Updates On A Toy Model Of Gravity

[Vmedvil]

You have secondary k and m where de sitter & anti de sitter spaces touch, not just where the normal d branes touch (p's & q's)

 

Yeah, no I actually need a value for it.

[Super Polymath]

Yeah, no I actually need a value for it.

The value of k & m (dark matter) must be directly related to p & q (dark energy), right? Afterall, without anti de sitter space, nothing separates the constants of parallel D-brane space times, & vice versa Edited November 12, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Vmedvil]

The value of k & m (dark matter) must be directly related to p & q (dark energy), right? Afterall, without anti de sitter space, nothing separated parallel D-branes.

 

No, read Dubblesoix's Freidmann Cosmology post I have defined Dark matter and Energy with this equation before in non partial form, it is not either of those. L ≠ H as earlier stated it is in the wrong state.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30491-friedmann-cosmology-with-rotation/

Edited November 12, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

No, read dubblesoix freidmann cosmology post I have defined Dark matter and Energy with this equation before in non partial form, it is not either of those.

When parallel negative d branes merge, that's dark matter, that's gravity, that's black hole megers micro black holes to macro black holes. When parallel d branes merge, that's dark energy. The two events must be related. Edited November 12, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

No, read dubblesoix freidmann cosmology post I have defined Dark matter and Energy with this equation before in non partial form, it is not either of those.

There's little of ample rotation in the CMB.

[Super Polymath]

My ideas are not speculation, they were conforming to the evidence

[Vmedvil]

My ideas are not speculation, they were conforming to the evidence

 

I dunno that k and m have to be for negative energy-mass as Dr Kaku calls it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6XAkVA7RmY

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWHC081B_Do

Edited November 12, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

Just plug it in real quick, see if it works for the toy model without causing stack overflows in the approx.

[Vmedvil]

Just plug it in real quick, see if it works for the toy model without causing stack overflows in the approx.

 

Ya, it stacks upon calculating k and m.

[Super Polymath]

These D-mergers not only produce dark matter (gravity) in anti de sitter space, they produce dark energy (expansion with an added bonus of zero point energy in de sitter space), & - most paramount off all - vice versa. They have to be related for any of the modifications in this model of gravity to work. So just plugin the negative e's & M's above& beneath the planck length & I bet they work to predict wave collapses as well as the speed of weak entanglement.

[Super Polymath]

Ya, it stacks upon calculating k and m.

Show me

[Vmedvil]

These D-mergers not only produce dark matter (gravity) in anti de sitter space, they produce dark energy (expansion with an added bonus of zero point energy in de sitter space), & - most paramount off all - vice versa. They have to be related for any of the modifications in this model of gravity to work. So just plugin the negative e's & M's above& beneath the planck length & I bet they work to predict wave collapses as well as the speed of weak entanglement.

 

So, again it stacks as it cannot understand the i term being a negative root, error upon i is all it says.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

So, again it stacks as it cannot understand the i term being a negative root, error upon i is all it says.

So, again it stacks as it cannot understand the i term being a negative root, error upon i is all it says.

So, again it stacks as it cannot understand the i term being a negative root, error upon i is all it says.

Really dude? You'll have to do better than that.

 

Switching the - & plus signs of the x,y,z coordinates is not the same as adding a negative root. I now enough about math to call bs. No, I mean really show in the relationship written out fully.

[Vmedvil]

Really dude? You'll have to do better than that.

 

Switching the - & plus signs of the x,y,z coordinates is not the same as adding a negative root. I now enough about math to call bs. No, I mean really show in the relationship written out fully.

 

Its right here in this equation.

 

Secondly, I imagine it would stack here.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

Its right here in this equation.

that's not even where you change things to show anti de sitter space. You do that in the e=x,y,z. You say e=-(x,y,z) it's that simple.

[Vmedvil]

that's not even where you change things to show anti de sitter space. You do that in the e=x,y,z. You say e=-(x,y,z) it's that simple.

 

Hold on I am trying to find a way to remove that i, in a way that the computer would understand, too bad it isn't i^2, I would just define it as -1, but it really doesn't like that e^i

Edited November 12, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

that's not even where you change things to show anti de sitter space. You do that in the e=x,y,z. You say e=-(x,y,z) it's that simple.

 

Wait, I found a math solution since.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Vmedvil