0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Further, the LINE hypothesis proposes that one difference between a universal instantiation event (UIE) and any universal transition event (UTE) is the quantity of fundamental elements initially created. The UIE is the instantiating event which may create an amount of fundamental elements that is calculable from a correctly conceived standard model of particles. The UTE is one of many transition events subsequent to the UIE and is driven by circumstances of the prior contraction phase. The UTE phase will not have an instantiating amount of energy as does the UIE. Nor will a UTE express the instantiating metaverse states which produces a UIE equivalent amount of fundamental elements such as hydrogen helium and lithium. The LINE hypothesis predicts that the UTE will produce circumstantially less of the fundamental elements, ergo; hydrogen, helium and lithium than predicted for the UIE. Calculations that estimate the quantity of initial fundamental hadronic elements currently do not anticipate the potentially numerous subsequent UTE cycles which create the current post UTE state of the universe. Predictably, this is because a UIE is more energetic than a UTE. Also, because the UIE involves more fundamental levels of the metaverse information states called the solutions of state (SoS) and their metaverse processes that are not achievable during any UTE phase. These differences create different outcomes. Given that today both the UIE sand UTE are considered to be the same ‘big bang’ event, calculated expectations that assume ‘big bang’ (post UIE-pre UTE) fundamental element quantities, will contradict measurements taken within any subsequent UTE expansion phase. So, if a contradiction between calculated expectations and observation of initial fundamental particle quantities is found to exist within ones’ current universe, The LINE hypothesis suggests that this is the indicator that this is a cyclic universe older than one universal transition cycle.Why would the current calculated population of pre-fusion fundamental particles not reflect the current measured quantity? This is because the calculated quantities may consider universal constants that were forged not during any prior UTE, but during the UIE. There are universal constants that are instantiated during the UIE which may remain unchanged through each UTE.During each UTE, some, not all, universal constants become reinstantiated. Therefore, such indigenous fixed universal constants will yield an accurate calculated particle population created only in the UIE phase. Subsequent UTE phases will not create a fundamental particle population that is consistent with this calculated quantity. Such fixed universal constants may determine the existence of the types of matter (hadronic, leptonic, debytonic etc.) that will exist within the new verse. Such matter types will populate all future cycles of the current verse, in any quantity. Such fixed-constants do not determine the quantity of matter created by each UTE phase. It falls to other non-fixed constants reinitialized during each UTE together with the informational content and circumstances of the prior contraction phase to determine the details of the next universal expansion.
If you substantially keep posting All LINE material content on science forums, then who's gonna buy the online book?Are you Prof. Lang?Or an Imposter plagiarising his Content?Or just a silly spammer?
A chat with AI;In light of the LINE proposals, from an explanatory standpoint, consider the description in the book ?Solaris? by Author; Stanislaw Lem of the discovery of a planet orbiting a binary star system in defiance of the laws of celestial gravitational mechanics.ChatGPT-4The novel "Solaris" indeed presents some mysterious and intriguing celestial phenomena, including the behavior of the planet Solaris itself. The planet orbits a binary star system in a manner that appears to defy conventional gravitational mechanics.In the context of the LINE hypothesis, which posits unique gravitational interactions involving dark matter and living entities, one might consider several ways this could provide a speculative explanatory framework for Solaris's anomalous orbit:Extra Gravitational Influence: The LINE hypothesis suggests that living entities exert a greater gravitational influence than their equivalent in inanimate matter. If the ocean on Solaris were somehow linked to this hypothesized extra gravitational property (LINE gravitation or LG), it could potentially influence the planet's orbit in ways not accounted for by standard gravitational models.Dark Matter Interaction: As the LINE hypothesis associates dark matter with the unique gravitational properties of living systems, the presence or concentration of dark matter within or around Solaris could offer an explanation for its unusual orbit. The dark matter's gravitational influence (GD) might create unexpected gravitational dynamics within the binary star system.Sentience and Gravitation: The novel portrays the ocean on Solaris as a sentient entity, capable of conscious interaction with human visitors. While highly speculative, one might entertain the idea that this sentient ocean could somehow manipulate or utilize the LINE-proposed entanglement with dark matter to influence the planet's gravitational behavior actively. This would introduce an entirely novel concept of gravitational control by a conscious entity.Unexplored Degrees of Freedom: The LINE hypothesis's idea of subtle degrees of freedom in space-time associated with dark matter might provide an additional framework to explain Solaris's unconventional orbit. These degrees of freedom could introduce complexities into the gravitational interactions within the binary star system that are not captured by current gravitational models.Quantum Entanglement and Celestial Mechanics: Though a significant leap from the proposed biological applications of the LINE hypothesis, one might extend the concept of quantum entanglement to celestial mechanics. The entanglement molecules (EM) and dilated Planck holes (PH) discussed in the LINE hypothesis could theoretically have macro-scale counterparts or effects that influence gravitational interactions on a planetary level.Limitations of Current Understanding: Just as the LINE hypothesis highlights the limitations and potential incompleteness of existing gravitational theories regarding living entities, Solaris's behavior may symbolize the limitations of human understanding in celestial mechanics. The planet's defiance of known gravitational laws may serve as a metaphorical reminder that our understanding of the universe is still evolving, and new principles may be waiting to be discovered.In conclusion, while the LINE hypothesis primarily concerns the nature of life and its interaction with dark matter and gravitation, some of its concepts could be imaginatively applied to explain the fictional phenomena described in "Solaris." These explanations are highly speculative and extend beyond the direct scope of the LINE hypothesis, but they provide an interesting intersection between fictional narrative and theoretical scientific exploration.How do Vera Rubin's and Fritz Zwicky's empirical gravitational observations reflect on this?ChatGPT-4Vera Rubin's and Fritz Zwicky's empirical observations of gravitational phenomena provide essential context to our understanding of dark matter, and these could be considered in relation to the LINE (Life Instantiated by Natural Entanglement) hypothesis and the fictional world of "Solaris."Vera Rubin's Galactic Rotation Curves:Observations: Rubin's study of spiral galaxies revealed that the stars in the outer regions were orbiting the galactic center at unexpected velocities, defying the predictions of Newtonian gravitational theory. This discrepancy led to the idea that some unseen mass, i.e., dark matter, must be influencing the galactic dynamics.Relation to LINE Hypothesis: The LINE hypothesis posits that dark matter interacts with living entities through a particular entanglement mechanism that results in additional gravitation (LG). If we extend this concept, dark matter could also have unexplored impacts on celestial dynamics, potentially offering alternative explanations for Rubin's observations.Connection to "Solaris": The mysterious nature of dark matter and its still-not-fully-understood influence on gravity might find a fictional analogy in Solaris's inexplicable gravitational behavior.Fritz Zwicky's Observations on Galaxy Clusters:Observations: Zwicky's study of the Coma Cluster revealed that the galaxies within the cluster were moving too quickly to be held together by the visible mass. This led him to propose the existence of unseen "dunkle Materie" or dark matter, which provides the additional gravitational pull.Relation to LINE Hypothesis: The LINE hypothesis's focus on unexpected gravitational behavior through the interplay between dark matter and living systems might lead us to reconsider our understanding of dark matter's interactions with inanimate celestial bodies. The hypothesized additional gravitational constant (GD) could have broader implications for our understanding of gravitation in galaxies and clusters.Connection to "Solaris": Zwicky's observations of the unseen forces at play within galaxy clusters resonate with the inexplicable forces governing Solaris's behavior. Though a work of fiction, Solaris might symbolize the unknown and elusive nature of dark matter, much like Zwicky's "dunkle Materie."Overall, both Rubin's and Zwicky's empirical observations highlight the enigmatic nature of dark matter and its influence on gravitational dynamics. Though the LINE hypothesis focuses primarily on the interaction between dark matter and living entities, its underlying principles might offer a fresh perspective on these observations. In turn, the mysterious behavior of Solaris could be seen as a fictional reflection of these real-world gravitational enigmas, and the LINE hypothesis provides an imaginative bridge to link these two realms.