The Theory of Everything in one sentence, in matrix form, is based on the assumption of the existence of a square relaxation transition matrix Bnxn (n being the number of free nodes, not to be confused with the number of iterations or time steps N) for the time-dependent energy field U(x,y,z,t), in classical and quantum physics, such that:
U(x,y,z,t+dt)=B.U(x,y,z,t) + B^N . U(x,y,z,0) . . .(1)
We assert that no classical or quantum physics, or even any mathematics, can escape a derivation from Equation 1 or a subset of this equation.
Equation 1 leads to the existence of a transfer matrix D(N) such that:
U(x,y,z,t+ Ndt)=B.U(x,y,z,t) + B^N . U(x,y,z,0) . . .(2)
Which gives:
U(x,y,z,t)=D(N).(b+S) + B^N.IC . . . . . (3)
Where U(x,y,z,Ndt) is the classical and/or quantum energy density at the free point or node x,y,z and at time t = Ndt, where N is the time integer for the number of jumps or iterations woven in the Cartesian axes x,y,z and dt is the time interval or time jump.
Recall that we currently know of only two transition matrices: the well-known mathematical statistical Markov matrix and the proposed statistical transition matrix B.
Clearly, matrix B offers a significant improvement over the Markov matrix M because it takes into account the boundary condition vector b and the source term vector s, unlike the Markov matrix. b is the boundary condition vector, arranged in the appropriate order, and S is the appropriate source/sink term, in the appropriate units, placed at the main diagonal node Bii.
Clearly, D(N) is given by the finite sum of the matrix series, D(N)=B+B^2+B^3+ . . . . +B^N . . . . (4)
*It should be noted that equations 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not entirely new, but have been used effectively over the past four years to solve almost all types of scientific problems in closed volumes controlled by Dirichlet boundary conditions. These problems include:
i) the numerical solution of Laplace and Poisson PDEs;
ii) the numerical solution of the heat diffusion equation in the most general case;
iii) the numerical solution of time-dependent quantum mechanical problems in infinite free space under an arbitrary external potential
V, numerical differentiation and integration;
vi) the numerical derivation of stationary statistical distributions, such as Gaussian or normal distributions.
The five facts mentioned above lead to the following conclusion: Cairo intelligence techniques = natural intelligence = artificial intelligence in the strict sense = unified field theory.
The question arises:
if the Theory of Everything, or Unified Field Theory, known as the "Cairo Technique," works with exceptional success and has been known and published for over four years, why is it not generally accepted in the current scientific community?
The answer is simple and lies primarily in a flaw in the theory:
It reveals the fatal errors of Niels Bohr, E. Schrödinger, and A. Einstein, who dominated science for over a century.
This is why this theory does not appeal to the iron guardians of A. Einstein's relativity and the classical Schrödinger equation of 1927.
But who are the iron guardians of the classical Schrödinger equation as interpreted by Niels Bohr, Or more precisely, the iron guardians of Niels Bohr himself?
The phrase "iron guardians of the Schrödinger equation" refers to a group of physicists and mathematicians who ardently defend the equation and its classical interpretations, often resisting any attempt to modify or question it, sometimes going so far as to reject any perspective or alternative.
They are described as dogmatic in their adherence to the equation and its established interpretations, sometimes stimulating progress in quantum mechanics by rejecting new ideas or alternative approaches [Google search].
In other words, the iron guardians of the classical Schrödinger equation are those indoctrinated physicists and mathematicians who defend this incomplete and misleading equation until their last breath and who are, in reality, the iron guardians of the scientist Niels Bohr himself.
They know that sooner or later, Einstein's classical general relativity and that of Schrödinger, as interpreted by Bohr, will disappear and they will disappear with it.
------
1-I. Abbas, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity -Theory and Practice
What counts as a “Theory of Everything” (ToE)? Not a pretty equation, but a UV-complete, mathematically consistent framework that
How to assess matrix-update proposals (e.g. U(t+Δt) = B·U(t) + Bᴺ·U(0)): • Continuum & known limits: Show Δt → 0, N = t/Δt reproduces Schrödinger/Dirac/Maxwell/Einstein where appropriate, with a covariant stress–energy. • Unitarity: Prove that the evolution is unitary (or CPTP in an open-system setting); specify where dissipation enters and why precision tests don’t exclude it. • Symmetries: Identify gauge fields and diffeomorphism invariance inside the scheme; recover SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) and chiral anomaly cancellation. • Lorentz behavior: Derive emergent Lorentz invariance (or bound violations beneath current limits). • A sharp prediction: Compute one distinctive, testable deviation (what, where, how precise).
Bottom line: A single recurrence, however elegant, is not a ToE by declaration. A ToE is the only framework that clears all five gates above and survives one hard experimental check. Deliver those, and the community listens; miss them, and you have a potentially useful evolution scheme — not a theory of everything.
Mustafa Yıldırım
You came to this discussion with your preconceived ideas and provided a shopping list of requirements.
It doesn't seem that you could recognize the Theory of Everything if it hit you in the face...:)
Let's consider my theory, the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU).
It doesn't utilize General Relativity and demonstrates that GR is a simplistic model (a single-mass model), incapable of describing even a Binary Pulsar.
HU shows the Absolute Reference Frame, the one that Einstein couldn't see because he lived in a 3D Spatial Manifold... couldn't imagine four spatial dimensions.
Here is the Law of Gravitation. It is written on the Absolute Reference Frame, and as you can see, it replicates all GR predictions for planets.
HU also solves the Hubble Tension and beats the Cosmoverse Project's 533 astrophysicists using their own data.
With respect to particle Physics, HU provides an HU Pati-Salam SU(4) model that eliminates the need for perturbation methods.
HU corrects QED and provides the derivation of the fine structure function - the physical reason for the value.
HU Basics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuGlDECvifc
Recasting Newton's Laws of Dynamics in the Space Stress Strain Paradigm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w-5u1WAp6o
The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - replacement to the Big Bang
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK-Lyb7NfM
Big Pop Article
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v2
3D galaxy density map of the current universe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLqkbCAzcJM
https://youtu.be/7jVn47VQxfc
https://youtu.be/KtBxfAH283k
https://youtu.be/dviAaRgsWnY
Discussion with Astrophysicist
https://youtu.be/7KtzBsoMChw
https://youtu.be/Uwjh5Lsv2lU
SSRN Abstracts
# HU-The Big Pop Cosmogenesis
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012159
# The Hypergeometrical Universe
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012064
# Debunking NASA
# Reevaluating_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Constraints_on_Epoch_Nature.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5188030
https://zenodo.org/records/15399641
Docker Images
docker pull ny2292000/hu_galaxy_package
Repositories
https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU
https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_GalaxyPackage
https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_Papers
https://github.com/ny2292000/DataSupernovaLBLgov
Some might argue that what constitutes a "Theory of Everything" is not just a pretty equation, but a coherent and comprehensive mathematical framework that covers all of physics validated within the correct limits.
These people are not intelligent enough and cannot read or understand.
1- The proposed Theory of Everything solves general relativity better than Einstein.
2- It creates for the first time what is called advanced strict intelligence [1], impossible to handle with the QM-SE equation, Einstein's general relativity, in addition to hundreds of theories and applications.
3- The proposed theoretical energy theory proves W. Sabine's sound wave theory for the first time in 100 years.
It is quite astonishing that uneducated people demand that the author prove this or that depending on what they choose, simply because they are extremely lazy and refuse to do it themselves.
To be continued.
------
BOOK Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence
- March 2025
- Publisher: Author
- Lab:
- Ismail Abbas's Lab
- 📷Ismail Abbas M. Abbas
Thanks for the engagement, Marco Pereira and Ismail Abbas M. Abbas . I’ll stay on science and criteria. A candidate “Theory of Everything” is not certified by enthusiasm or link volume; it stands or falls by whether it clears five minimal gates:
On HU and similar proposals.
• If an absolute reference frame is claimed, please quantify Lorentz-violation coefficients, their magnitude/orientation dependence, and why existing bounds do not exclude them. The CMB rest frame is a practical cosmological frame, not a fundamental symmetry breaking.
• If a Pati–Salam SU(4) variant is used, show explicitly how SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1), chiral structure and anomaly cancellation are recovered, and how CKM/PMNS mixings, neutrino masses and proton stability emerge.
• If QED is “corrected” or α (fine-structure) is “derived”, provide an ab initio derivation (no hidden fits), the scale dependence (running), uncertainties, and comparison to precision data (e.g., g−2).
• For cosmology (H₀, “Big Pop”, etc.), isolated successes are insufficient: present a global fit consistent with BBN, CMB anisotropies, BAO, SNe, growth of structure and lensing under a single parameter set.
• Most importantly, provide a compact, testable core: a clear Lagrangian/Hamiltonian (field content, symmetry rules), the explicit map to GR/SM limits, and one sharp, falsifiable prediction (what, where, how large, with what uncertainty).
On tone.
Personal remarks about who is “intelligent” or “lazy” add nothing and are out of place in a scientific forum. The bar above is not a “shopping list”; it is the minimum scaffolding that keeps physics from collapsing into speculation. If HU (or any framework) satisfies these gates and survives one hard experimental check, recognition follows on its own — no persuasion needed. Until then, it remains an interesting hypothesis, not a theory of everything.
Dear Mustafa Yıldırım
Let's start item by item.
You asked: If an absolute reference frame is claimed, please quantify Lorentz-violation coefficients, their magnitude/orientation dependence, and why existing bounds do not exclude them. The CMB rest frame is a practical cosmological frame, not a fundamental symmetry breaking.
HU maps the Absolute Reference frame, any reference frame that incorporates three orthogonal axes within our 3D Hypersurface and the vector perpendicular to the hypersphere.
If you cannot understand the language, please let me know and I will draw a picture.
Any reference frame that is not relativistic (when considering the galaxy as a reference frame) can be considered an approximation of the Absolute Reference Frame. Our galaxy travels at 0.2% of c.
With respect to the argument "CMB rest frame is a practical cosmology frame and not a fundamental symmetry breaking," that misses the point.
The existence of an Absolute Reference frame allows for the reinterpretation of the Lorentz transformations in terms of Absolute Velocity.
The traveling twin would still have its Absolute Velocity being relativistic, while the Earth's twin would be at zero Absolute Velocity.
This lifts the Twin Paradox. It is nonsensical to ask for Lorentz-violation coefficients if your model is not consistent with reality.
If this seems cryptic, I am saying that you cannot keep the Special Relativity Postulate "All inertial frames are equivalent" and have people aging differently in different inertial frames.
Please, don't bother talking about the standard self-delusions that Special Relativity is self-consistent and the Twin Paradox is lifted by ....
Let's discuss the first item. Attached is a figure of the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe, where you can see the radial direction. It is Absolute because you can map it to Absolute Time by R_4D = c*T
Very simple and yet, much better than L-CDM.
Marco Pereira — thanks for the detailed follow-up. I’ll keep it to testable physics, point by point.
1) “Absolute reference frame” vs Lorentz symmetry
Either an absolute frame is unobservable (just a coordinate choice), or it is observable (then it implies Lorentz violation). In the latter case, please quantify:
• the metric and transformation law you use,
• the non-zero Lorentz-violation coefficients your model predicts (with magnitude and orientation dependence),
• why modern bounds from clock/cavity tests, Michelson–Morley, Kennedy–Thorndike, and Ives–Stilwell do not already exclude them.
Consistency is established with numbers, not assertion.
2) Twin paradox
Special Relativity already resolves it via proper time accumulation along different worldlines:
Δτ = ∫ √(1 − v(t)²/c²) dt (flat spacetime)
More generally: τ = (1/c) ∫ √(−gμν dxμ dxν).
The traveling twin is not inertial for the whole trip; muon lifetimes, transported clocks, and GPS confirm this account. No “absolute velocity” is required.
3) Hyperspherical picture
If HU posits a lightspeed-expanding hypersphere with a radial “absolute” direction and R₄D = c·T, we need field content and equations, not just a sketch. Please provide:
• a Lagrangian/Hamiltonian, stress–energy, and resulting geodesics,
• recovery of GR’s tested limits (light bending, Shapiro delay, perihelion precession, gravitational redshift) and binary-pulsar radiation at comparable accuracy,
• your Parameterized Post-Newtonian (PPN) parameters (e.g., γ, β) and predicted gravitational-wave polarizations,
• a global cosmology fit (one parameter set consistent with BBN, CMB, BAO, SNe, growth, lensing).
4) New gravitational law / your plots
Figures are a start, but curve matches alone are insufficient. Please state the explicit force/field law you use (your “HU_factor”), then derive from it:
• Mercury’s anomalous precession,
• Shapiro time delay & light deflection,
• Hulse–Taylor orbital-decay rate,
• LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA waveform phasing.
These four checks quickly show whether HU competes with GR.
5) Minimal deliverables to make HU decisive
Bottom line
If an “absolute frame” is unobservable, it’s semantics; if observable, it must come with numbers that survive today’s bounds. Provide those numbers and one risky, testable prediction — the community can check it. Until then, HU remains an interesting hypothesis, not a replacement for SR/GR.
Mustafa Yıldırım
You said: The bar above is not a “shopping list”; it is the minimum scaffolding that keeps physics from collapsing into speculation.
I will address the shopping list in the order I see fit.
I welcome vigorous discussion.
I think it is ridiculous that you are saying: Collapsing in Speculation.
The reason is simple: Science, today, is nothing but speculation.
You start with a Big Bang (infinite potential well), that can only be overcome by taking energy from a False Vacuum...:). Then the thing is inflated by an Inflaton Field..then it slows down and is then stretched by Dark Energy and contracted by Dark Matter..
I explained each and every "observation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy" without Dark Matter or Dark Energy.
Higgs' Mechanism is "proved" by a resonance in the LHC collision experiments. That proves, perhaps, that there is a short-lived state. That doesn't prove functionality.
MIT professors claim that the Big Bang was a collision of branes...:)
Scientists claim that a single mass model (Schwarzschild metric) can model a two-mass system like Binary Pulsars or Black Hole mergers.
In other words, science has created a stringent list of requirements for the Theory of Everything - one that must be translated into the model I am proposing - and yet, it doesn't have a leg to stand upon.
Science is like a very demanding beggar.
Marco Pereira Believing unsubstantiated claims is risky. That’s why physics demands justification: a quantitative model, stated assumptions, and predictions that survive data.
What you call a “shopping list” is the minimum scaffolding that keeps us out of speculation:
On your examples: Higgs, cosmology, and GR are not stories; they rest on reproducible measurements (resonances and cross-sections, CMB/BAO/SNe fits, binary-pulsar timing, GW phasing). You can dispute interpretations, but any alternative must match the same datasets with comparable or fewer assumptions.
For HU: if an absolute frame is real and observable, it implies Lorentz violation — so give the coefficients and why current bounds don’t rule them out. If it’s unobservable, it’s a coordinate choice, not new physics. The twin paradox needs no absolute velocity; different worldlines accumulate different proper time:
Δτ = ∫ √(1 − v(t)²/c²) dt
τ = (1/c) ∫ √(−gμν dxμ dxν)
Concrete deliverables to make HU decisive
• explicit metric/Lagrangian and resulting geodesics,
• Mercury precession, Shapiro delay, Hulse–Taylor decay, and LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA waveform phasing from your law,
• PPN parameters (γ, β, …) and GW polarizations,
• a single-set global cosmology fit (BBN, CMB, BAO, SNe, growth, lensing),
• one sharp, risky prediction.
Bottom line: in science, confidence tracks evidence. Provide numbers that clear those gates and a test that could prove you wrong; until then, HU remains an interesting hypothesis — not a replacement for SR/GR.
Twin Paradox: Answer this question, please: Does using v=0 for the Earth Twin and v=0.99c for the traveling twin yield the observed aging difference?
The answer is yes. It is simpler.
HU uses Lorentz Transformations in the reciprocal space (wavelength and period) and not in spacetime. This means that objections associated with Relativity should be restricted to explaining observations.
In other words, there is no equivalent 4-momentum. There is "time dilation," but that is the result of Forces being dependent upon Absolute Velocity.
You said: That’s why physics demands justification: a quantitative model, stated assumptions, and predictions that survive data.
I have been trying to get you from the High Horse. I explained that what you just said is incorrect. There is no data on inflaton particles, there is no data on Dark Matter or Dark Energy. There is plenty of speculation (e.g. superfluid Dark Matter, Cannibalistic Dark Matter, etc).
So, please don't lecture me about a quantitative model. I provided the Pantheon Data Analysis with a Hubble Constant of 67.5 km/s/Mpc.
I showed that HU predicts Mercury Perihelion Precession and explains the Twin paradox in a single sentence: Lorentz Transformations use Absolute Velocity.
I didn't see you scrutinize my quantitative results. I consider lecturing about quantitative models patronizing, considering that you and every astrophysicist cannot get H0 to match the CMB H0 (67.48 km/s/Mpc).
I do that without any parameters. L-CDM uses seven.
By the way, when I say "Don't lecture me about " , it is not that I am offended or irritated. It is because it gives readers the impression that you have the upper-hand in this discussion. Which is not the case.
Mustafa Yıldırım
You said:On your examples: Higgs, cosmology, and GR are not stories; they rest on reproducible measurements (resonances and cross-sections, CMB/BAO/SNe fits, binary-pulsar timing, GW phasing). You can dispute interpretations, but any alternative must match the same datasets with comparable or fewer assumptions.
Well. Let's start with the Higgs model. In HU, particles are shapeshift deformations of space traveling at the speed of light radially in a 4D spatial manifold.
My theory is called Hypergeometric because in HU, the universe contains only space. Deformations are elastic (phases in a coherence). The displacement volume is associated with inertia.
This means that masses in HU are just a density multiplied by a displacement volume. Much simpler than Higgs.
The Universe is never a singularity. All particles are fragments of the Outermost Contraction Layer (OCL). They surf the IDL (Innert Dilation Layer).
I provided you with the video for Big Pop Cosmogenesis, so I expect you to be familiar with it.
So, compare the Higgs Model with Mass = rho * volume.
Where both rho and volume are irrelevant for the theory.
Which model is simpler? They both explain observations.
Similarly, my theory is agnostic about the two states of the coherence because in the derivation of the laws of nature, I get a product m*c*Lambda (where lambda is the Compton wavelength of the mass m). That product is equal to h.
I developed a taxonomy for the hyperon family using proton and electron as the two states of the coherence.
Questions for you:
a) Do you know that you cannot use GR to explain Binary Pulsars?
b) Do you know that GR cannot predict anything about Binary Pulsars or Black Hole Mergers?
I know that for b) you are going to tell me that GR predicts orbital decay. Check my plot. I have a dynamic theory (using a force) that predicts the same orbital decay. In addition, Peters-Mathews model is a classical model It has nothing to do with Relativity.
SO, it is ignorant to say that GR predicts Gravitational Irradiation...:)
With respect to a), unlike yourself, I modeled binary pulsars and know what I am talking about. I can tell you that you cannot use GR to explain binary pulsars - because GR is a single mass model. I showed that HU Precession prediction is a function of r =m1/(m1+m2). HU matches GR for r=0. Q.E.D.
Mustafa Yıldırım
You said: Δτ = ∫ √(1 − v(t)²/c²) dt (flat spacetime)
Nobody is saying that one doesn't know how to calculate elapsed time in an inertial path or a non-inertial path. That is not the point.
The point is that: Inertial Frames are not equivalent. The Earth's twin is located within the Milky Way, which is traveling at approximately 600 km/s in Absolute Velocity.
So, Earth's Absolute velocity is at most 0.002 c.
I explained why all galaxies have small idiosyncratic velocities. No other model can do that.
So, like everyone else for 120 years, you have been telling your version of understanding of something that is wrong.
That formula is readily calculated in the Earth's reference frame.
One can eliminate non-inertial motion on the twin by instantaneous acceleration or velocity jumps. This means that the traveling twin is always in an inertial frame. Can you use that formula to explain why the Earth's twin ages faster?
Nope.
My theory just tells you v_earth=0.002c. v_twin=0.99c and the problem is solved.
Mustafa Yıldırım
I provided the orbital decay for many binary pulsars and not only Hulse-Taylor. I showed that the orbital parameters are incorrect because of the use of GR. Hence, Hulse and Taylor made the incorrect analysis.
With respect to CMB, I not only explained the CMB dynamics but also predicted the Universe' Galaxy Density (including our local region and the Great Attractor - I explained how it works).
So, I predicted everything you see in the sky...:). What else can I do to please you...:)
Have you done that?
The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - replacement to the Big Bang
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK-Lyb7NfM
Big Pop Article
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v2
3D galaxy density map of the current universe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLqkbCAzcJM
Mustafa Yıldırım
As I explained, I derived the laws of nature from first principles. They replace General Relativity. I explained that time dilation is an artifact of using incorrect (empirical) laws of nature.
This means that I know about Time...:)
If you have a force that is better than SR and GR ( a single mass model with contrived and incorrect postulates), why would you continue using Spacetime?
This is the law of Gravitation. It is not an approximation.
Marco Pereira 1) Proper time is invariant → no “absolute velocity” needed
Worldline (any motion in flat spacetime):
- Proper time: dτ = √(1 − v(t)²/c²) dt, τ = ∫ √(1 − v(t)²/c²) dt
- Lorentz boost (1D): γ(u) = 1/√(1 − u²/c²) t′ = γ(u) ( t − u x / c² ), x′ = γ(u) ( x − u t )
- Invariant interval: dτ² = dt² − dx²/c² = dt′² − dx′²/c²
Therefore, giving both twins any common boost (picking a “preferred” frame) leaves each τ unchanged. The twin-paradox age gap is the difference in spacetime path length, not a comparison to an “absolute” speed.
Quick constant-speed legs:
- Home twin (rest time T): τ_home = T
- Traveling twin (two legs at speed v): τ_trav = T √(1 − v²/c²) Boost by any u → same τ. No absolute frame enters.
2) “Reciprocal-space Lorentz” does not replace spacetime Lorentz
The Lorentz group acts on both spacetime 4-vectors and wave 4-vectors:
- x = (c t, x⃗), k = (ω/c, k⃗), p = (E/c, p⃗)
- Invariant mass: (E/c)² − ∥p⃗∥² = m² c²
- 4-momentum conservation underpins collider kinematics and verified cross-sections.
Saying “there is no 4-momentum” or moving only to wavelength/period space does not eliminate Minkowski spacetime; it just changes variables.
3) CMB frame ≠ broken Lorentz symmetry of the laws
The CMB rest frame is a solution (cosmic fluid at rest), not a symmetry of the micro-laws. If a theory posits a true preferred frame, it must:
- write the operator-level Lorentz-violating terms, and
- keep their coefficients below tight bounds from resonators, Ives–Stilwell time-dilation, clock-comparison tests, GPS timing, etc. No quantified coefficients were provided.
4) Precision gravity: one set of equations must hit
all
tests
A viable replacement for GR must match these with the same inputs (masses, G, c, orbital elements):
- Perihelion advance (weak field, slow motion): Δϖ_per-orbit = 6π G M / ( a (1 − e²) c² ) For Mercury this gives ≈ 43″/century beyond Newtonian perturbations.
- Binary-pulsar orbital decay (quadrupole radiation, Peters–Mathews): Ṗ = −(192π/5) · ( (2π G 𝓜)/(c³ P) )^(5/3) · ( 1 + (73/24)e² + (37/96)e⁴ ) / (1 − e²)^(7/2) with 𝓜 = (m₁ m₂)^(3/5) / (m₁ + m₂)^(1/5). This single expression matches many systems and aligns with GW phasing.
- Shapiro time delay (signals grazing the Sun): Δt ≈ (2 G M☉ / c³) · ln( (r₁ + r₂ + R) / (r₁ + r₂ − R) )
Posting new plots is not enough; one must show one consistent force/field law reproduces all of the above simultaneously.
5) “Solve the twins by setting v_earth = 0.002c, v_twin = 0.99c”
That merely chooses a frame and numbers. The age gap is the frame-invariant Δτ computed from the integrals in §1. If your explanation depends on Earth’s speed in a preferred frame, it contradicts dτ² invariance and collides with Lorentz-test bounds.
6) “No parameters; ΛCDM uses seven”
Parameter counts don’t decide truth. (Baseline ΛCDM has six primary parameters; extensions add more when required by data.) What matters is coherent fits across multiple datasets with one model. GR + ΛCDM jointly fits CMB anisotropies, BAO, lensing, distance ladders, and structure growth. A supernova-only fit is not decisive. A “parameter-free” claim must still specify the exact equations and then reproduce all precision tests above.
7) The minimal bar an alternative must clear
Until that bar is met, appeals to “absolute velocity” or removal of 4-momentum are claims, not physics.
Mustafa Yıldırım
The first thing you have to understand to become a scientist is that you shouldn't be demanding that people with different theories replicate constructs from your preferred theory.
What is relevant are OBSERVABLES.
Mercury Perihelion is an observation. Binary Pulsars are observations.
Gravitational Lensing and Light Deflection by Gravity are observations.
In other words, if you knew science, you wouldn't be asking me to provide you with "Lagrangian/Hamiltonian or explicit field equations" after I provided you with a FORCE.
What else do you want to derive dynamics? Force plus Newton's Law.
######################
You said: Proper time is invariant → no “absolute velocity” needed
Well. It is not used in Relativity. That said, Relativity is wrong. It is not a matter of being needed.
It is a matter of being better. Simpler. Just to remind you:
My theory just tells you v_earth=0.002c. v_twin=0.99c and the problem is solved.
No handwaving needed.
I will not bother to ask you again to do your job. You want to argue in terms of timelines, elapsed proper time.
I said: Add to the Twin Paradox instantaneous acceleration and show me your elapsed time calculation for both twins.
######################
I derived a force that works with many-body problems. GR is a single mass model. There is no reason to defend it.
Spacetime was never a physical construct.
If you cannot understand why GR is a single mass problem, ask me. Don't repeat the incorrect things you've learned. You are a lawyer. You should be able to do better.
########################
5) “Solve the twins by setting v_earth = 0.002c, v_twin = 0.99c”
That merely chooses a frame and numbers. The age gap is the frame-invariant Δτ computed from the integrals in §1. If your explanation depends on Earth’s speed in a preferred frame, it contradicts dτ² invariance and collides with Lorentz-test bounds.
If you cannot overcome this simple reasoning, I will have to conclude that you cannot understand it and stop talking to you.
I will ask again. Consider infinite acceleration for the twin and show me that both reference frames are equivalent. If you eliminate acceleration, you have two twins moving apart and close at v=0.99 c
They both should age by the same amount.
You can demonstrate this using the formula you provided.
They don't. That is the Paradox. Nobody is surprised that one can calculate the aging of the traveling twin.
Most people who consider themselves brilliant and thoroughly knowledgeable about the Twin Paradox are unable to understand what the paradox is.
Mustafa Yıldırım
You said: 6) “No parameters; ΛCDM uses seven”
Parameter counts don’t decide truth. (Baseline ΛCDM has six primary parameters; extensions add more when required by data.)
Depends on how you count them. I count seven. You might say that the sum of omegas is 1, but you would be wrong. It is one in one theory. It is more than one in another. You might say that w is -1. Again, in another theory, that is not the case.
HU has only R0 (the current 4D radius of the Universe) and alpha (a parameter connecting the SN1a Absolute Luminosity with G or L_abs = L0*G**alpha)
I derived that alpha would be between -3 and -3.5. The observed value was -3.
H0= c/R0. Since H0 is derived from the short-distance SN1a data, it is a fixed parameter.
That is why I said HU doesn't have arbitrary parameters.
You said: Parameter counts don’t decide truth.
In this phrase, you made two mistakes. First, models don't define the truth.
There is no Truth concept in science. What we have is the best model (the simplest, least parameterized) consistent with all observations.
A model without parameters, like HU, is better than a model that depends upon seven parameters, like L-CDM or FLRW. Not to mention that L-CDM depends upon stretching space, dark matter and dark energy who hasn't been found in 90 years of search.
So, you are wrong on both accounts.
You might say. Hey, I want to keep using General Relativity.
You might, but everyone will be right to call you a goober and a lousy scientist.
Mustafa Yıldırım
Mustafa...:)
You said:
- Home twin (rest time T): τ_home = T
- Traveling twin (two legs at speed v): τ_trav = T √(1 − v²/c²) Boost by any u → same τ. No absolute frame enters.
The point in the "All inertial frames are equivalent" means that I can place the reference frame on the Traveling twin.
- Traveling twin (at rest on its own reference frame - time T): τ_home = T
- Earth twin (two legs at speed v): τ_trav = T √(1 − v²/c²) Boost by any u → same τ.
With any luck, you will understand that the point is not to calculate the time dilation for the traveling twin on the Earth Twin (at rest).>>>
The point is that the calculation has to work in the same way if the reference frame is the traveling twin.
That is the point of "All inertial frames are equivalent".
Don't feel ashamed. Everyone thinks like you think...:) poorly...:(
By the way, if you cannot do the elapsed time calculation from both reference frames, ask chatgpt. He will show you I am correct.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science