/sci/ - Science & Math

But there is dark matter isn't there?

>>5293419

I don't think so. I think that galactic center nonsingular black holes form Einstein Roseon bridges which introduce a negatively curved spacetime hypersurface that I call the Gold Hypersurface. The interaction between the Gold Hypersurface and the hypersurface of our universe forms a spacetime manifold, much like the shape of a torus.

Thus, the additional gravity is not caused by additional mass, but by intrinsic curvature of the spacetime manifold about Einstein Rosen bridges.

>>5293461
Oh. What does this mean for the atom model?
And uh the Higgs-Boson?

>>5293510

Nothing. The standard model is completely unchanged. It does put Super symmetry and sparticles into question though, as they are prime candidates for 'Dark Matter'

>>5293523
I was told dark matter was the reason all that universe energy condensed into matter. Thoughts on this?

>>5293461
Uh OP special relativity is doing what your saying all the time, think of it as a single vibration permeating most of space, something like 78 percent actually & certain elementary particles
*pst space is 'shrinking'*

& the gold 'hypersurface' is just a restriction of the internal flow of electrons while the outer shell of everypossible atom in in existance is superpositioning itself to give the illusion of gold do to incomplete electron shells being stacked on top & into eachother

Jk, but quite a good theory when you throw total non relativity player into the background
*cough* oshiitson*cough*

>>5293541

I simply think black holes are older than we give them credit for. I think they emerged immediately after the big bang, which kind of makes sense as the universe was about as small and dense as a black hole in its origin. Thus the topography of the early universe is intimately tied to how early supermassive black holes emerged. If there were no black holes in the early universe, then my hypothesis is most likely wrong.

>>5293567

Uh, I didn't name it the Gold hypersurface because it's made of gold. It's made up of inverted spacetime from which no energy can propagate, since such energy would have to exist in a super-luminal state. It's named after my friend Jessie Gold who said "Name something in your idea after me."

Also, yes. I wondered about spacetime boiling occurring outside of a black hole, and I believe it may be said that Spacetime boiling, if it exists, would behave like an amplified version of quantum foam.

>>5293590
Alrite alrite, but if your gunna use the term boiling with spacetime you gotta know that your essentially saying that all of time is collapsing all the time right? In terms of the standards of what special relativity is thought of, & if you are saying that then it is indeed collapsing into "something" that doesn't have a true relative space of place
*cough* 313ctrons *cough*

Capcha ryndoza nature

>>5293569
Regardless if it even involves black holes, I like your idea that it's a yet to be determined consequence of space time, rather than some new exotic matter that we can't put in a box and poke with a stick.

>>5293623

Hey, as long as my idea can be thought of as at least just as crazy as the leading hypothesis, I consider it well in the running.

You know what really scares me about my hypothesis these days? I'm not sure if it allows the existence of the Feynman model of the graviton.

ITT: Pseudoscientific babble, and people who assume they know a lot more about physics than they do.

Define "negatively curved spacetime." Black holes contract spacetime, they "curve" it toward them. To me, negative curvature implies hyperbolic spacetime, which would both be easily observable and make no sense (in the aspect of formation from black holes).

>>5293631
Then you are probably doing it right, because again, no one has put one in a box yet.

>>5293376
Oh, I am going to have to bookmark your channel! I'm just wondering though- have you heard of the works of Julian Barbour and/or Max Tegmark? They're not connected at first glance, but I find them very fascinating and relevant to what you're saying.

>>5293648
you cannot assume that inverted spacetime would be easily observable because energy and mass are neither propagated within it, nor emitted from it.

Rest assured it would not make any sense. You could draw up the idea of one point to another, and then you have to say that there are no light like geodesics of any kind that can connect them., regardless of how flat you may think the spacetime to be or how close together you place the two points.

>>5293650
I did.

>>5293650

That may just be a limitation of our testing ability. The graviton is of so small we may never detect it. You'd need a detector the size of Jupiter orbiting the supermassive black hole of the milky way galaxy for ten years before you could claim confirm the existence of a single graviton.

>>5293670
It would be easily observable due to gravitation-like effects. After all, gravity isn't a force, it's an effect on spacetime. For "dark matter" to be a product of spacetime and not physically matter, spacetime would have to be compressed, not folded upon itself. That and black holes, or even hypothesized Einstein-Rosen bridges (which, by the way, wouldn't be able to be used for travel unless all information was lost, if relativity is correct. However, since it seems more and more likely that information is NOT lost in a black hole, Einstein-Rosen bridges seem less likely), wouldn't be able to curve spacetime away from them (as hyperbolic curvature would suggest), only some form of anti-gravity could do that, which is bordering ridiculous. Have you even taken any classes in general relativity?

>>5293693

Sort of. I watched Susskind's General Relativity lectures online, and I'm slogging through Caroll's "Geometry and Spacetime: An introduction to General Relativity." So far, I've not seen anything contradictory that doesn't have an exception of its own (Like shrinking light cones within gravitational fields) but the math is weighing down on me. I have to level up, because the next and hardest step will be mapping out the spacetime manifolds of black holes and galaxies in clusters, taking into account Einstein-Rosen Bridges.

AY-YAI-YAI.

Where are the quantifiable predictions?

>>5293708

That the geometric curvature of Einstein-Rosen bridges (The Gold hypersurface) will equal the additional gravitational curvature of galactic clustering.

Still, as the model calls for multiply-throated Torus geometry I have to take into account that the Minkowski number of the clusters may be variant, which to me is a big problem.

guise

guise

what if

guise what if dark matter is actually trillions of planets and space stations constructed by a highly advanced robotic species? they've harvested every star, planet and comet in their area, and are now expanding outwards. there's your missing mass, hand me my noble prize.

>>5293743

It means that the human race is even further behind the curve than anyone ever realized.

>>5293716
>That the geometric curvature of Einstein-Rosen bridges (The Gold hypersurface) will equal the additional gravitational curvature of galactic clustering.

No that's what you want. It isn't a prediction.

>>5293779

Then I don't yet know how to phrase the prediction.

>>5293779

For now how about I just say that Black holes are nonsingular. The currently acknowledged singular black hole model is wrong and needs to be changed to the nonsingular model. The rest is too complicated right now. So if I were handling one thing at a time, I'd start with that.

>>5293743
I think we would be able to see the waste heat from their Dyson spheres and megastructures through IR radiation.

>>5293793

Oh, we will. James Webb space telescope, motherfucker. I can't wait.

>>5293749

We could merely be a couple million years behind, if that.