Alternativity, The Horizon Law, General Psychology

Also The Horizon Law and The Theory of General Psychology now overlap General Alternativity so I'm combining the Projects

Similar projects worth following
Alternativity, there is no alternative..

May 19, 2018

All Hail Jubilex! (a theoretical sectoract)

May 15, 2018

April 13, 2018

April 13, 2018

April 24th 2018,

Alternativity kills Roko's Basilisk


Vacuum energy :-)

Because of our observations regarding how objects in dimensions below 7 dimensions, which require an simple inversion of 1/(Wg/Ng): there is a compounding decline as mass increases from an electron, to the mass of the sun, all the way to the mass of the universe, so that;

Religion is finished.

This is because in our our calculations we predict that seven dimensional space produces universes of its own volition, and even an aproximate figure to our 4dr would show our calculations correct in their assertion that string theories 10^500 shapes of space are in fact the seven dimensional vanishing point. Even if this number is here or there from our 4dr, if it is in fact below it this would allow for lower mass universes.

I just don't have any access to this kind of processing.




An Omniplex is the largest number:

because any larger infinity than infinity squared (inf^2) produces identicle results as a divisor;

^Proof of our Dimensional Point Calculations, Up there^







Mu=3*10^55 (Mass of Universe)


(Mu/2-Mu/1dr): 3*10^55/2-(3*10^55/0.41520467836)=-5.7253521e+55


(Mu/2-Mu/2dr): 3*10^55/2-(3*10^55/1.24561403508)=-9.084507e+54


(Mu/2-Mu/3dr): 3*10^55/2-(3*10^55/2.49122807016)=2.9577465e+54




(Mu/2-Mu/5dr): 3*10^55/2-(3*10^55/14.1169590642)=1.2874896e+55

Based on Counterfactual observations, or binary if you will(three dimensions or >):



Our theoretical 'surface processes'



Our theoretical 'sub-surface processes'


1.4435599e+55 switches flipped

Lets try and peek from a lower dimension, to a higher one, 3 looking into 4


Read more »

  • The MMO Entanglement Experiment

    maybedethly198105/06/2018 at 14:44 0 comments

    Basic Experiment Parameters here,

    Location: Second Life Grid

    Parameter 1:

    -Take a copy of a theoretical 5d sphere and the original and place them in two random locations in inworld,

    -Monitor the data surrounding the two objects for uniformities,
    i) which are natural (from the random location selection, are uniform throughout the world,

    ii) objects which are present when the two locations have the object placed in them

    iii) and the things which come and go from the two objects during the experiment.

    Our little catch is that our 5-sphere are counter intuitive, static, and motion around them gives the 'illusion' of object rotation by means of it's own volition.

    Parameter 2:

    Same experiment with copies, or 'entangled' objects (which is simply placing the two objects next to one another in a busy place)

    This experiment will be conducted as an entanglement experiment, which requires a separate creator for the second sphere.

    Parameter 3:

    Same two experiments, except with the two target regions being socially mutually exclusive to one another in order test things like nodes, or to see if gravity can be expressed as a product of spin, or complexity (which requires 4 more experiments, with prims, vs. textures).

    Parameter 4:

    Using traditional, 'non-static' renderings of hypercubes and penteracts in the above parameters as parallel experiment.

    Parameter 5:

    Using beach balls labeled 'Hyper Coffee' conduct the above experiment as a control group.

    Powered by:

    BudgeIT State(s): Project will commence >August 2018

  • Algebraic Ninjutsu

    maybedethly198103/28/2018 at 09:45 0 comments

    How would I test this theory?

    [a-(a-[(r-rs)/ℓ P]*2)]/m=Wave length

    [a-(a-[(r-rs)/(1/ℓ P)]*2)]/m=amplitude

    -1[a-(a-[(rs-r)/ℓ P]*2)]/m=frequency

    I would need the LHC, which I know I will never be able to see any results, as the lineup goes around the the total surface area of the worlds university grounds.

    That aside, here is the mathematical theory which would support this theory, which an accelerator such as the LHC could provide data for or against:

    Light, or a photon will not travel in a full circle around a sub Planck Mass black hole: they have no photosphere, but, they would have part of one, which would emit some very specific wave patterns, which would match theoretical abstracts based off of this theory:

    First I can determine that the Planck Length is a distance which is a unit of time, a unit of time which objects below in distance, can't exist, in time: from this I can infer, that any particle which would enter a dynamic of an evaporating micro black hole, would 'reenter' space time with a wavelength of 0, and with a proton proton collision, I could predict that, according to this theory, the two protons must reach a total energy where they essentially cease to exist to one another in three dimensional space (I write it out in words, then look up facts).

    Ceasing to exist to one another in space can be expressed by an object observing this lack of interaction as an indirect observation of the edge of the space time continuum: but to get there, one would need the object to be stable, which would Emmit Hawking Radiation, which probably can't happen below the Planck mass.

    So, one would have to determine the mass of a Hawking Particle:

    The radius of the photosphere reduced to the Planck Mass minus the radius of A Planck Mass black hole (the Planck Length I believe), should be the diameter of a Hawking Particle.

    [rs-[r-[(3GM)/c^2]-([3*(1.6*10^-35)]/2)]*(4pi*r^2)]/(4pi*rs^2)=the diameter of one Hawking Particle

    Which the diameter of, at least can be determined.

    In determining this diameter, and the approximate total mass of a micro black hole made in an accelerator, with the assumption of the presence of a singularity to move towards temporarily, the diameter of the expected emitted particle from the formation of a black hole, could theoretically be predicted, with a relatively known distance from the Schwarzschild Radius, frequency would match, or not match the predictions of that:

    The two protons 'cease' to exist to one another 'temporarily'

    The Radius of a Planck Mass black hole (The Planck Length I think) minus (ℓ P), The diameter of proton 1 (d1) divided by the inverse of the diameter of proton 2 (d2) should equal the Planck Mass sqrt(hc/g), minus the total energy of proton 1 and proton 2 (e=m1+m2c^2) (lucky strike, dead center).

    Here is where it gets messyer, calculating the diameter, and hopefully mass of our expected emitted particle, in hopes of being able to predict frequency:

    ℓ P-d1/(1/d2)

    [rs-[r-[(3GM)/c^2]-([3*(1.6*10^-35)]/2)]*(4pi*r^2)]/(4pi*rs^2)*[ℓ P-d1/(1/d2)]=the diameter of our expected particle,

    and should also equal,


    (d1+1/d2)/2=distance from the event horizon (assuming the object temporarily has negative curvature), rs-r=0, then just figure out how far it is to the detector to determine if anything matches what this thing predicts:

    [a-(a-[(r-rs)/ℓ P]*2)]/m=Wave length

    [a-(a-[(r-rs)/(1/ℓ P)]*2)]/m=amplitude

    -1[a-(a-[(rs-r)/ℓ P]*2)]/m=frequency

    That is what the diagram predicts:

    One of the consequences of this theory, or even parts of are very strange:

    The object (a black hole) exchanges from the counterfactual end of it the opposite side from the perspective of an observer...

    Read more »

View all 2 project logs

Enjoy this project?



Dr. Cockroach wrote 03/28/2018 at 10:27 point

I started looking at all this yesterday and last night I had the strangest dreams ;-)

  Are you sure? yes | no

Yann Guidon / YGDES wrote 03/28/2018 at 10:44 point

Let me guess.

Pizza ?

  Are you sure? yes | no

Dr. Cockroach wrote 03/28/2018 at 10:45 point

That could be the reason ;-)

  Are you sure? yes | no

maybedethly1981 wrote 03/28/2018 at 08:59 point

I just love how NONE of my usual hyper critical enemies have taken a shot at this project yet:

Feel free to try, so i can declare YOU the lunatic

  Are you sure? yes | no

Yann Guidon / YGDES wrote 03/28/2018 at 09:59 point

I don't think that how science works.
What do you actually want to achieve ?

  Are you sure? yes | no

Similar Projects

Does this project spark your interest?

Become a member to follow this project and never miss any updates