
Content count
6143 
Joined

Last visited

Days Won
3
Mordred last won the day on May 23
Mordred had the most liked content!
Community Reputation
1062 Glorious LeaderAbout Mordred

Rank
Resident Expert
Contact Methods

Website URL
http://www.Cosmology101.wikidot.com
Profile Information

Gender
Male

College Major/Degree
University of the Caribou

Favorite Area of Science
cosmology and particle physics
Recent Profile Visitors

Will we ever have an viable alternative Theory to rival GR?
Mordred replied to beecee's topic in Relativity
I will be honest TeVeS never really gained much strength when it was popular. I agree that the GW waves, place an even greater unlikelyhood of TeVeS being viable. GR is still the most successful model to observation in my opinion. 
Oh my you really need to look into locality vs global interactions. You also need to establish a coordinate system and establish the range of interactions into time slices. The conditions outside of causality has no influence on a particle. When it comes to how a particle moves through a field this is incredibly important. You haven't got anywhere near the mathematics to account for causality regions not even close to the required mathematics for that. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263468413_Is_the_State_of_Low_Energy_Stable_Negative_Energy_Dark_Energy_and_Dark_Matter 13 and 14 in this is wrong as well. Einstein field equations applies to EACH INDIVIDUAL FIELD. When those fields overlap then you determine what the function value is for each coordinate. Thus generating a new field. You can't just add stress tensors to the field equation as each field will have its own resulting Ricci curvature, scalar and metric signature relations. A tensor such as the stress tensor involves vector symmetry relations which you are not taking into account. The formulas you have been using are involved specifically to the Newton approximation under the correspondence principle. You need to work directly with the Einstein field equations and not the Newton approximations. Do so for each field and define each individually. You haven't got any time dependancies associated with causality. You need to establish local vs global influences using regional causality to a given coordinate. The entirety of a field does not influence a particle in the same infinitesimal time slice. Both the field and the particle is limited in the range of interaction to a given event by the locality of causality defined by c. You need to address this extremely important issue under a coordinate basis using 4D spacetime. However the single most biggest mistake your making is not realizing that the Cosmological Principle of homogeneous and isotropy for the FLRW metric only applies on size scales of 100 Mpc or greater. The mathematics of the FRW metric are not applicable for size scales of a galaxy. That is an anistropic local condition, that the FRW metric is not suitable to describe. The 100 Mpc is a suitable size scale where the mass distributions into locale LSS regions becomes effectively washed out. The [latex] 8\pi G[/latex] is a correspondence involving the shell theorem and Newton approximation of a UNIFORM matter distribution within a given volume. ( Not that anything I've seen from you can produce the worldline of light involved in the FLRW metric....specifically the ds^2 worldline involving the curvature terms. [latex]d{s^2}={c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega]^2[/latex] [latex]S\kappa(r)= \begin{cases} R sinr/R &k=+10\\ r &k=0\\ R sinr/R &(k=1) \end {cases}[/latex]

There is a sign convention with [latex]F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/latex] and subsequenty [latex] U=\frac{GMm}{r} [/latex] The negative sign in this case indicates gravity as being a downward force towards the centre of mass. Many books however typically drop the minus sign but the convention includes it.

What in the world are you doing with these unit vectors I,j ? Lord only knows what your doing in that box considering you didn't even start with the correct force law. How in the world is the above expression suppose to define total potential energy it makes absolutely no sense. You really need to study how potential energy and kinetic energy is defined http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/chapter14.pdf You can't tell me the above works even ignoring the negative mass terms. [latex] a\times b=(a_yb_za_zb_y)i+(a_zb_xa_xb_z)j+(a_xb_ya_yb_x)k[/latex] the notation of the determinant is, this is a cross product [latex]\begin{bmatrix}i&j&k\\a_x&a_y&a_z\\b_z&b_y&b_z\end{bmatrix}[/latex] lets say you have a vector representing 10 Newtons of force at 30 degrees. [latex] F_y=(10N)sin(30)=5N[/latex], [latex]F_x=(10N)cos(30)=8.7 N[/latex] then [latex]\vec{F}=(8.7N)\hat{I}+(5N)\hat{j}[/latex] see the rules for dot and cross products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product this equation is just plain wrong no matter how you look at it. You obviously don't know how mass is derived if you have this expression. [latex]E_t=\underbrace{(+E)(E)}_{pair creation}=\underbrace{\sum +m_{+c^2}}_{positive mass}+\underbrace{\summ_{c^2}}_{negative mass}+\underbrace{\sum K_{+m}+\sum K_{m}}_{kinetic}+\underbrace{\sum U=0}_{potential}[/latex] How does this possibly describe the conservation of energy when you have the terms that describe mass being added to the existing mass ? Your adding the potential and kinetic energy twice for total mass even ignoring the negative mass terms. The more I read your article the more errors I find...

The average energy density for the Cosmological constant which is constant despite the volume, is [latex]7.0 *10^{10}[/latex] joules per cubic meter. This is a positive energy density, (all energy density values are positive....) explain how this gives negative mass ? Its a fairly simple question. Though would be incredibly difficult to answer. ( you would need to rewrite the energy momentum tensor for example). Provide a proper mathematical answer to how negative mass can arise from a positive energy density. NO I am not talking negative effective mass. that is easy using lattice gauge. We are talking about an invariant/rest mass. I wouldn't be surprised if other use my call sign. Though I haven't encountered any others doing so on science based forums. I often encounter others in various video games. Mordred is the evil son of King Arthur so its probably a common used call sign by those familiar with the King Arthur legends. So as you insist the above equations for the constant or proportionality [latex]\kappa=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}[/latex] then show how you can take a positive energy density and get a negative mass term. You simply cannot add minus signs arbitrarily where you choose when you involve tensors. Such as those of the Einstein field equations. How do you get the energy momentum stress tensor involved in deriving the constant of proportionality to give a negative mass value from a positive energy density. start with [latex] G^{\alpha\gamma}=\kappa T^{\alpha\gamma}[/latex] The only you can get the below is to suddenly have a negative gravitational constant which is now adding yet another speculation argument to make your model work.

That really is a cop out response to my question. So lets clarify show in mathematical detail how your model can keep the cosmological constant with an expanding volume. I already read your article I don't need you to repeat the details contained within it. What I would like to see is you perform empirical tests that you can predict the expansion rates as a function of redshift comparing the scale factor today to the scale factor then. Then predict the galaxy rotation curves on a graph generated by your model. Not a collection of other works that you think support your model when they have nothing to do with your model. There is a lot of maybe's and ifs in your last post. Her is the problem you fail to recognize BOTH dark matter and dark energy have completely different dynamics, influences and equations of state. Yet you falsely claim to solve both by simply conjecturing a negative mass but have still not addressed an extremely important question. I repeat..... How can you have a positive energy density and have a negative mass ? This is in itself an impossibility. Now keep in mind I haven't even begun to start challenging your model. I am still waiting for a proper answer to the last question....

How are galaxies expanding along with space time?
Mordred replied to Quantum321's topic in Speculations
The topic is a bit difficult to grasp, with pop media's poor coverage being no help. It is often tricky for some to understand why the universe has accelerating expansion. Yet separate the laws of inertia from that descriptive. For some the expression the space is expanding between galaxies isn't sufficient. The difficulty however often lies with first understanding that in order to qualify as an acceleration one must apply a directional force. The OP has already stated he can accept this, one problem solved. The next hurdle is trying to explain how expansion works with the thermodynamic laws and the matter, radiation and cosmological terms. Unfortunately this step is a bit more difficult to grasp. I recommend reading an article developed by someone who visited forums much like this one who later received his PH.D in Philosophies of Cosmology. His target audience is forum members so he kept the article as low math as possible. Pay close attention to the difference between separation distance and those laws of inertia I mentioned. http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell lets start here then move into the fluid equations. 
How are galaxies expanding along with space time?
Mordred replied to Quantum321's topic in Speculations
The volume between galaxy clusters increase this gives us the illusion of motion called recessive velocity via Hubbles law [latex] V={recessive}H_0D[/latex] however this is what is called an apparent not a true velocity. In essence everything is in motion, gravity tries to contract matter etc but does not always succeed. Now lets look closer at everything is in motion. In expansion there is no inherent direction to that motion it has no net directional component. So atoms do act upon atoms etc, but not in any particular direction. Much like Brownian motion of an ideal gas. How this works is the evolution of the average density of matter. As more matter collapses to form galaxies the average density of matter on the global scale decreases, as this density decreases so does the average gravitational potential. This allows that Brownian type motion greater freedom to expand. The key formula is the critical density formula. This is the point where an expanding universe will stop expanding and then undergoes collapse. (Prior to discovery of the cosmological constant.). Indeed radiation and matter is involved in expansion the cosmological constant describes why this expansion is in essence accelerating rather than slowing down as originally predicted. The FRW metric was rewritten to include lambda. Here is the thing expansion has very little energy per cubic metre via calculations with the critical density formula this equates to roughly [latex] 7.0*10^{10} [/latex] joules per cubic metre. So locally to an LSS gravity easily overpowers this miniscule influence. Hence Galaxies themselves are unaffected by expansion. Be careful with the balloon or raisin analogy, it primary use is to describe how a homogeneous and isotropic expansion does not change any angles between dots or raisins and without any inherent directional average velocity. 
How are galaxies expanding along with space time?
Mordred replied to Quantum321's topic in Speculations
Ok lets try this angle. expansion or contraction of our observable universe involves the distribution of matter, radiation and the cosmological constant. It is in essence a thermodynamic process involving these three factors. Each of these contributors has an equation of state that relates the pressure vs the contributors kinetic energy with the contributors density. For example matter has a low kinetic energy term so its pressure contribution is zero. These contributors evolve over time in that the average density decreases as the volume increases, except for the cosmological constant. Heuristically one can think of pressure as performing the work for expansion however this isn't precisely accurate. However expansion requires no new forces to cause expansion the equations of state for the three categories mentioned determine the contributors to the FRW fluid equation. Here is the equations of state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) notice the term [latex] w=\frac{P}{\rho}[/latex] this shows the correlation between the mean density and the pressure relations. Now why do we say space between galaxies expand rather than galaxies are moving. This is a consequence of the Cosmological principle. The universe mass density is a homogeneous and isotropic distribution as well as expansion is a homogeneous and isotropic process. The distribution and dynamics has no preferred direction nor a centre or location. Combined this expresses a uniform distribution. Now in order for inertia change to occur ie acceleration force must be applied. However the distribution around galaxies is uniform, so the force due to pressure surrounding galaxies are also uniform. There is no net force in any direction as the pressure is uniform surrounding the galaxies. Hence those galaxies gain no momentum due to expansion. Instead the volume between the galaxies expand without causing an inertia change to the galaxies themselves. Here is a more complete explanation http://www.astronomy.ohiostate.edu/~dhw/A5682/notes4.pdf 
Gravity as a consequence of conservation of energy
Mordred replied to Simplico's topic in Speculations
excellent post Marcus Those rules work far better than what you have presented to us. You should study those rules to see where your errors are. Perhaps then you might have a chance presenting something that makes sense under physics instead of the wishy washy haphazard presentation you provided where you have to change every rule under physics. If that is your only response to all the issues we have raised then this thread is going nowhere nor accomplishing anything. In the interest of adding something useful to this thread and to go along with Marcus excellent post who has already covered the stress tensor and curvature aspects. There is under GR and SR a particular relation. The inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent. So lets examine this. [latex] m_i=m_g[/latex] Ok so lets use Newtons laws of force for a central potential system for gravity. [latex]F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/latex] then set up Newtons second law. [latex]F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}=ma[/latex] so the mass of the object factors out leaving the gravitatonal field potential. [latex]a=\frac{GM}{r^2}[/latex]. What an interesting conversation piece this makes if one things about it. If the mass or composition of the object does not matter to freefall motion, then there is no way to shield gravity. Unlike the electromagnetic force which definitely relies upon the charge of the particle. This is what GR realizes, not only is there no way to shield gravity but it also couples to everything...unlike other fields which only interact with specific particles. Now due to this freefall consequence we can set up a series of geodesics that describe the motion of all particles simply by looking at its momentum compared to c (which is a constant). when the particles velocity equals c the geodesic becomes null (timelike). This means that the gravitational field is a consequence of spacetime curvature not a field into an of itself. One where the absence of gravity is the absence of curvature... Food for thought considering I used a central potential force equation under Newton...to reflect where GR starts to step in. ie adding the time dimension to understand how curvature works. It s a heuristic view I so far as we have not examined parallel transport of two force vectors and the loss of parallel transport defined by tidal forces for a central potential system. (simple to describe take a circle and from the centre look at the degrees, the distance between these two vectors decrease as one approaches CoM. However just to be more complete the geodesic (striaghtline for flat no curvature) is [latex]\frac{d^2x^\mu}{d\tau}^2=0[/latex] were [latex]x^\mu[/latex] has coordinates [latex]( x^0,x^1,X^2,x^3)=(ct,x,y,z)[/latex] the ct gives time unit dimenionality of length where all coordinates have the same unit of length. (See Natural unit). the curved spacetime geodesic is [latex]\frac{d^2x^\alpha}{d\tau^2}+\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}\frac{dx^\mu}{d\tau}\frac{dx^\nu}{d\tau}=0[/latex] [latex]G_{\mu\nu}=kT^{\mu\nu}[/latex] can be thought of as gravity=curvature= energy via e=mc^2 where [latex]G_{\mu\nu}[/latex] is the Einstein tensor, k is some proportionality constant [latex]T_{\mu\nu}[/latex] energy momentum tensor. 
Why mass of electron and proton particles are what
Mordred replied to dhimokritis's topic in Speculations
Ok Dhimoktritis, a lot of people have a problem accepting the Higgs field, however I should point out that the mathematics predicting the Higg's was out long before the discovery and confirmation of the Higg's boson. However lets address the electron first. You feel that the electron is comprised of sub particles yet all experimental evidence shows the electron has no substructure. It is fundamental in so far as it is not made up of even smaller particles. The proton is but the electron isn't. Your charge neto and mass neto I'm sorry does not make any sense. Particularly since all particles are field excitations. 
Gravity as a consequence of conservation of energy
Mordred replied to Simplico's topic in Speculations
lol hadn't got that far yet 
Gravity as a consequence of conservation of energy
Mordred replied to Simplico's topic in Speculations
However lets look at the first equation shall we [latex] E=D*m*G,[/latex] well the consequence of this equation setting G at some constant is that as you increase the distance the energy increases. So where does your conservation apply ? 
Gravity as a consequence of conservation of energy
Mordred replied to Simplico's topic in Speculations
So in order for your model of gravity being a consequence of the laws of inertia, to work you must reinvent those laws to begin with ? Got it. You have your work really cut out for you proving those laws are invalid. Better get cranking out the mathematics including inner and outer products under differential geometry. (Not to mention every physics model out there, as they all apply kinematics lol. So here is the definition of the very word inertia. "Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion. This includes changes to the object's speed, direction, or state of rest. Inertia is also defined as the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant velocity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia You obviously have a completely different definition involved in your article via requiring orbital motion around some central potential. So you then change the meaning of acceleration. Yet your paper only has two formulas that neither one applies force to calculate work done on a central potential system. however I am curious what equation you used to plot your image for path of equilibrium as a plot of the equation you have on wolframalpha is significantly different. (I You can plug values into your variables if you like... won't get the same curve as you have in your article. 
Why mass of electron and proton particles are what
Mordred replied to dhimokritis's topic in Speculations
So am I to assume your not interested in the physics method of determining the mass via experiment is valid? mass is resistance to inertia change by the physics definition of mass. The determinant factors on what causes mass is detectable by how those particles behave when they are scattered, defracted etc. Apply the laws of inertia that is the physics method. Mass doesn't depend on length period. Density yes but not length. Your barking up the wrong tree if you think otherwise. I concur latex would be far more legible and its not hard to learn, I would be more than happy to teach you the basics sufficient that you can latex 90 % the equations you will ever use. I have the same question on the c2 and e. Hogwash to this part, the Higgs boson applied experimental basis, so does the electron. There is plenty of experimental and repeatable tests for these two particles. Though the Higgs is off topic in this thread. Yes there is fewer test for the Higgs, but it was the tests that confirmed the mass. The Electron has plenty of tests examining its mass, every elementary particle does.... do a little research ( first be clear on what the term mass means under physics though...) then perhaps you will realize the mass term is affected by how strongly it couples to a field ie interacts with.) Compton wave is simply the wrong approach to understanding why particles have the invariant rest mass they do. Period.