temperature requires equilibrium, space has to have defined energy levels, equilibrium across an infinite space requires infinite amount of time to be reached, etc. The second is of course what you just said about the center of an infinite manifold. The third is the lack of definition on the dimensionality of the said space. Fourth is that, by the usage of temperature as a state variable triggering the Big Bang or Universe collapse , I suspect he thinks that there are massive particles in this early (pre-Big Bang Universe), thus this might not be a purely geometrical universe. Of course, I don't believe one can solve the problems of physics while using mass, charge and other non geometric concepts.

This looks like a 3D Universe that cools down, gravitationally collapses, heats up and restarts an expansion...:) If that is the case, there would be tremendous anisotropy in the mass distribution of the 3D Universe...:) If this were a 4D Universe, then the 3D expanding universe wouldn't be thin and we would see 4D aberration. Needless to say, distance and mass distribution has been enough to make gravitational collapse not possible. Experimental evidence is the observed expansion in the distance of Galaxies. If all the Galaxies were to cool down to near-zero temperature, that wouldn't make this gravitational collapse more likely.

I am interested in having people capable of understanding the current universe from a geometrical perspective. The initial universe is simple by definition. It hasn't been considered that way because people had too many forces (imaginary forces) and unnecessary supersymmetry requirements.

I proposed a simple model that explains the Universe. There is no need to explain metric fluctuations. Here one can and should use the Antropic Principle. This is a changing Universe, if this wasn't the case, then the Universe wouldn't change and nothing would come into existence.

If you want to discuss how likely are uncertainty based metric fluctuations in an infinite amount of time and/or infinite amount of space, then I would say that a fluctuation is not only likely but it is a certainty...

The question reduces to the simple question of why there is a Cosmological Time or why there is a Cosmological Time/Space. I don't have an answer for that and I don't believe one can explain any better than by the use of a circular reasoning. Thus I don't agree with your assessment that understanding first causes would lead to a higher level of understanding of current "things"... This is the current line of thinking and it is due to the need of unifying all the forces. I've already did that.

By the way, fluctuations can and do just happen - it is called the Uncertainty Principle and it appears every time one cannot use points to describe events, that is, one cannot define things with infinite precision... This Universe of ours is imprecise by nature...:)

There are no accelerating forces for the expanding hyperspherical universe in the same way that there isn't a need for an accelerating force to describe the expansion of a circularly expanding wave in a pond. One just need a restoring force to create a propagating wave. The circular aspect is just due to the symmetry of the problem.

Fluctuations are not time dependent, but the original fluctuation is... The original fluctuation is the beginning of proper time....

It took a very rare fluctuation to set the Universe in motion. The moment following the initial fluctuation could see either the fluctuation disappear or decay. If the initial fluctuation decays into microscopic dilators, they would interact according to electromagnetism and gravitation depending upon their spin (zero or half). If the fluctuation is smaller than an specific radius, electromagnetism and gravitation have the same strength. Like in Humpty Dumpty, if the fluctuation is larger than the supersymmetry 4D radius, nobody can put Humpty Dumpty together again. Dilators are coherences between 4d space metric deformations. Since this system is not constrained, deformations will propagate at the natural speed (the speed of light). Whatever doesn't escape recombination will fly always from the center at the speed of light. Very simple, with a simple physical analogy of a wave on a pond.

I don't understand this sentence either

" I agree that references to inside and/or outside of space make no sense when everything is space, but the same also must apply to inward and/or outward motion of time when everything is time-dependent, which is the prerequisite condition in formulating necessary differentials, that you seem to advocate in your theory. To make a hypercube from a point to a line to a square to a cube to a hypercube requires velocities that an infinite universe lacks, where all points of the universe remain connected leaving no room for even extremely short-lived fluctuations of the virtual vacuum, as well as any direction for the waves to propagate radially or gravitationally."

What is inward and/or outward motion of time? Time doesn't move...:) The space I envision is just Cartesian space and there isn't a known velocity for dimension creation.

I don't know where did you came with the velocity of space creation in your hypercube argument. In any event, I provided a lightspeed limited version of the dynamics in which the hyperspherical lightspeed expanding 3D Universe would be at the edge of space. I am agnostic with respect to which one of those two models are the correct one.

I cannot fully comment on your last sentence because I cannot understand it. Quarters of infinite space? Time dependent fluctutations?

Nobody said,
***************
MP,

There seems to be alot of misunderstandings with regards to the terminology, but I agree with the general assessment of it. I didn't mean all that much in opposition regarding the quarters and time fluctuations. I simply equate time and motion, but agree that time doesn't-move; therefore there can be no literal motion in the universe - space is static and can never change.

The velocities require changes of position in a direction, but there are no such directions because the origin of the coordinate systems carries throughout all coordinate times without lapses. Like you said, there is no known velocity for dimension creation. In a sense I equate proper time and coordinate time because I don't believe there is such a thing as an original fluctuation if fluctuations equal time. All distances are time-dependent and all times are distance-dependent; therefore all coordinate frames are cartesian points of origin.
***************

Cheers,

MP

Nobody

Discussions with Nobody
I continued explaining my theory at the TOEQUEST.com where I had posted some of the initial blogs of my theory.

Here is the transcript of the discussion. It is always great to have an opportunity to clarify the fine points of this theory.
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------

Nobody said:

In my case, our 3D Universe embedding has a simple answer (infinite and empty Cartesian space)…Remember that mine is a homogeneous 5D Spacetime Universe. Matter is just deformed space, thus the embedding question doesn’t even make
sense as it does in an universe full of matter (where mass is a concept different from space)."What would be the cause of the deformations of only certain parts of space, and what would be the reason for the empty cartesian space not being deformed as well?

--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Dear Nobody,

Since the 3D Universe is a lighspeed traveling shockwave containing all the matter (coherences between deformational states of a 4D spatial metric - or 5D spacetime metric), the rest of the space is not deformed as well...:) otherwise we would be colliding with space deformations (matter) coming from this fourth dimension and that would happen at the speed of light.

The cause of the deformations is the entropic decay of the Initial Deformation. Remember that the model contains initial metric fluctuations of Zero which can return to Zero. If the initial deformation is large enough such that electromagnetic forces and gravitational forces become distinct, then its decay will create the myriad of particles (dilators) and the shockwave expansion.

The details of Cosmogenesis are not as relevant as the implications of the model to particle physics, Cosmology etc. Hence I try to avoid discussion Cosmogenesis.

By the way, this is the only theory where one can make the whole Universe come out of Zero (nothing). The reason is because everything in the Universe is explained in terms of deformations of space. The theory has no mass, charges constructs. It has only metric deformation coherences. The sum of all metric coherences in the Universe reduces the Universe to a flat metric, a pure Cartesian space.

From the Fundamental dilator paradigm you can see that for each space stretching phase there is an equal amplitude space compressing phase. This means that under the correct conditions all matter in the Universe would add up to nothing.

As usual, you can propose anything while extending my model. The only requirement is that it does not collide with what we observe. We don't observe this massive collisions with matter coming from nowhere.

Cheers,

MP
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by N0B0DY
"the rest of the space is not deformed as well...:)"

I think I'll buy it, MP, but I don't understand the reason why we would not be colliding.Be back shortly. Thanks for the response.

--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Dear Nobody,

Thanks for buying it...:)

As in any theory, my Cosmogenesis theory was crafted such as to avoid introducing events which are not present in reality. One does not see (measure) particles, chunck of matter appearing and disappearing in our 3D Universe.

That is what would happen if our 3D shockwave Universe were crossing a region of the 4D space with "deformations" which we call matter.That will hopefully clarify the problem further.If there were other 3 shockwave Universes in this 4D manifold we would be seeing the signs of a collision in our 3D visible universe. We don't see that either.

This supports the idea that there is only one 3D shockwave universe at any given time in this 4D manifold.The rest of the model (dimensional transitions) is created to support that observation.That might be other models equally suitable. I chose this one as the most likely and most profound since it starts with a fluctuation of Zero in a Zero Dimensional Space. One could start with a fluctuation of Zero in a one Dimensional space or two or three or four dimensional spaces...

It is just a matter of taste.

I preferred thinking that the inital metric fluctuation took place at the same time as the dimensions unfolded. Higher dimesnionality means higher entropic barrier to the return to zero.
The decay of an macroscopic metric deformation (100 km or 15 km 4D radius - I don't remember exactly the calculation) into a myriad of very tiny, spinning small deformations in a four-dimensional space creates a tremendous entropic barrier to space relaxation.As I mentioned before.

Please disregard Cosmogenesis until you fully understand the rest of the theory. It is like discussing the sex of angels...

There are more interesting things to chat about.

Cheers,

MP
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Re: HyperGeometrical Cosmology

I wish Lloyd was here to have a look at this because I think he proposed something along similar lines and I couldn't make it work for an infinite model for the same reasons addressed here.I think, as you say, it is the only plausible explanation for the "exterior" universe, but you would have to explain better than he and you have this far the reason for the initial fluctuations and the reason the fluctuations don't continue infinitely.

I'm not saying it's not completely accurate, I do understand what you are proposing, but only accurate in describing spatial mechanics within time. Yet, for me it has to explain why there is the concept of time to begin with, as you imply there is an unfolding of dimensions.

--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Dear Nobody,

Of course, nobody could ever solve that problem while thinking of things in terms other than space. All current Science, makes use of the concepts of Mass, Charge. One can never solve the puzzle of what contains the Universe in any theory that contains those constructs.
It doesn't make sense to think about exterior and interior if everything is just space. My theory, being the only one that contains a geometrical description for matter is the only one that could solve that puzzle.

I don't know which Lloyd are you talking about...:) I love Lloyd Weber...:) in any event, since you kept your privacy (Nobody), I suspect I will never know who Mr Lloyd is. Please feel free to direct Lloyd to my blog. At this time, I cannot replicate it here in the TOEQUEST.

I did not mentioned that space fluctuations stopped from happening. They certainly still happen. I've never mentioned that the virtual particle bath (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle vacuum fluctuations) does not exist. I've mentioned in my theory that the electromagnetic field zero point fluctuations are not associated with the vacuum. Electromagnetic zero point fluctuations are matter driven, that is, they are associated with matter (Black Body Radiation) and vanishe far from matter.

Thus if I am stating that the virtual particle bath exists, that just means that the initial fluctuation that gave origin to the whole Universe is extremely infrequent, but that doesn't mean anything in the period in between Universes...:) Time is irrelevant in between Universe forming metric fluctuation, since there is NOBODY to measure it...:) No alarm clock, watches or anything that cares for the passage of time...:)

As I mentioned, Cosmogenesis is the theory about how things started. It is much more important to understand the THINGS....:) that is, how the Universe can be described in terms of space. I mentioned that one can choose 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D or 4D as a starting point for the Universe. The basic dynamics doesn't really matter. One just need to know that for a given metric fluctuation, the quantized decay of it yields a tremendous entropic barrier which cannot be reversed until the Universe relaxes again.

I consider that time is always there. Cosmological time always ticks. Metric Fluctuations always happens, irrespective to the dimensionality of the space.

By the way, what we call time is actually Proper Time or the projection of the Cosmological Time. Without a 3D Shockwave Lighspeed Expanding Universe there are nothing to project upon and thus there is no proper time and no time that we can understand or measure.

Not always there is a Universe which we can call home....:)

Cheers,

MP

The Stroboscopic Universe

The Stroboscopic Universe

This blog is the continuation of a discussion about the Hypergeometrical Universe. It contains references that can be also understood by reading the blog:

Anything essential is invisible to the eyes...

The discussion focus on two aspects of my theory:

• THe stroboscopic aspects of the Unviverse due to dilaton interaction dependence upon its overlap with the 3D shockwave lighspeed expanding universe, hence the stroboscopic character of interactions.
• Discussion on where the Universe is embedded. In my theory, the 3D shockwave universe is clearly embedded within a 4D Spatial Cartesian manifold, no ifs or buts.

Let review the debate:

-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

MP

Thankyou for your thoughtful reply. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I really can't understand how you can espouse such an incomplete theory.

Try to think of your light speed expanding universe as a point in the middle of a room. If you realize that the universe only appears to us to be large, you will then realize that we do not really have any actual size. This point in a room represents reality to you, our entire universe. The room itself requires an explanation, not just the contents.

You are right about your reference to solipsism. It turns the room inside out and our universe becomes a globe we are within and solves the container conundrum.

The reference to the strobe has no merit because we are fully capable of seeing anything we can comprehend.

-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the reply. Don't worry about being perceived as argumentative. Any theory worth being read should be debated.

With respect to incompleteness, it is clear that you don't have a good grasp of Cosmology. No theory other than mine provides a solution to the problem of Universe embedding.

Where is the Universe embedded? The currently model of the Universe states that the Universe is still expanding. In the current perception, space is being created at the edge of "reality"...:) I consider this quite incomplete but widely accepted, thus your comment about espousing such an incomplete theory is quite incorrect and lacks perspective.

In my case, our 3D Universe embedding has a simple answer (infinite and empty Cartesian space)…

Remember that mine is a homogeneous 5D Spacetime Universe. Matter is just deformed space, thus the embedding question doesn’t even make sense as it does in an universe full of matter (where mass is a concept different from space).

The second comment on your comment is about your recasting of the topology I proposed for the Universe. Instead of shedding light on a new reasoning, it shows that you did not understand the proposed topology.I would never propose that we live in a point... of course, under those conditions we wouldn't have any dimensionality (actual size). This is a totally detached analogy from the original model and it is a very bad analogy. Just stay with the hyperspherical lightspeed expanding 3D Universe if you can understand that. Don't make things incorrect by proposing your "simplifying" analogy.

Hence your paradoxes wouldn’t exist if you had used my proposed topology.

With respect to the containing space, I mentioned that I am agnostic with the existence of an infinite or finite (and expanding) cartesian space. I mentioned that that space is real as you are since everything in the Universe is made of space (including matter, stars, etc..)

You are an electronic engineer…:) thus you should be familiar with the fact that currently a electron is different from a proton.

You stated bravely that “The reference to the strobe has no merit because we are fully capable of seeing anything we can comprehend.”

Well, I used the Fundamental Dilator (which states that a proton and an electron are different phases of the same coherence) to unify all forces of nature and that support the initial hypothesis that the Proton and Electron are phases of the Fundamental Dilator Coherence.

This proves that you are not fully capable of seeing anything (different phases of the fundamental dilator) we can comprehend… unless you are considering that you cannot comprehend the Fundamental Dilator Paradigm.
In any debate, the parties should show that they understand what they are debating; otherwise the exchange will not make sense.

Please make sure you understand the Fundamental Dilator and the Hyperspherical topology proposed for the 3D Universe.

Follow the links to read about:
The Fundamental Dilator
Time Quantization and the Fat Electron
The Hyperspherical Lightspeed Expanding 3D Universe
The Shockwave Universe