I was not aware of BEC being achieved.
I was sure that it could be.

Things to do. Will get back to this when time permits.

hhEb09'1,

You have my meaningless backing. As you said, I see this thrown out there too often without understanding what the commentator's complete meaning is. I also like your definition but would add a little to it.

How about this: Word Salad: "impressive-sounding words of unclear meaning." I think this would fly.

And of course just because somebody says this doesn't mean that it's true or that somebody else may understand what's being said. So the use of these words may be saying something negative about the OP, the responder, or both.

I am not sure how to address your questions.

The effect of velocity for a particle/atom/system is dependent on the system.

Velocity of a photon at C.
As compared to dilation and contraction of a particle approaching C.

These are examples of sytems with wave functions.
Functions specific to each.

Velocity for a particle with no wave functions would have it's own exhibit.
Specificly that no velocity or acceleration can add a wave function.

Consider that a photon has an uncetainty.
Is it a wave? Is it a particle?

It is a particle with wave functions.

All particles would demonstrate this duality.

Except at the Planck scale, where only particle properties can exhibit.

Dark matter. Where internal wave functions cannot be introduced or modified by velocity. Gravity is the only property they possess.

Ejected by the jets of a black hole on the wormhole vector. With no solidity, they slide through each other, through mass, through the wormhole.

Black hole compression can no longer exert pressure on a particle at this scale. You cannot squeeze something that just moves through your fingers.

All mass/energy has a dark matter equivilence. Black holes convert mass/energy to this equivilence at some rate proportional to their mass.
Which translates to a value of compressive force.

Consider that an electron commutates in and out of existance. Commutates between being a wave and a particle.

Dark matter does not commutate. It has only particle existance and velocity cannot modify the internal properties.

TST : Black hole is likely the seed for galaxy formation in the primidorial universe. Galaxy would develop as the black hole produced a halo of its ejected dark matter products. Star formation occurs between the halo and the black hole.

Black hole jets are powered by the gravitational effects of the ejected dark matter. What we observe as jets are the synchronystic effects of the mass/energy swept by the gravitational forces of the dark matter.

This defines the event horizon. The extreme velocity of mass/energy gives them escape velocity above the event horizon, but only at the jets because the dark matter gives a proportionate directional vector away from BH.

Below the event horizon, the only vector for mass/energy is toward the singularity. Where the conversion is in process.

All mass/energy will eventually decay to dark matter without benefit of a black hole, in some very long time frame.

We could define the pre big bang as all of mass/energy existing in no space.
We could define post finality as all of space having no mass/energy.

The true definition of what they are is unobservable to us, because we exist in the time frame where this process is taking place.

If we could observe from outside the universe, then we could not define the process of the universe. We could only observe the initial and final products.

Absolute time dilation. Entropy because the product is determinate and inescapable. Chaos because there are many indeterminate mass/energy histories leading to finality.

The value of C was determined by the energy ratio between the initial state and the end product. What value of energy change intiated the change in state.

Other universes in their own time frame may have different values of C.
We can only observe the internal values of our universe size particle.

The universe has a constant total energy because the change in energy that initiated the change in state was prior to big bang.

The prediction of dark matter properties is totally dependent on the universe being a particle in the process of changing state. That there must be an initial and a final energy state.

The universe is heterogenous. Time dilation can only be absolute across the universe if initial and end states are homogenous. Heterogenous state has entropy because homogenous states are determinate.

This is likely not possible but may help to conceptualize. If you could accelerate an electron past C velocity. It approaches infinite mass and zero length. Absolute time dilation. I think that it would not go back in time. I think that it would change state and the process of change would be unobservable, anything could happen in there. With some value as a limit approching, but not attaining infinite mass, it might even have a universe internal to that change.
I dont think you could do that by anything but an instantanious acceleration with a value approaching infinity.


Hope the conceptualization is clear.

You make lots of statements with absolutely no foundation. You state things as if they were facts, many of which run in the face of mainstream science.

You realize that just saying something does not make it so. What one thinks or imagines is not substantial until a solid foundation has been built.

For example, above you state:

Where do you get these ideas from? You can't just describe things like you think they could be. We do not even know for sure whether or not dark matter really exists. And saying that a universe is a particle is very confusing to say the least.

Provide peer-reviewed documentation for your statements, otherwise they are only unsubstantiated fantasies.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Perhaps, but how do you account for it behaving differently than you thought it would? By that, I mean based on the original theory, not the developments of the last twenty years. Why do you disagree with that?Yeah, I'm not trying to define "word salad", it's clearly pejorative, but sometimes it reflects back on the user so it should be backed up with reasoning. That way we can tell who is being tossed.

Consider that BEC is achieved as a physical state be removing heat energy.
Add heat energy and it is no longer BEC.

Dark matter would have no temperature simply because it cannot decay any further. It is no longer reactive with energy. Add heat energy, and it will not absorb it.

Within our universe, add enough heat and any mass/energy will burn.
To be ejected from a black hole, it has to be in a state where its internal energy cannot be increased. If it is responsive to any changes that would increase it's internal energy, it is trapped between the event horizon and the singularity.

Black hole compression is not just pressure. It is thermodynamics pressure as well. Nothing gets out until it has lost all ability to be changed by the biggest heat pump in the universe.

So if it is just my fantasy, then disregard.
We shall see. there is only one ultimate truth, and it will be discovered.

It really irretates me to watch the fools on science channel spend an hour discussing fantasy as if it were real.

If they really believe that stuff about going back in time amd wormholes to other dimensions, then I realize they don't really understand the universe at all.

Wormholes are at the planck scale and only exist within the boundary of singularity to the polar axis of black holes.

String theory has to be modified to parameters that are the subset of the dynamics of a universe sized particle in the process of changing state.

I propose the concept. I don't care about acceptence or peer revue.

I offer what I have.
Use it, lose it, I do not care.

There are a lot of predictions n this concept.
About dark matter, black hole dynamics, and time.

Conside the halo of dark matter surrounding our galaxy.

All mass/energy exhibits decay. In the halo the amount of radiation energy detected will be far lower than expected for the mass under consideration.

The voyager anomaly is likely the faint halo of dark matter surrounding our solar system. There will be mass/energy particles observed there causing much of the drag. But it is probably the very faint halo that places it there, in that location.

Measure all of the products of nuclear reactions, like the sun. There will be a small unacounted for energy loss. Dark matter is the missing particle.

Thats all I have.

It is my proposed theory of everything.
It makes predictions.
We shall see if it is fantasy or insight.
You may be confused, I am not.

What do you mean, energy will burn?
Fair enough, but we like to consider the justifications, before we make that determination.Those sort of comments, calling other people fools, doesn't help my evaluation one whit.

I am not confused...

You need to present your "theory of everything" in a precise and concise manner. The documentation of mainstream science would fill a library, your version fits a postcard.

Do you have any detailled online, peer-reviewed documentation we can look at?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

What I mean by burning is just a comparison.
A black hole is the ultimate furnace.
The particles it would eject are reduced to the lowest possible energy state.
A state so low that it has lost the ability to have any internal energy above the Planck scale.

Exibiting only gravitation and velocity, these particles have reached finality in their own frame of reference.

It just irritates me when I see people talk about time travel. Time value of entropy is the determinate that establishes the subset of possible realities for us.

In a local frame of reference, time can progress at varying rates. But it cannot be stopped or reversed in any frame of reference.

There might be a way to exceed C, but there is no way to be anywhere instantaniously. All events require some time frame to occur.

Being able to change your time rate of progression at will would be a powerful tool. But it is a one way trip.

Not only does time travel to the past make no physical sense, it makes no conceptual sense.

That was the basic concept that I first recognized, then I started working on why this should be so.

No I do not. I just present a conceptual framework.
I think the brevity is fitting.
Understanding the complexity of how everything works would more than fill every library on the planet.
The concept of what the universe actually is, should reduce to a simple outline anyone could understand.

I'd have to disagree with you here. It seems to make fine sense, as a concept. Why not?

However, it makes your predictions just guesses, if they are not derived from your concepts. How do you know that your predictions are even compatible with your concepts?

Why should what the universe is reduce itself to a simple concept? I disagree. The universe is more complex than we can imagine.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Conceptually time travel to the past makes no sense to me at all.

Consider if I am moving into your future.
In one hour I observe a year of your existance.
In my time frame I am moving normally.
You appear to be racing very fast to me.
For you, I would appear as if I am moving very slowly, nearly frozen.

However in both frames of reference, at all points there is continuity of existance. The total energy of the universe is constant.
Conservation of energy is mantained.

Now consider if I jump back to yesterday.
There are two of me. The one that was here yesterday, and the one that just arrived from tomorrow.
Tomorrow, where I came from, the mass/energy of my body is missing.
Today where I arrived the mass/energy of my body is doubled, there being two of me.
The total mass/energy of the universe today and tomorrow is not equal.
Conservation of energy is violated.
There is a discontinuity of existance.

It gets even worse if I arrive from tomorrow and shoot the me already here.
Tomorrow I am in the morge, not in my time machine.

My predictions are not just guesses.
They are derived from the conceptualization.
If the concept is wrong, so will the predictions be.

When I starrted building this concept I was working with integrals.
That became too slow and clumsy for me.
I made better progress closing my eyes and spending hours building it as conceptualizations of geometric constructions in my head.

Difficult to convey mental geometric proofs, and I am not telepathic.
So this is what you get, if you care to consider it at all.

I agree that the inner clockworks of the universe is more complex than we can imagine.
It is likely stranger than we can imagine it to be as well.

I could spend my entire life trying to just outlne the details.
And a couple of more lifetimes trying to fill in the details.

However, once it is understood exactly what the universe is, that concept reduces to a single sentance.

The universe is the internal mechanism of a particle in the process of changing state.

A vast array of definitions then derive from that concept.

As in, all mass/energy has to reduce to a single homogonous state.
The individual histories of all mass/energy have to become equivilent at some distant future.
Their histories may be through a black hole, or as a single atom adrift in the vast expanses and never colliding with another atom.
Or as a photon on the boundary heading away from everything.

They all must, at some point, decay to some lowest energy state.

Contraction or expansion of any region of space is not determinate of the universes evolution to finality.
When all mass/energy reach dark matter equivilence is the determinate.

An entire discipline of study could be devoted to the time equivilence of entropy.

Early in its life, and as it approaches finality, the physical laws and time rate of pregression, change as an asymptote curve.

It is as complicated, or as simple, as you desire to investigate

It is really difficult to work out what you mean in your posts.
I previously asked you to provide an example of a particle with no wave function. You suggested that a dark matter particle would not possess a wave function. Other than this assertion you have provided no reason to suggest that your claim is in any way correct.
"add a wavefunction"? To what? What do you mean by the phrase "add a wavefunction"?
Please can you back this up?
There is absolutely no evidence, or plausibility argument, for what you are suggesting. What do you mean by "internal wavefunctions"?
What is the "wormhole vector"?
"commutates"? What do you you mean by the word "commutate" in this context?

As I asked before, can you try to stick to conventional usage? It will really help your case.

I will do my best to address your concerns.

The light bending observed as a halo effect around galaxies suggest dark matter.

The support for the behavior and properties I describe are totally dependent on my definition of what a universe is.

The internal mechanism of a particle in the process of changing state.
Perhaps it is clearer if we call the universe a uniparticle or whatever just to specify that it is different from a particle. Whatever.

for this to be true it requires certain initial and final conditions that only a dark matter particle can satisfy. Which incidently satisfies what is observed for galaxy structure and evolution.

Even BEC has wave function.
Dark matter by my definition is the only example, and so is theoretical.
Only a particle at the Planck scale would have no internal wave functions.

By my definition, internal wave functions are any property possesed by mass/energy other than gravitation.
Velocity is not strictly dependent, as dark matter may have velocity.
Mass/energy has velocity as well, and in other ways than spacial displacemet.
So velocity is an emergent property and not bound to any single aspect.
So for clarity and simplicity will will address velocity seperatly.

Solidity means impacts and compressability.
It is thus a wave function.
As is heat, electroweak, electromagnetic, nuclear, basicly every property of mass except gravitation.

This leaves us with a definition of dark matter by exclusion.

It exists at the planck scale.
It exhibits gravitation.
It cannot impact anything, it slides through mass/energy, and other dark matter particles.
It cannot absorb heat energy.
It cannot undergo a change in state.
It is a non interacting massive particle of very small size.

Worm hole vector is the path from the central singularity to the axis of rotation of a black hole. The event horizon below the jets.
The wormhole is internal to the black hole and does not cross the event horizon.
Dark matter is the product all mass/energy is converted to at the singularity.
Acceleration of compression at the singularity translates to escape velocity within the wormhole. Only dark matter at the planck scale can traverse the wormhole.

Quantum physics dictates that an electron is two particles commutating in and out of existance.
This is a wave function. Dark matter does not do this.

Dark matter is deduced because it satisfies the requirements for my definition of a universe, and its existance would explain the behavior, structure, and evolution of a galaxy.

For me, all the pieces fit neatly together.

Photons, and indeed all mass/energy particles, can exhibit as having wave or or particle behaviors, depending on how it is examined.

Dark matter can only exhibit as a particle in all frames.

Does this help?

Then please begin by giving your definition of what a universe is, and by presenting your best argument in favor of accepting this definition.

"Whatever" does not sound like a credible definition of what a universe is. Please be more detailed.

A universe is the internal mechanism of a uniparticle in the process of a change in state.

Consider a parable as an example.
I know this cannot be done, it is a thought exercise.

I accelerate an electron to 99.9 percent of light speed.
It becomes very massive.
The more energy I add to acceleration, the more massive it becomes.
Approaches infinite velocity when I have added all of the energy the universe contains.
Then I steal some energy from another universe and give it the final push to C velocity.

Instead of exceeding C, it changes state to a photon at C velocity.
There is a tiny slice of time right at the change in state that is unobservable to me. An event horizon.

What I observed is a particle becoming a photon in a time frame approching zero.

Now imagine we are inside that tiny slice of time.
What do we observe.
We observe a universe with a negative time/entropy value.
All events are over before they begin.

Now imagine we are watching a photon at C velocity.
We apply a massive amount of energy to bring it to zero velocity almost instantaniously.

The instantanious deceleration is a value on a limit approaching infinity.
What do we observe?
It was a photon, then in a very tiny slice of time, it is a particle at rest.

The exact method of this change in state is unobservable, an event horizon.

Now Imagine we are in that tiny slice of time.
What do we observe?
We observe a photon break up into mass/energy and evolve to dark matter.
We are in a universe with a positive time/entropy value.
Inside this frame of reference, the time from photon/big bang to dark matter/finality is a limit approaching infinity.

Galaxies are born and die, black holes form and evaporate.
After a very long time, this universe consists of nothing but dark matter.
Only gravitation properties are exhibited.
There is no trace of any photon/wave energy remaining.

This universe has coalesced into the particle the outside observer sees.


Now consider that our photon and particle examples were given as a matter of convenience for understanding what is happening.

We can only define them from inside the frame of reference of our universe.

The photon of parable is now defined as a pre big bang uniparticle. All of the mass/energy our universe contains existing in no space/time.

The particle of parable is a finality uniparticle. All of space/time having no mass/energy. This is only achievable when the universe is in a homogenous state of dark matter.

The time dilation across these events is absolute. Internally, our observation point, the energy change that initiated the change in state is beyond the big bang event horizon.

Consider a unverse with a negative time/entropy value. There is'nt enough time to do anything. All events are over before they begin. From inside it you cannot remove enough energy to stop time, or to have a time frame of existance.

Consider a universe with a positive time/entropy value. You cannot add enough energy to stop time or make it flow backwards. All time rates of progression must have some positive value.

All mass/energy must decay to dark matter. There is a net loss of energy in all processes. There is friction, chaos, Carnot heat cycle, enthalpy. All of the manifestations of time/entropy.

The only thing we can say about the uniparticle and the finality uniparticle is that they are in different energy states and we can only observe the process of change.

Why should you consider this?
For me, it is the only thing that makes any sense.
Considering it is your choice.

Why must the universe make sense?

Apart from this, you need to define your terms: uniparticle, and internal mechanism, for example.

What personally seems to make sense to you, is not a criteria for how things are.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Uniparticle, A particle with the mass energy of a universe.

Internal Mechanism, the physical process inside a particle when it is changing energy states. The process of a change in phase from a perspective inside the event.

The universe has a set of determinate physical laws.
Understanding these is how we make sense of our environment.

If the universe has no sensible order of existance then it is not necesary that we understand it as such.
In that case, you could fly to the moon by flapping your arms.
Until I see you flying to the moon by flapping your arms.

Then I will assert that the universe is a subset of the domain of it's creation.
A domain of energy states and phase transitions.

I think you misunderstood gzhpcu's point. There's no particular reason that the universe should be understandable to you personally -- that's the issue.

What we see from big bang to black holes to everthing in between is mass/energy n many energy states. There are many phase transitions of mass/energy.

This is a set. It is a subset of the larger domain.

The universe has no motivation to be understandable to anybody.

I have a motivation to understand the universe.
I present my understanding of it.
One that makes perfect sense to me.

Membrane collisions stretching strings through folding dimensions.
Jump in a wormhole and pop out anywhere, anytime.
That makes no sense to me.

All of our technologies have examples in the natural universe.

Show me one particle spinning backwards in time.
Show me one example of a collider event where a product appears before the collision event.
Show me one wormhole that crosses an event horizon.

From the big bang on, we see many examples of phase transitions and energy states. We see entropy.

I don't see what is so difficult about it.
It should be obvious that we are sitting here having this dscussion inside a phase transition in progress.

It is the sum of a vast array of phase transitions all around us.

It should be obvious.

The electron can not be accelerated to c without infinite energy. It can certainly not exceed c in any case. Infinite velocity does not exist. Add all the energy of the universe and you will only approach c.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

I know that. We are in a universe that prohibits this as its set of parameters. This is because all of the energy in our universe is within a time/entropy envelope.

Think outside the box for a second.
I stated it was a parable to consider.
If we were in the domain where our universe was created, how would we create one?

It was just a parable to help illustate a point.

Consider that it would take a limit approaching infinite energy to create a universe. It would require enough energy to cause a particle to undergo a phase transition within a time frame of reference that is absolute.

We are within this frame of reference. We cannot achive absolute time dilation.
The value of C is a function of the energy ratio that initiated the event that created our universe.

Our universe is a subset within a domain where C is not relavent.
It is the time/entropy envelope of our universe where C is relavent.

We are on the inside and the outside is not observable to us.

If it cannot be done, then what is the purpose of the exercise? If the parable is an example of the impossible, why consider it?

Q4: What is "absolute time dilation"
Q5: If it turns out that "absolute time dilation" doesn't exist, of course that we cannot "achieve" it. Prove that "we cannot achieve absolute time dilation"

Q6: prove it.

Again, I'm having difficulty understanding what you've written. But are you saying that your theory is not testable, because of the non-observability you mention above? If so, then your theory is outside the envelope of science. If we allow contemplation of that large class of ideas, then I would prefer the Integrated Angel-Nanognome-Elf (InANE) theory for its parsimony. Occam's face has never been so smooth.

It is not possible within our universe.
Our universe is a subset of a larger domain in which it is possible.
It is how our universe was created.