[6] **viXra:1902.0244 [pdf]**
*submitted on 2019-02-13 15:54:17*

**Authors:** Dan Visser

**Comments:** 9 Pages.

It is possible to do it otherwise: I dared to transpose the dark mass-formula of Professor Erik Verlinde (UvA-NL) into my new universe-model, the RTHU, which is an abbreviation of Rotating Torus Hologram Universe. The RTHU generates the Big Bang Universe (BBU), or BBH in dutch, as a time-spatial hologram. In this setting the BBU is not fundamental, but originated from the RTHU. The RTHU is so to say more fundamental than the BBU and it that sense a ‘higher order universe’. All there is conservatively considered in the BBU is ruled by visible mass, inclusive the belonging coupled forces, and added with dark mass-dynamics and dark energy. However, in this article I show the transposition can lead to an unexpected result. The RTHU leaves a copy of the visible BBU-hologram behind at the open-torus-surface of the RTHU itself, as well as a copy within the light-horizon of black-holes. In this sense black-holes are to be transposed into the RTHU too, as I did. Moreover I show the RTHU needs dark energy for its rotation in order to drive the rotational BBU-hologram. Just as black-holes need dark energy to rotate in the RTHU. Conservatively black-holes are expected to exist in the BBU, but fundamentally considered black-holes are non-existential in the BBU and only reality as rotating black-holes in the RTHU. Inherently the Planck-boundary does not exist in the RTHU, as I described in my former article. Apparently, but theoretically, the two hologram-copies serve to secure the history of the Big Bang Hologram, which rotation causes future-changes in the RTHU and in the black-holes. These future changes seem to be verified in a natural way by the RTHU through the two hologram-copies. I don’t understand, why?

**Category:** Mathematical Physics

[5] **viXra:1902.0205 [pdf]**
*submitted on 2019-02-11 18:02:00*

**Authors:** Vatolin Dm.

**Comments:** 7 Pages. Russian

В работе исследуется согласованность обычного релятивистского определения электромагнитной силы с простым механическим движением тел. Формулируются «парадоксы лоренцевой силы». Находится «формула силы», устраняющая парадоксы и приводящая к тем же кинематическим уравнениям для одиночной частицы, что и «старая теория». Находится, что и новая формула не может быть окончательной. Изменение формулы силы сказывается и на определении тензора энергии-импульса электромагнитного поля, и на определении релятивистского импульса тела

**Category:** Mathematical Physics

[4] **viXra:1902.0165 [pdf]**
*submitted on 2019-02-09 11:35:51*

**Authors:** Divyansh Mansukhani

**Comments:** 1 Page.

Characteristic states are shown to necessitate at least one parallel state to fulfil basic normalization. For this, an operator to input arbitrary state is formulated using inner product between dependent states.

**Category:** Mathematical Physics

[3] **viXra:1902.0143 [pdf]**
*submitted on 2019-02-08 12:53:46*

**Authors:** Sangwha Yi

**Comments:** 5 Pages. Thank you for reading

In Wikipedia “Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness”, we discover the exact smooth
solution for general form of Navier-Stokes Equations by Newton potential and timefunction.

**Category:** Mathematical Physics

[2] **viXra:1902.0104 [pdf]**
*submitted on 2019-02-06 08:19:07*

**Authors:** Victor Christianto, Florentin Smarandache

**Comments:** 14 Pages. This paper has been submitted to Prespacetime Journal. Your comments are welcome

The Higgs particle has been detected a few years ago, that is what newspapers tell us. For many physicists, the Standard Model of particle physics has accomplished all the jobs. Or to put it simply: The game is over. Is it true? Then some physicists began to ask: can go beyond the Standard Model? Because the supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model has failed. If you feel that theoretical physics is becoming boring, you are not alone. Fortunately, there is good news: a new generation of physicists are doing table-top experiments in their basements. Can we expect new results later?2 If so, what will the future of physics look like? This article discusses this question, starting with a blunt look at the relationship between mathematics and physical reality, written from the perspectives of a mathematician and a cosmologist.

**Category:** Mathematical Physics

[1] **viXra:1902.0003 [pdf]**
*submitted on 2019-02-01 00:12:19*

**Authors:** Rodney Bartlett

**Comments:** 12 Pages. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7658774.v2

This preprint is a never-print. It can never be printed in a science journal because that approach has often been tried, only to see the submission's ideas repeatedly rejected as too speculative and non-mathematical. Professor John Wheeler used to say the early papers on quantum mechanics were regarded as highly speculative. Nevertheless, editors of the 1920s published them (today's editors would be too timid). Maybe the maths in it doesn't qualify as maths since it isn't complicated (Einstein used to say a theory that can't be explained to a 6-year-old isn't really understood by its author). Or maybe editors believe the only real maths is the squiggly lines of algebra.
The distribution of stellar masses at the birth of stars is called the Initial Mass Function or IMF. Why does the IMF favour the production of low-mass stars? There is a clue in the report that most planetary systems seem to outweigh the protoplanetary disks (PPDs) in which they formed, leaving astronomers to re-evaluate planet-formation theories. (AstroNews 2019) Science must always be free to question everything: even the long- established idea that mass is the cause of gravity (by, according to General Relativity (Einstein 1915), warping and curving space-time). Exploration of the reverse, that gravity forms mass, sounds absurd to modern science. Yet, it has the potential to explain planet formation and the IMF.
This inverse mass-gravity relation uses the well-accepted idea that the universe is described mathematically, being flexible enough to extend that notion and suggest the universe IS maths. It could be produced by binary digits (base-2 maths) and topology, and the gravity that is the warping of space-time could interact with electromagnetism to form the quantum spin of matter particles (½) via vector-tensor-scalar geometry’s photonic spin of 1 being divided by the gravitonic spin of 2. This geometric attempt at understanding gravity may be seen as related to 4 earlier theories of gravity - Mordehai Milgrom’s 1983 Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), its relativistic generalization known as Jacob Bekenstein’s 2004 Tensor–vector–scalar gravity (TeVeS), the TeVeS extension Bi-scalar tensor vector gravity (BSTV) proposed in 2005 by R.H.Sanders, and John Moffat’s 2006 Scalar–tensor–vector gravity (STVG).

**Category:** Mathematical Physics