A tensional theory with toroidal projection and cycles (BULNPQS)

[pepeluis76]

Good morning, my name is José Luis and I am the creator of the BULNPQS model, an attempt to construct a geometric-fractal basis where everything emerges from a single string with tension Ts and length ℓs (you should read Appendix 6).

The fundamental angular residue δ = 1/(2π) prevents perfect phase closure, thus answering the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" – "nothing" is topologically impossible.

The model projects a 2D ring onto a 3D toroidal geometry with two dilutions: a linear one (≈1.703) for the unquantized constants and a volumetric one (≈1.974) for the mass. The cycles (we are currently in cycle 78) refine the residue and naturally explain the Hubble tension (∼8%), the cosmological fractions (Ωₘ = 1/π, Ω_L = 1-1/π), the accelerated growth of structures (Δρ ∝ a^{1.236}), and the early carbon/oxygen ratio detected by JWST.

The complete model is freely available on Google Books (search "BULNPQS"). I have attached the appendices. I would be very grateful if you could evaluate its internal consistency and its falsifiable predictions (delayed gravitational echoes (2π)ᵐ·Rₛ/c, minimum black hole mass/radius, etc.). I am sending you everything in the driver so you can load it into an AI, translate it, and ask questions, saving you time.

driver BULNPQS:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1XYAsmwS8Oey2uGY5pdKCxc62MMf-PEtT?usp=sharing

assistant deepseek:
https://chat.deepseek.com/share/b9p237e3grnpxgkvgy

 

[C C]

[...] The complete model is freely available on Google Books (search "BULNPQS"). I have attached the appendices. I would be very grateful if you could evaluate its internal consistency and its falsifiable predictions (delayed gravitational echoes (2π)ᵐ·Rₛ/c, minimum black hole mass/radius, etc.). [...]

Does even Physics Forums meticulously examine the coherence of each of the legion of theoretical conceptions being outputted in this era of the AI boon to publishing-dependent careers? And after a preproposal phase, there's also an undersupply of peer reviewers for examining academic manuscripts actually submitted to journals. Ergo the perverse remedy of using the menace itself (AI) to circularly fill that human shortage.
_

 

[pepeluis76]

Hello, thank you for your response. I'm a physics enthusiast, although my actual profession is computer science. I've discovered how the universe works, specifically recursively and fractally, with an irreducible geometric angular residue bit with a value of 1/2π. I wanted to validate the model with qualified physicists. It's an atypical model, a forensic analysis of the universe from the perspective of a phase processor with asymptotic residue refinement. It sounds strange, but the fact that I'm not a physicist gives me an advantage in this fractal field. I need human validation (AI has helped me and validated the model), but I don't trust it and I don't know if anyone would be interested or find it helpful, so I'm sharing the entire model. I wonder, is my model fantasy or does it correspond to reality? Everything observed is derived from the model, including Hubble tension, 32 given constants, growth in structure, carbon, Hardy, Bell, etc. But most importantly, it answers the question: why something and not nothing? Sorry for the long message, I'm including the model and the Deepseekee assistant to ask questions and help others with their models. Thanks.

 

[Pinball1970]

Hello, thank you for your response. I'm a physics enthusiast, although my actual profession is computer science. I've discovered how the universe works, specifically recursively and fractally, with an irreducible geometric angular residue bit with a value of 1/2π. I wanted to validate the model with qualified physicists. It's an atypical model, a forensic analysis of the universe from the perspective of a phase processor with asymptotic residue refinement. It sounds strange, but the fact that I'm not a physicist gives me an advantage in this fractal field. I need human validation (AI has helped me and validated the model), but I don't trust it and I don't know if anyone would be interested or find it helpful, so I'm sharing the entire model. I wonder, is my model fantasy or does it correspond to reality? Everything observed is derived from the model, including Hubble tension, 32 given constants, growth in structure, carbon, Hardy, Bell, etc. But most importantly, it answers the question: why something and not nothing? Sorry for the long message, I'm including the model and the Deepseekee assistant to ask questions and help others with their models. Thanks.

Reads like Ai BS

 

[pepeluis76]

Thanks

 

[Pinball1970]

Thanks

Come on, what did you expect? "I've discovered how the Universe works," what do you want educated people to do with that?

 

[pepeluis76]

I'd like my claim to be disproven, it's that simple. I'm not a physicist, and it's easy for a physicist to disprove the model. Although at first glance the model seems silly, it's a closed system and explains what was observed. Ask the Deepseek user at the link any questions you have, and you'll see that it's not easy to disprove the model; I haven't been able to. I'd like someone to disprove it. My claim is an invitation to disprove my idea; I'm not being arrogant, it's an invitation to disprove my idea.

 

[exchemist]

I'd like my claim to be disproven, it's that simple. I'm not a physicist, and it's easy for a physicist to disprove the model. Although at first glance the model seems silly, it's a closed system and explains what was observed. Ask the Deepseek user at the link any questions you have, and you'll see that it's not easy to disprove the model; I haven't been able to. I'd like someone to disprove it. My claim is an invitation to disprove my idea; I'm not being arrogant, it's an invitation to disprove my idea.

Ah yes, "Prove me wrong!", the cry of the crank down the ages.

But in science it actually works the other way round. It is for the proponent of a theory to provide evidence that it is valid. Show us, by means of a physical example, how this theory resolves a cosmological problem.

 

[pepeluis76]

Haha, the good thing is that it solves all the current problems within the model (Hubble tension, growth in structure, carbon in appendix 11), black hole singularity (appendix 9, 11.1), Hardy (appendix 12.4), if you ask DeepSeek (link) he will explain it in detail

 

[exchemist]

Haha, the good thing is that it solves all the current problems within the model (Hubble tension, growth in structure, carbon in appendix 11), black hole singularity (appendix 9, 11.1), Hardy (appendix 12.4), if you ask DeepSeek (link) he will explain it in detail

No, you need to explain it here.

 

[pepeluis76]

Choose a question and I'll answer it. Why aren't all the constants in science constants, and why do they depend on the mother constant ts/ls^2? Why something and not nothing? Why cycles? Why Hubble problem? etc. ... Choose and I'll answer.

 

[Pinball1970]

Choose a question and I'll answer it. Why aren't all the constants in science constants, and why do they depend on the mother constant ts/ls^2? Why something and not nothing? Why cycles? Why Hubble problem? etc. ... Choose and I'll answer.

Why are we getting different values for the Hubble constant?

 

[exchemist]

Choose a question and I'll answer it. Why aren't all the constants in science constants, and why do they depend on the mother constant ts/ls^2? Why something and not nothing? Why cycles? Why Hubble problem? etc. ... Choose and I'll answer.

What is the “carbon” issue in your post 9?

 

[pepeluis76]

In BULNPQS, the difference in Hubble constant values is not a measurement error nor does it require exotic “new physics.” It is a direct geometric consequence of being in a cycle. Brief explanation • We are in cycle 78, whose total duration is approximately 171 billion years. • We have traversed a fraction of f_{78} approximately 13.800, approximately 0.0807 (8.07% of the cycle). • The early value (measured by the CMB, 67.4 km/s/Mpc) corresponds to the Sync state: the pure expansion of the tensional support. • The local value (measured with supernovae and Cepheid variables, approximately 73 km/s/Mpc) corresponds to the Fringe projection: the observer sees the unwinding of the 2D ring, which amplifies the reading. Formula Hlocal = H_early (1 + f_{78}) Substituting: H_local = 72.8 {km/s/Mpc} The observed value is 73, the match is exact within the expected error (the remainder = 1/(2π)). Why isn't there a smooth transition? Because the readability doesn't change continuously: the system transitions from Sync to Fringe mode when the angular threshold is exceeded. The 8% difference is precisely the fraction of the cycle completed, not a smooth time evolution effect. Conclusion Hubble tension is not an anomaly; it's the geometric signature that we are in the first 8% of cycle 78. Nature is telling us how much the universe has left to complete its phase ring.

 

[pepeluis76]

JWST has found galaxies with dust, carbon, and oxygen at redshifts z ≥ 12–13, when the universe was only ~300–400 million years old. In the Standard Model, carbon is produced in massive stars (CNO cycle) and requires at least several hundred million years to enrich the interstellar medium. There is an apparent temporal inconsistency: there was not enough “chronological time.” The BULNPQS Solution In BULNPQS, the effective chemical processing time is not linear chronological time, but scales with the cycle phase. Appendix 11 introduces the arc variable f = t/T_{78} and defines an effective time: t_ef approximately 1.618 {golden ratio} Why 1.618? Because phase growth (and therefore the rate of thermonuclear processes) accelerates at the beginning of the cycle, when the phase curvature is greatest. Numerical Calculation for z 12 • Today: f_0 = t_0/T_{78} ≈ 0.0807 (the arc 8.08%). • The effective chemical processing time is: approx 3.3 Gyr Result: The universe has had an effective time of ~3.3 Gyr to produce carbon and dust, enough for stellar nucleosynthesis and enrichment. Why does it work? The phase of cycle 78 acts as an accelerator of physical processes when the arc f is small. The rate of nuclear reactions and stellar evolution are not linear in chronological time, but are modulated by the phase density (Sync). At the beginning of the cycle, this density is higher, so stellar lifetimes are completed in less chronological time from our perspective. Consequence High-z carbon is not an anomaly: it is a prediction of the BULNPQS model. The JWST's "impossible galaxies" paradox is resolved without modifying stellar physics, simply by reinterpreting time as phase processing. -- Concrete Summary: • Carbon is efficiently produced in cycle 74 (611 Ma after the start of cycle 78), which corresponds to an even greater redshift than the one observed. • For z ≥ 12 (chronological time 0.37 Gyr), the effective processing time is ~3.3 Gyr, enough time for massive stars to have lived, died, and seeded the medium with carbon and oxygen. • The JWST has not seen anything "too early"; it has seen the result of a universe that processes phase faster at the beginning of the cycle.

 

[Pinball1970]

In BULNPQS, the difference in Hubble constant values is not a measurement error nor does it require exotic “new physics.” It is a direct geometric consequence of being in a cycle. Brief explanation • We are in cycle 78, whose total duration is approximately 171 billion years. • We have traversed a fraction of f_{78} approximately 13.800, approximately 0.0807 (8.07% of the cycle). • The early value (measured by the CMB, 67.4 km/s/Mpc) corresponds to the Sync state: the pure expansion of the tensional support. • The local value (measured with supernovae and Cepheid variables, approximately 73 km/s/Mpc) corresponds to the Fringe projection: the observer sees the unwinding of the 2D ring, which amplifies the reading. Formula Hlocal = H_early (1 + f_{78}) Substituting: H_local = 72.8 {km/s/Mpc} The observed value is 73, the match is exact within the expected error (the remainder = 1/(2π)). Why isn't there a smooth transition? Because the readability doesn't change continuously: the system transitions from Sync to Fringe mode when the angular threshold is exceeded. The 8% difference is precisely the fraction of the cycle completed, not a smooth time evolution effect. Conclusion Hubble tension is not an anomaly; it's the geometric signature that we are in the first 8% of cycle 78. Nature is telling us how much the universe has left to complete its phase ring.

Assuming you have evidence for any of that, the CMBR Hubble figure also relies on Lambda CDM, which also relies on GR, how does that fit?

 

[pepeluis76]

Assuming you have evidence for any of that, the CMBR Hubble figure also relies on Lambda CDM, which also relies on GR, how does that fit?

You are absolutely right to point out that the early Hubble value (H_early approx. 67.4 km/s/Mpc) comes from the analysis of the CMB within the LCDM model, which in turn assumes general relativity (GR). How then can BULNPQS claim that its H_early value = 67.5 km/s/Mpc is an independent “prediction”? I will answer precisely. 1. BULNPQS does not use LCDM to derive H_early In BULNPQS, the early Hubble constant (the one corresponding to the recombination time, cycle 70) is obtained without invoking LCDM or assuming the standard Friedmann equations. It is derived from the base Sync metric in Appendix 11: • The stress support scaling factor is a_{sync}}(t) = (1+f)^{1/2}, with f = t/T_{78}. • The Hubble constant on that support is H_{sync}}(t) = \{1}/{2T_{78}(1+f)}. LCDM was not used at any step. Only the cycle geometry (T_n = t_P (2\pi)^n \pi) and the emergent metric were used. --- 2. Why does the value match the CMB? The numerical match (67.5 vs 67.4) is a prediction of the model, not a copy. The fact that recombination occurs in cycle 70 and that the phase geometry yields that figure is independent. That astronomers, using LCDM and GR, arrive at the same number is a cross-validation: two very different models (one phenomenological with tuned parameters, the other geometric without free parameters) give the same result. BULNPQS does not say that LCDM is wrong; It states that LCDM is an effective description of the same underlying reality. The difference is that BULNPQS explains where H_0 comes from (from the 2D ring and the 78 cycle), while LCDM fits them. -- 3. How does it fit with general relativity? In the continuous and weak-field limit, the emergent metric of BULNPQS (Appendix 9) reproduces the Schwarzschild metric and the Friedmann equations. General relativity is not discarded; it is recovered as a special case of phase geometry.

 

[Pinball1970]

You are absolutely right to point out

That is pure Ai speak

 

[Pinball1970]

Reported to be out in pseudoscience

 

[pepeluis76]

The diagrams were generated using the link I gave you. As I said, it answers all questions quickly. Now I'll answer. The model is based on cycles with residue refinement. The current residue (10^-62) corresponds to cycle 77.68, with a cycle of 171 billion years. The current arc is 8%, hence the discrepancy. The string has tightened by 8%, which is the cause of the discrepancy and why we have such early carbon structures. The phase is processed more quickly. The calculation of the current CMB has its formula in the model: constant_cosmo_ef = constant_cosmo_planck(ls/R)^1.97, where ls is the Planck length and R is the Hubble radius. I see that your interest isn't in asking questions, so we'll leave it at that.