∂MöbiuS³

@MrxMoex Haha, good stuff, I didn't even see that until now 🫶

@mode_identity Dont know which one i like better

@dadjokechampion @TeslaNewswire Lol, dude it was a drag race. Bring both cars to the track and see what happens. The EV honeymoon is starting to show its age, and F1 is already talking of going back to V8s with clean fuel. ICE isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

@TeslaNewswire Hybrid supercars are just copium at this point. ICE is dead, just deal with it.

$55K Tesla Model 3 Performance smokes a $260K, 680-hp hybrid V8 McLaren Artura in a drag race!

@KyleHy82 Good deal, busy weekend with Father's Day. To save time, the detailed mass formula to stress test is on this subpage; github.com/dmobius3/mode-…

@mode_identity That's a good idea.. I'll try and tackle it from my side on Monday..

I dig your mass ladder picture that I came across in another post. The D₄ → F₄ → E₆ → E₇ → E₈ progression with forced walk lengths, the non-Markovian memory effect, and the lepton masses arising as a single ℤ₃ Frobenius orbit of algebraic conjugates feels very natural and elegant. It aligns nicely with the spectral geometry framework I’ve been developing on S³/2I, where the McKay correspondence brings in E₈ and the three flat connections + torsion give the hierarchical structure across generations. Happy to compare notes!

We're climbing the same tower from opposite ends. Your halt lands on the 24-cell (2T); I quotient S³ by 2I and start one rung up at the 600-cell, which is five of your 24-cells interlocking. McKay is the dictionary either way, the same 2I ↔ E₈. The gravity piece hit hardest. You make it crystal elasticity, massless spin-2 forced to GR; I make it the conversion across the seam between the smooth S³ and the 2I grid, with the 3/2 Gauss factor as the cost it pays. Both of us put gravity on the smooth/discrete boundary itself, as the thing that crosses it. And I'm with you on the other realm carrying the character of mind: in my reading the pre-metric relational side is prior, more mind than matter, kept in the same honest "motivated" box you keep yours in. One test to run together: does your charged-lepton Frobenius orbit reproduce my torsion ratio T²(R₃)/T²(R₄) = φ⁻⁴? If your orbit lands on that, we're one mass sector written in two languages.

I think that they are both saying the same things.. the main difference is top down and bottom up.. I have more papers that extend my framework but I'm trying to be strict and lock things down. At first glance, you seem to be doing all the work I need to do next. Here is what deepseek said after I compared both.. My Claude won't let me back in until Monday.. lol

@KyleHy82 Good stuff, I'll have to run it once I get a credit reset 😅 But right off the bat, I follow the Platonic view as well with S3/2I as the fundamental static manifold with an embedded Mobius wave engine. My github is in my profile link. 'Will let you know what shakes out!

Thank you.. I would love to.. Here's some work of mine.. I think what's most natural is that it all starts from asking how do we get something from nothing and what are the most minimal assumptions we can place on existence. I find that the 24 cell is forced and projects spacetime. So to me, there is another realm that has the character of mind more than it does matter. But maybe you would see it differently. 🤷 claude.ai/public/artifac… claude.ai/public/artifac… claude.ai/public/artifac…

@Shaun_Fosmark The geometric mean between Planck and Hubble is Sqrt(ℓP*RΛ) ≈ 50 μm, cellular scale. Coincidence?

The universe is crazy. Its the same shape at every single scale. EVERY. SINGLE. SCALE.

8 billion people, we can't all be wrong 🍻

@mode_identity @kekius9 Someone's gotta look into it! Let er rip! Eventually one of us is going to be right

So, ultimately, is this universe a straight line or a circle?

@Shaun_Fosmark @kekius9 Working on it 😅 Also food for thought, Einstein's model of the universe was static and finite, no need for dark energy if metric expansion is a mis-read. There might be a reason the mass-gap is still unproven on infinite flat space...🤔

@mode_identity @kekius9 Yeah I know, but any alternative would need to explain why its a better alternative

@Shaun_Fosmark @kekius9 Simply showing they recreate redshift and CMB cooling is the same "proof" that metric expansion currently carries. fwiw.

@mode_identity @kekius9 Yeah but then you'd have to prove that everything in the universe was exhausting its energy budget and was getting weaker.

@Shaun_Fosmark @kekius9 Redshift and CMB temp? Because those are evidence of metric expansion but not proof. Phase evolution and an energy budget can recreate the same effect.

@mode_identity @kekius9 Because everything is getting further away from everything else

@Shaun_Fosmark @kekius9 Sphere yes, but how do you know it's expanding?

@kekius9 No. It's an expanding sphere with straight lines and more spheres and more spheres and more spheres and more spheres

@Briankeating Betting on the 4th root of Λ as the actual floor for fermion masses. Spectral geometry on S³/2I sets the vacuum energy density μ_Λ ≈ 2.25 meV Solar neutrino splitting lands at ~4× and atmospheric at ~22×, exactly as observed. The topology does the work, we take the readings.

🔬⚛️ In just 59 days, a new neutrino experiment surpassed the precision of every previous neutrino experiment combined. 🤯One of the biggest mysteries in physics is that neutrinos have mass, but we still don't know exactly how their masses are arranged. This week, the massive JUNO detector in China reported its first major result: after just 59 days of data, it measured key neutrino oscillation parameters with 1.6× better precision than all previous experiments combined. That's an astonishing leap from less than two months of observations. Neutrinos rarely interact with matter, yet they may hold clues to why the Universe looks the way it does. Sometimes the most important discoveries come from the particles that are hardest to catch. Read about it here: nature.com/articles/s4158…

@Shaun_Fosmark @Deepcosmoss Electron mass from topological formula on S³/2I: R₇ (dist = 4, triv vacuum) predicts 5.21 × 10⁻⁴ GeV vs observed 5.11 × 10⁻⁴ GeV. (ratio 1.02) Full formula: github.com/dmobius3/mode-…

@Deepcosmoss That's actually NOT how it works. You have to interact with an electron to measure it. Not just "look" at it.

Kuantum fiziğindeki en büyük baş ağrısı gözlemci etkisidir bir elektrona bakmadığın sürece o bir olasılık dalgasıdır ama ona baktığın an tek bir noktada belirir yani evren sadece sen ona baktığında render edilir tıpkı şu an oynanan açık dünya oyunlarındaki gibi işlemci gücünden tasarruf etmek için sadece oyuncunun baktığı yön çizilir arkanı döndüğünde orası bir matematiksel potansiyele dönüşür Şimdi şunu düşün evren neden işlemci tasarrufu yapsın ki eğer her şey rastgele bir patlamanın sonucuysa neden fizik yasaları devasa bir bilgisayarın kaynak yönetimi gibi davranıyor simülasyon teorisi eskiden felsefe bölümlerinin eğlencesiydi ama şimdi teorik fizikçiler evrenin temel yapıtaşlarının madde değil bilgi olduğunu tartışıyor her şey bir bit ve o bitler çok katı kurallara bağlı Çoğu insan bir mimar fikrini duyunca bizi izleyen bizi test eden birini hayal ediyor ama konuşulan senaryo bu değil mimar var ama bizimle hiç ilgilenmiyor o sadece kusursuz bir fizik motoru yazdı kütleçekimini termodinamiği ve kuantum potansiyelini kodladı sistemi başlattı ve kendi işine döndü Kısım şu hepimiz o kodun içinde hayatta kalmaya çalışan ve kendi kendine bilinç geliştiren bir anomaliyiz dokunma diye bir şey yok sadece elektromanyetik itim var gerçeklik diye bir şey yok sadece beyninin işlediği veri var ve o mimar muhtemelen bizim varlığımızdan bile haberdar değil biz sadece muazzam bir simülasyonun içindeki çok ilginç bir yan etkisiyiz

@ericweinstein GR and QFT don't need upended or unified. Both need boundary conditions/topology. ST assumes we're looking down on the ant on compacted dimns, but if we're the ant on the Planck floor looking up through embedded geometry then Gravity is an exchange rate b/t curvature and energy.

Specifically: I’d first look at what promising approaches to post-Einsteinian science were we induced to abandon by Quantum Gravity/StringTheorists. I’d spend the first 1/2 million dollars simply destringifying the last 42 lost years. Then I would look at all the major ideas without ANY refereeing input from string theory/m-theory: Chern Simons Asymptotic safety GU Einstein Cartan McDowell Mansouri Spin connections Strings Gravitational Amplitudes Etc. Then based on that assessment, I would allocate grants to push for the spacetime successor. But the first allocation is to destringification. We need to stop being brainwashed by 5 people and their misinterpretation of Ken Wilson. We need to realize that the real physics that we would need to travel the cosmos got nerfed. By string theory. The first task is undoing the murderous anti-scientific lie and culture of TOGIT as spread by Witten, Susskind, Greene, Kaku, Gross and company. Just undoing that and making it viable to do theoretical physics without their fingers around our throats would bring us far closer to post Einsteinian engineering. Gravitational physics has become a lie under quantum gravity.

@Shaun_Fosmark @TTVzPharma De Broglie said the wave is fundamental, the particle is the realization. The wave is there before you look at it, the particle is there when you do.

Locally real means particles exist at that location. Its definitely there all the time even when you aren't looking. There's no probability field, theres no lattice, theres no Aether. Theres no underlying quantum fields where when you poke it, a particle forms. Locally real says the particle was always there as there is no other medium for it to exist in, appear from, or collapse to. The uncertainty is a mechanical process.

Locally real is the only theory type that is going to explain the universe.

@IAI_TV GR and QFT are both measurements that reach common singularities. I don't think the answer will be to bridge them, it will be finding a more fundamental manifold structure.

Einstein thought quantum theory was ‘silly.’ Heisenberg believed reality is nothing but possibilities. As Sabine Hossenfelder explains, the real challenge is still ahead: reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity. Can we ever unite the two pillars of physics? Tap the link to watch her full debate with Roger Penrose and Slavoj Žižek as they explore the mysteries of an unknowable universe. iai.tv/video/quantum-…

@sciencewtg @skdh Dark matter is a geometric effect when translating between 2D surface information and 3D curvature. Just look at a black hole.

Physicists think about 80% of the universe’s matter is invisible dark matter. Yet after decades of searching, there’s still no direct proof it exists. Now researchers are rethinking dark matter—but not by abandoning it. @skdh takes a look. youtu.be/Wdf5_vad9gM

@Shaun_Fosmark Fascinating work. Curious how scaling H² by 1/4π² (~1/40) destroys Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. Expansion drops so low that neutrons decay before Helium forms. How does SFT survive BBN?

If SFT is right, the hardest pill to swallow for most people, I think, is that there is no magic in the universe. There's no mysterious dimensions or Aether. There's no dark energy or unexplained matter. There's nothing going on in the universe that you can't just explain in plain english. There's just particles moving internally at c because there's only one speed, writing history in 4D producing gravity, time, born, Schrödinger, matter, and everything else in the universe. That's it. zenodo.org/records/205517…