/sci/ - Science & Math

See thread.

Write this book to kill it:
The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
MIRROR 1: http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0598
MIRROR 2: http://2occatl.net/1712.0598v2.pdf
MIRROR 3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sXrFZhMo9OjoauL0SgAvpSxD_8qaAYi0/view?usp=sharing

Pic related, the mathematical kernel of the Modified Cosmological Model is of exactly the same form as the mathematical kernel of Higgs' seminal paper, and Higgs has been getting name dropped, in a praising way, a thousand times a day for thirty years for. Why don't you praise me? Higgs solved one important problem, and several of his contemporaries independently solved it too. I solved very many problems, and I think I was the only one to come up with most of those solutions. Despite my inept detractors having access to my incremental developments, I don't think they really ever got ahead of me. I don't mean with the applications, I mean with the improvements of the fundamentals.

>>9669913
>limits
this book extends field theory beyond quantum field theory, which is the extension of real numbers onto complex numbers, with a simultaneous extension of real and imaginary numbers onto hyperreal and hyperimaginary numbers, the latter being the former times [math]i[/math]. Because hyperreal numbers use limits, this book says a lot about limiting behavior when it extends field theory beyond QFT to include gravity, pic related. It compares the MCM mechanism's development with the development of the scalar boson mechanism in Higgs' seminal paper.

The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
MIRROR 1: http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0598
MIRROR 2: http://2occatl.net/1712.0598v2.pdf
MIRROR 3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sXrFZhMo9OjoauL0SgAvpSxD_8qaAYi0/view?usp=sharing

How about the hard problem of physics where, supposedly, it is impossible to write simultaneously something in the language of general relativity, a mathematical analysis of points in spacetime, and the quantum theory of states in Hilbert space that are never defined at points, but only as a continuum amplitude?

>>9590487
I guess it depends on your semantic standard of unification. IMO, effective field theory does not unify the disparate mathematical frameworks because it allows you to make calculations by "effectively" removing the mathematical rigor from the "theory." I guess that also depends on one's semantic definition of "rigor" because i guess you can say, "let this hand waving change be allowed" and that is rigorous, but that undermines the fundamental goal of unifying the disparate mathematical frameworks without having to rely on that kind of step.

Here is an example of the two theories cleanly unified:
>Quantum Gravity
>http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0055

In this book I describe the general process whee gravity is equivalent to acceleration because gravity is acceleration through time:
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

pic related, it shows how the method of my derivation in the QG paper is exactly the one Higgs used in his seminal paper. Why is his accepted and mine is not?
>scientology or something.

>>9440394
forgot pic. Compares Higgs' famous result to the main MCM result. People think somehow my equations are less than Higgs' because the PDF that contains them gets DLed from viXra instead of APS... which is almost "A Piece of Shit"

This infographic shows how my derivation of gravity from a quantum theory follows the exact form of Higgs derivation of his eponymous particle.