All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. UpOk here is the thing, you started with quantum particle/antiparticle creation so I provided those mathematics. You are then discussing quantum Darwism. So this theory involves pointer states and Einselection. The Unruh effect is an observer effect in so far as different observers can measure different particle number densities. I gave you a starting point. It is trivial to apply Unruh effect to the math I provided. Quantum Darwism may take a bit more work however it is plausible. Keep in mind this is your theory while I will assist others in building their models I won't do all their work for them. You have a plausible hypothesis. As far as those I described
  3. Because he's not making it up and he''s been doing it a long time. He's giving you the conventional physics that has been learned and amalgamated over the last century or two.
  4. I think you might be misunderstanding the principle of relativity. It's not that measurements of a single experiment, observed from different frames of reference, will make the same measurements. It's that the experiment, performed in each of the different frames of reference, will have the same measurements within those frames. Obviously, many measurements will be "relative" to the observer. In Galilean relativity, things like relative speeds will be different depending on inertial frame. In special relativity, things like lengths and times will also be different. In the example mentioned, you don't have a person drop a ball while standing on the ground, and measure it from the ground and from a moving airplane. You drop the ball on the ground and measure it from the ground, and you drop the ball on the plane, and measure it on the plane. If both adequately approximate an inertial frame and have the same gravity, both experiments behave the same. A more general example, if you had two trains, each at rest in a different perfectly inertial frame, there would be no experiment that could be performed that could identify that one train is at rest and another is in motion except relative to a frame of reference, and so there is no concept of universal motion or rest.
  5. The first paragraph or so of your idea involved particle antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. So I provided the QFT mathematics of such an environment.
  6. Yes I'm satisfied you have looked closely at both 1 and 2. You now have enough of the FLRW metric formulas that you can now toy model different density components so that you can check your modelling with regards to the cosmological problem at any time scale. Well done
  7. So, you can't control your impulses and you want the government to do it for you ?
  8. "How about SNC Lavalin...oops Harper sold that to the Saudi's. right?" That's news to... just about everyone ! When did this happen ? How about making up some more stuff to slander S Harper ?
  9. Yesterday
  10. I agree with that. You keep making the same logic error, I keep correcting it. But what if we run the argument on the natural numbers in their usual order? Doesn't every deleted tail still have a smallest element? And where's your proof that this can't happen with an arbitrary linear order on the reals?
  11. Those are not counterexamples to my sets. I'll reread what u said; maybe I missed something. It looks like the same obvious old thing over and over again.
  12. How does ignoring the counterexamples to your argument help you convince anyone? The examples I'm giving you falsify your argument.
  13. Are u _____ or what? READ MY POST!! I DID read yours. I was trying to convey I was not including your set. You keep repeatedly bringing up an example I'm not even talking about. I wrote I'm talking about subsets (or sets if u prefer) we don't already know a WO for which I was hoping was precise enough. Maybe this is the source of confusion for both of u.
  14. ! Moderator Note The staff doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the details of what is posted, as long as one follows scientific protocol and the rules of the site. You are doing neither.
  15. To be honest : I have no idea what you are talking about. That seems interesting, but I'm into explaining reality we are living in. So can you explain each part of you post ? When I write with my simple english, my simple mind, I have no idea if I'm right. So how can you be sure you are write with such complicated ideas ?
  16. Your posts contains mainstream concepts but incorrect applications of those concepts. That is evidence that further studies of currently accepted theories is required before trying to introduce new physical theories.
  17. Where in the article is your model referenced?
  18. Repeating yourself over and over while ignoring any contrary evidence is preaching, not conversation.
  19. I already explained this. It would go better if you'd read my posts. Run your argument on the natural numbers in their usual order 0, 1, 2, 3, ... Take the tail 14, 15, 16, 17, ... Remove 14 to get 15, 16, 17, ... What's the smallest element? 15. Remove 15 to get 16, 17, 18, 19, ... What's the smallest element? 16 This is exactly what would happen if you have a well-order for the reals. You haven't shown this can't happen. You're still confusing the usual order on the reals with an arbitrary linear order. It doesn't even have to be a well-order. Say your order is 14, 15, everything else. Then you pick the tail S = 14, 15, everything else. You delete 14. Now you have 15, everything else. The smallest element is 15. But what if it was 14, 15, 16, everything else. Same thing. No matter how many times you remove an element, there's a linear order that breaks your proof.
  20. Ok, http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7/LightCone.html the equality with all [math]\Omega[/math] allow to show it. ( and [math]\Omega_0=1[/math] is in input parameters ) we gave both a part of the solution : and so, for [math]\Lambda[/math], it's [math]\Omega_{\Lambda,H}[/math] in relation to [math]\Omega_{\Lambda,H0}[/math] which reflects the evolution of [math]H[/math], the latter also affecting the critical density, both by [math]H^2[/math] ... … certainly, with the exception ( very probably) of the "young" universe. Did I succeed to answer the first question of last quote in this message ( I had miss something ?) ? For 2*, in the near past period and for the whole future, this affects [math]H^2/H0^2[/math] by about 0.1%. It is reasonable to say that, in these cases, the impact is negligible, but it cannot be denied.
  21. Those horrible admins trying to keep the truth from us, it must be frustrating. Could you elaborate on your revelation? Preferably some evidence to back it up?
  1. Load more activity