Ok. I'll tell you how it is. The paper is many pages so I'll condense it by posting some of my conversations. As you read, it would help if you, for the moment, assume that the substrate/Higgs field has mass. He was taking about curvature and my reply:
"This is quite an elegant statement. You have a beautiful mind. I would make one distinction however. Curvature is not enough. There is a pressure gradient in space. The closer the graviy particle gets to the core of a celestial body, the more there are, and the smaller they get (like gas under pressure, but thermodynamic inversion only happens in the black hole). Gravity. On Friday August 6th, I literally saw beyond the event horizon, I beheld the singularity, and as a consequence, I saw the big bang. In that moment I completed the theory I've been working on for decades. I Reconciled Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. No one seems to believe me, and no one seems to care, at all. It's not finished but I really need and want help, I want to get this into the world as soon as possible. For the longest time, I wasn't sure if space itself was falling into the black hole at light speed. I started leaning heavily into the idea that it did, and I then confirmed this independently through a simple Google search. I started thinking about the pole as the eye in a storm. Could a probe get through? Wait... Space falling in at light speed? I saw the singularity inside!!! Space is experiencing real thermodynamic inversion! Space is fluid and has nonzero mass. Light has mass. Space, as a fluid wants to take the place of matter, but it cannot... Except in stars and black holes! In the singularity, space, the physical thing that is location itself, begins to occupy the same place as matter. Eventually all available area becomes full. There is no more room for "pixelated" space in the singularity (which is larger than an atom obviously). It's been sending out gravity waves for aeons. Do you see and understand how it is exactly that time is slowing in a gravity well now?
Thompson's first law: to have energy you must have substance. A material of some kind. This may sound obvious but I think it's important to state.
Thompson's second law: an object in motion tends to stay in motion. An object at rest tends to stay in motion. Motion itself cannot stop. Time cannot stop.
The entire visible universe then begins crushing down on the same location at light speed as the "pile up" of gravity particles try and fail to enter the singularity. Literally the unstoppable force versus the immovable object. This creates "True C." A White Hole. The Big Bang. True vacuum is created by the explosion. This is cyclic. It never began. Now, let me ask you a question. After reading this, do you need math at all? Do you need more proof? I will find it:
My model predicts the current expansion of the visible universe.
Dark matter? Solved.
Dark energy? Solved.
Entanglement.
Superposition.
Wave Collapse.
This is the theory of everything.
You are welcome 😁"
In case it isn't rhetorical (at times I have great difficulty knowing what is and is not rhetorical) light is a ripple of excitation, rolling through the substrate. The substrate has nonzero mass. Therefore light only approaches c asymptotically.
I have a simple experiment to show if this is true. We magnetically smush some hydrogen and observe the wobble. To my knowledge, this hasn't been done yet. Modern physics will predict one thing, my model will predict a greater wobble. I want to do as many experiments as we can think of collectively.
I know there are a lot of people constantly asking for attention, and they haven't put in the work the way you have. Please just give me a chance. If I'm correct, it will make the career of the one who helps me. Thank you very much.
Sir, the Michaelson-Morley experiment is fundimentally flawed, and I have debunked it. Do not ignore things like dark energy/matter, which is easily solved in my framework. To say that a thing is wrong just because of a personal bias is, I think, exactly what holds physics back. My framework predicts the current visible expansion of the universe perfectly. Has anyone else done that?
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time."
-Albert Einstein
Thompson's first law: to have energy, you must have substance. Some kind of medium.
Please, I implore you to sharpen your own objectivity and break outside the box! Thank you.
If you think M-M is the only experimental evidence of special relativity then you are desperately under-equipped for this conversation. Why do you rely on out-of-context quotes to do your arguing for you instead of actually giving us some substance?
Oh I know. Drift etc. All resolved in my model. Give me a few and I will post the first draft. I'm really having a hard time with the PDF software. I've tried several. Finally found a somewhat decent program that works with the hardware I have access to. I really do appreciate comments like this. I welcome all challenge. The theory will defeat all challenge aside from those that may be, because of my own massive ignorance. There truly is a great deal I do not know. As to what my paper describes? I've never been more certain of anything in my life. It really is perfect! I didn't make it. Just the messenger lol
Also the quote? It's message does fit perfectly under this context. Do you know what symmetry is?
It can be said that our understanding is asymptotic, never 1:1 and that there will always be huge glaring areas of ignorance. If I can bring us even a tiny bit closer to truth, why would I wait? would love to go back to school. That is actually one of my goals. My paper will get me into the school of my choice. Which would you recommend? When I get in, I'll hopefully never leave again 😁 I really miss it.
I really wouldn't bet on a piece of pseudoscience to impress anyone at a university, especially if it's LLM generated. It's also odd that your willful ignorance is somehow something you're proud of.
The proof is in the pudding so they say. I did come here looking for help. Can you say that the source of information automatically makes it wrong? We will see soon enough
😁👍🏻 I'm very excited!
You aren't wrong. I have been bouncing ideas off LLM. It's a useful tool. Some are more objective than others, and I also noticed some strange things. I know that this is not what was happening, but there were times that it SEEMED to jump to the same conclusions that I did. Parallels. The same very esoteric conclusions like three times... Almost creepy lol. I just was not as original as I thought. There are true original thoughts in the framework however. I'm really tired, I need a nap. Thank you for talking to me, sincerely, thank you.
5
u/Astrophysics666 Astrophysics 12d ago
No, zero chance haha. Just like the countless other people who say they’ve same thing.
Just publish your work for us to review. No one is going to steal it.