Lucy Haye Ph. D.
SAA’s representative

Regards.
Lucy Haye Ph. D.
SAA’s representative.

Lucy haye. Ph. D.
SAA’s representative

I will list a key review about your Linguistics book below.

a. Trey Jones (in 2010) — Linguistic hogwash

I’ll take Trey Jones’ word over yours. I don’t know how you come up with all this crap, but you seriously need to get a life and stop throwing up all your crap on this blog.

While Higgs was not officially ruled out by Prequark Chromodynamics, there are, at least, four big reasons for Higgs being a very bad idea.

1. Higgs is not needed in Prequark Chromodynamics.

2. Higgs (if being a rock bottom particle) violates the bottoming principle, explained in the book “Linguistics Manifesto”, available at Amazon.

3. Higgs is useless to link Standard Model to other realities, the Life sphere (pop), the Mathematics Universe (pop), etc..

4. This physical universe sits on three pillars, 1) the Cabibbo angle (θc) ~ 13.5 degrees, 2) the Weinberg angle (θW ) ~ 28.73 degrees and 3) the Alpha ["electron fine structure constant" (Beta = 1/alpha = 137.0359 … )]. Higgs can do nothing to derive them while they can be easily derived in Prequark Chromodynamics.

As the Prequark Chromodynamics did not become a mainstream theory, I should give a brief outline on its history here. The first paper on PC was written on December 4, 1979. Then, a book “Super Unified Theory — the Foundations of Science” was copyrighted on April 18, 1984. Many reviews about the Prequark Chromodynamics were listed in that book. I will list some key reviews below.

a. Jon Machta (in March 2004) invited me to join the faculty at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
b. Jainendra K. Jain (in February, 2004) invited me to join the faculty at PennState.
c. Steven Weinberg (in 1996) — the outlook for Prequark is not good.
d. Alan Harvey Guth (in 1994) — it [prequark] is very interesting.
e. John Archibald Wheeler (in 1994) — it [prequark] has no test point.
f. Sidney D. Drell (in 1983) — invited me doing research work at SLAC.
g. The Physical Review (D. Nordstrom, in October 1983) — We have made no judgment on whether your work is correct or not, only that the subject matter is not suitable for the Physical Review.

Up to this point, the Prequark Chromodynamics is, in fact, just a one-man show. Now, I would like to invite all of you to join in.

f(R) is sort of modified gravity. It can be rewritten as ordinary gravity plus a minimally coupled scalar field in the Einstein frame. In such a frame, it doesn’t obviously deserve to be called “modified gravity”, but technically it is I suppose, because the scalar couples to matter in a special way – namely via the trace of the stress-energy tensor – which is how we think of gravity. Such models are often built to describe dark energy, such as the 1/R model, but invariably are at odds with solar-system tests of gravity, because the scalar introduces a long-ranged 5th force which causes light to bend in a way that is different to matter (since the trace of the stress energy tensor for light is zero, but not for matter). There are extremely contrived models that side-step these problems, such as chameleon models, which don’t make much sense from an effective field theory point of view.

I suspect that ordinary Einstein’s gravity with a CC (or possibly, but much less likely, an extremely weakly interacting slowly rolling scalar), plus small derivative corrections, is probably the only sensible theory of gravity that is consistent with all observations, that is internally consistent, and emerges as the low energy effective description of any plausible fundamental theory of quantum gravity.

Fireworks below 1TeV points out (quite rightly) that it is unfortunate that the Randal-Sundrum paper has more citations than almost everything else, such as asymptotic freedom and some of the wmap papers. Then Yeti disagrees by saying that it is as silly to cite those papers as it is to cite Newton.

Citing wmap is like citing Newton????? (so says Yeti)

Its astonishing how illogical some people can be.

phi + phihat = 1 = velocity + time = D and

phi x phihat = -1 = velocity x time = -D

from these i can derive all equations

all is resonant action d reflecting the wave nature of all things.

Equivalency is identified for all relationships since the entire universe are products of time and velocity

T^2 + t – 1 = 0, here we see time in relationship to 0, refers to a system of unity and transformation, operators present. The equations of time vary but there is no zero. At such levels time as we measure it as a property does not exist at all, since everything is a product of time and velocity.
So hyperspace will get Cinderella out quickly, but the device to do that is much more complex. I prefer teleportation, you assign a matrix that duplicates the pattern of what is being sent elsewhere and it will appear there, since no 1 identical signatures can occupy two locations.
C sets the scale of measurement and is a relative product.
Well, constants set the scale that should be no mystery. And the measurement of C is relative since you are doing it from outside the inertial field of reference, a relationship which I define a V^2 + 1/V^2 at T=1 is C. and so the question is no mystery as well. all things have equivalency, it merely seemed to start with E = mc^2, and that equivalency is to translate all things into V and T. the fact that it started with mass is simply a historical necessity, and mass as an assignment is purely arbitrary. Everything is a product of resonant function D which has an asymmetrical assignment of v and t. mass which you have assigned is but a portion of products of functions that are within an atom, and at best perhaps purely arbitrary. But for the manner in which you measure to get a limited handle on the nature of an atom, it works for rudimentary exercises. So it’s not necessary to make the question about equivalency so profound when the axioms are wrong to begin with.