Jump to content


Resident Experts
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mordred last won the day on March 5

Mordred had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1340 Glorious Leader


About Mordred

  • Rank
    Resident Expert

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • College Major/Degree
    University of the Caribou
  • Favorite Area of Science
    cosmology and particle physics

Recent Profile Visitors

28673 profile views
  1. Since when provide a citation from. A peer reviewed source.
  2. Lol I often come across equations that are so fustrating to latex it takes me several hours. So I can well imagine.
  3. As opposed to 50 lines of mathematics lol. ( I recently came across an SM Langrangian that was three pages long...) Would take me several days to latex lmao. Speaking of cross checks a few times Markus caught me on mixing the metric tensor with the Einstein tensor...
  4. So this details a question. When does one consider another a crackpot ? Not an easy term to define, the best estimate I have ever come up with is a poster who refuses to accept any counter evidence against his own views. It is understandable a poster would not be current with modern research. Just as it is the lack of mathematics ( takes a certain degree of desire to predictive desire). My experience has been a lack of desire to accept counter arguments. (Once you assign a label you have closed the book) surprisingly that expression oft applies to OP and commenter.
  5. Now there is a theorem I had forgotten about my thanks for the reminder.
  6. I would concur on the dark matter not being a significant factor. The images strike me as being a solid application of density wave theorem. Which coincides with the more probable theorem explaining the rings of Saturn as well as the formation of spiral galaxies. In so far as the Spiral action is strikingly similar to Limblad resonances. I would not be surprised if the density wave theorem is a viable model of the dynamics in the images above. I would love to see a spectrograph image to see if different specific gravity of elements are being layered. The mass to luminosity ratios I can see in the images seem to support such layering.
  7. I have never seen any reason for an apology from any of your posts. In point of detail I recognize your skill as a check to ensure I am accurate in my responses to other forum members and fully welcome any corrections or instances where clarification is needed. You need not worry if you find yourself at odds with any of my posts. This is a discussion forum and all viable opinions are welcome. Ps to all the kudos from yourself and others I am thankful. I am also positive you have knowledge of certain physics disciplines that exceed my own or Markus. The field of physics is a huge topic in applications.
  8. Recommendation on steps apply the FLRW metric without the cosmological constant. Then apply the changes to the expansion rate due to the constant. Specifically describe which of the cosmological constant problems you are describing. Show previous other person solutions to the problem as reference such as the Unruh paper for comparison Then describe your solution in comparison to the solutions you discussed in this thread. Treat this as a full paper. ! Moderator Note Request has been sent.
  9. Work on your finalized form and I will get approval from the other moderator staff. Then PM you once approval is gained.
  10. Then I suggest you go through this lengthy thread and plan a finalized form to debate in a separate thread. This would cut short a lot of the training steps for other readers.
  11. After 10 pages of modification and corrections over nearly a year. Easily done. To be honest I lost track and I am one of your most active guide as well as participant.
  12. Equation 34 gives an example of the gravitational action. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.math.toronto.edu/mccann/assignments/426/DeGiuli.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi_oLKjpcrpAhWEop4KHT1DAZMQFjACegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw15IQoP61wefGJ5yTd0oMlc I don't believe the OP is ready for the Langrangian at this time. However the article here provides some details.
  13. Excellent reply +1. I don't have much too add as of yet.
  14. A couple of points to add to the excellent post above. A scalar is rank 0. A vector is rank 1. A vector has both magnitude and direction. You need a higher rank when you require two vectors. Such as the example given by Markus. If I recall correctly the Kronecker delta function is also rank two. If I'm correct then hermitean groups would also be rank 2 but that's just a side note. The Poincare group is SO(3.1) which GR falls under. Which is a double cover [math]SU(2)\otimes SU(2)/\mathbb{Z}^2[/math] . So even in tensor ranks you require a minimal rank 2. Just to provide a tensor example. (Each of those groups is a tensor. The SO(3.1) is a 4×4 while each SU(2) is a 2×2 The Z parity operator is also 2×2. The proofs I have come across on rank 2 requirement were tensor related proofs. Which I looking for a more understandable example as they tend to be too complex for the average poster. Edit I did a quick search and I am correct the Kronecker delta function is a rank two tensor. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/KroneckerDelta.html So even a Cartesian space which uses the Kronecker delta function would be rank 2. The link above provides the differential geometry form using Euler angles. This link will show how Euler angles are employed and will understand their usage for different observers under different rotations. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.weizmann.ac.il/sci-tea/benari/sites/sci-tea.benari/files/uploads/softwareAndLearningMaterials/quaternion-tutorial-2-0-1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwid-fT1msrpAhU1KX0KHeAkDXQQFjABegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw07DuN5EIV2sfGXU19NMjbO It will also be a valuable tool to better understand rotations of the tensors. Such an example of tensor rotations is when you must rotate the Minkowskii or Lorentz tensor to describe acceleration (rapidity requires a rotation) or boost (A boost is also a type of rotation). Brian Crowell gave examples of each in that SR textbook I previously linked and provides some greater detail. A little side note the best tool to master GR is to study differential geometry. Once you understand differential geometry for Euclidean and curved geometries understanding GR8 becomes incredibly easy. (You won't even require Tensors ) they are a tool to handle multiple unknowns in essence an organization tool to keep track of multiple unknowns)
  15. Unfortunately it's clear you don't have a good understanding of the current models of relativity, the LCDM (big bang model) or particle physics. So let's start with some basic terminology. First energy does not exist on its own. It is the ability to perform work and is a property of a system or state. Mass is resistance to inertia change. Quite frankly particle physics does an excellent job explaining mass with its coupling constants. Even going so far as to being able to predict the mass of numerous particles prior to detecting those particles. A good example is the predictions for the mass of the Higgs boson. I have no idea why you believe transverse mass differs from longitudinal mass. The primary forms of mass is invariant mass (rest mass) and variant mass ( inertial mass) so please provide a citation on the transerve and longitudinal mass. Occam's razer only applies if a simpler model can perform the same degree of predictive and falsifiable accuracy. Your hypothesis is nowhere near that point.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.