Leaderboard

Has anyone defined "lightest" and "colour" in this thread yet?

I hope there is no sort of vendetta going on here against a well respected member who puts in a lot of effort to help others. Or perhaps I just don't like the colour red.

You still haven't said what this "information" is or why it supports your religious beliefs. I am having to guess what you are referring to and, as far as I can tell, it contradicts your faith-based claims. You need to stop making snide, cryptic comments and explain why evidence that the Earth is moving through the universe supports your religious belief that it is stationary. That really doesn't make much sense. You might as well claim that getting a speeding ticket proves you were parked by the side of road. It is your job to support your pseudoscientific claims.

Criticizing is easy. What would you say ? And would you back it up ? Just asking.

Yes different spin rates would allow for different radius ratios.

Yes you can use multiple modules to counter spin.

Out of curiosity, couldn't you add two modules and each spins in a separate direction? Would that counteract the effect of one? Assuming we have the technology to spin them both to the same speed, at the same time.

So, we live in the biggest one we have found. The vitally important word there is "known". There may be bigger ones- we haven't finished looking. In what way? It's like saying "I live in the middle of all the places that are within 10 minutes walk of my house- so it must be special. Yes they have. In particular, parallax measurements on nearby stars. This is what science has already shown. We aren't in the middle.

Thanks Studiot for the accolade. One other detail to note for the SR regime you will want to use the Klien Gordon equation as opposed to the Schrodinger equation. Here is a half decent article on Klien Gordon and how it leads to Dirac and the Pauli matrixes http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/221B-S02/Dirac.pdf edit sidenote to OP I see you reached your new account first day limit, so I will hold off till tomorrow on further comments etc

No total energy is given by the energy momentum relation which reduces to E-pc for photons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation photons are invariant under relativity there is no frame of reference for a photon so gamma cannot be applied in that case.

I must be blind because I don't see it in your document

You have your work cut out for you to adapt titration to the other unification groups to start development on a TOE. Particularly since the majority of the work is done in normalized units. To your credit though, there is a decent amount of mathematics in your paper which I am still sorting through. Equation 8 will not represent total energy as you used the wrong equation for total energy as the basis equation. [latex]e=mc^2[/latex] is not the total energy but is the invariant energy only of a particle.

Registering for the draft is not the same as being drafted, or enlisting. I registered for the draft in 1980, after Carter signed the Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act into law. I was never drafted. My active duty service was voluntary. Nobody else has been drafted, either. To quote SGT Hulka, "There ain't no draft no more."

I actually see more a case of delusional, nonsense and false claims, probably driven by some agenda.

Takes a large amount of study to understand how tensors are used in field theories. Think of them as an organization of vectors almost like a datatable. The row and columm applied at each infinitesimal will be denoted by the subscripts and superscripts. For example [latex]G_{\mu\nu}=G_{1,2}[/latex] indicates use the first row and second column of the above tensor. However don't feel bad most ppl don't know what a tensor is. Here this may help https://www.ese.wustl.edu/~nehorai/Porat_A_Gentle_Introduction_to_Tensors_2014.pdf This is one of the easier to understand articles teaching tensors. (at least that I have found outside of textbooks)

Stevie Wonder has been banned as a sockpuppet of Mikemikev (and Sammy Boy, and probably also Over 9000 and Dave Davidson)

Huh? "Oh my god, it's full of stars"

The universe is everything that exists, by definition. It does not exist in another space/volume. Whatever space you are thinking about is part of the universe and it emerged and evolved with it

Well here is a mathematical thought about it. One way to construct the integers is as follows Axiom 1 There exists (mathematically) an integer (we call 0) that is not the successor of any integer. Axiom 2 Every integer has exactly one successor. Noting that if B is the successor of A then A is the antecedent of B, Zero is the ultimate antecedent and it does not even require space to exist in.

I have no idea who that guy is btw, i linked it because he has the facts correct on the CMB readings. Its actually mind boggling to me most people on this forum really have no idea the problems with the copernican principle, too focused on dark matter/energy i reckon. Eh and btw koti that is actually what the anistotropies and its alignment are called, not some sort of conspiracy theory lol.

The problem is that any massless particle does not have an inertial frame of reference so gamma is not applicable in those cases. All massless particles are invariant to all observers under relativity. The e=mc^2 relation is primarily the invariant or rest mass in older literature and does not account for particle momentum.

Well then equation 8 isn't dealing with total energy of a particle for that section of said particle is it? Particularly since line 68 specified total energy

You're a joke dude. I failed spectacularly after your regulars were claiming we all have the same ancestry? What a silly website.

I kinda see it the other way, if science was able to prove we are in a special spot that would be quite a positive thing for civilization as a whole.

In my estimations, the most likely explanation for where earth resides is exactly at the center of mass in the universe. This would explain a whole lot of things, including the two examples i gave above. This is also of course a part of how i got here, but it does not rank very high on my list if you can believe that or not. I actually just posted a topic in science news the other day about this:

No experiment has ever been done to prove the earth is moving, in fact a large part of why einstein worked on relativity was to explain away the interferometer results done by michaelson and morley (and a few others that i forget). Lorentz is another one that harkens back to my relativity/occams razor comment. Now whats more likely the earth is at rest or the equipment they are using to measure actually shrunk? This is how they tried to explain the null results, and people to this day still accept that. if you redo those same tests today with the assumption the earth is still you will find something that resembles a 24 hour cycle (universe rotating around us) not us moving around the sun, which would have been a far greater number. Thats a confusing question to me, if tomorrow science proved we are in a special place that wouldnt be positive news to you? Knowing that this is all for us wouldnt lift up humanity to refocus on the important parts of life?