Mordred

You really seem to have a reading comprehension problem or you like to imply what isn't intended. The lounge is not a place to discuss a physics topic I described the distinction of what belongs in mainstream physics as opposed to Speculation. I did not imply your thread automatically belonged in Soeculation hence why I let one of the full mods make that determination. Had I felt it belonged in Speculation I could have moved it there myself as Resident experts do in fact have that ability. ! Moderator Note This is just to demonstrate Resident experts do have some moderation abilities. Just so we're 100 percent clear on that The point being Resident experts are members of the moderation team. Pointing out more appropriate forums is part of my duties. When it comes to that it is a Resident experts primary duty.

@HopDavid would you like you the full system set of equations for the above. https://jfuchs.hotell.kau.se/kurs/amek/prst/15_lapo.pdf Your system albeit without names is directly applied in that article.

The centripetal force will point towards the barycenter. Which is the effective center of mass. Both Pluto and Charon will orbit the Barycenter. However you have no mass term for Voldemort so I assume the mass tetm at Valdemorts location is insignificant. The outward force (fictitious force felt by Valdemort ) in his non inertial frame is the Centrrifugal force.

Have you applied vectors to \[f=\frac{mv^2}{r}\] Yet in terms of my last post ? Or are you still looking into the distinctions of why that equation does not describe a fictitious force as opposed to \[f=m\omega^2 r\] If it helps use the 1/r^2 relation to gravity. Via \[f=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2}\] Then look at your Langrene example above If your claiming mainstream physics is wrong then it does belong in Speculation. If it's simply not understanding the distinction then it belongs in mainstream.

Ok believe what you like. Doesn't change my reply if your going to lecture others you might want to use correct terminology. Particularly when it comes to properly understanding the difference between inertia and acceleration. It is after all clearly defined in any classical textbook. For that matter most classical textbooks don't bother explaining centrifugal force for the reasons Swansont mentioned above. Let's start with the statement Valdemort is centrifugal force. Now ask yourself under Newtons laws of inertia which direction is a force applied to cause an acceleration let's start there. PS you might also take last question and ask does that describe a fictitious force ? Might help you make the connection between inertial vs non inertial observers doing the measurement.

That is a key distinction between centripetal and centrifugal force. I was about to mention that but you beat me to it.

Now there's a theorem I haven't heard mentioned in ages lol. I almost completely forgot about that theorem.

First off inertia is constant velocity which is a vector (magnitude and direction) when you change directions it is acceleration not pseudo inertia. You need to include all three laws of inertia when defining inertia it's not just the tendency to travel in straight lines it also includes the constancy of speed as well as direction. Acceleration involves both change in velocity and change in direction. Secondly from what I read above this seems to belong under our Speculation forum and not the lounge. I will let one of the mods determine if it meets the requirements under one of the mainstream physics forums.

Really not sure what you mean by that gravity under GR is described as a tidal force due to curvature in essence the acceleration term. This is identical for the latter part under Newton gravity being an acceleration. In both cases Newtons Shell theorem applies. The gradient under Newtons is essentially replaced by curvature. So could you supply more detail on the last statement ?

As far as gravity waves you require some anistrophy such as a non uniform spinning object or a merger event such as BH mergers. The BB itself is also considered to generate GW waves but a uniform mass distribution doesn't generate either gravity or gravity waves. Gravity requires a curvature term and that obviously involves the stress energy momentum tensor For example the Earth with its mountains would generate GW waves but those waves would be far too miniscule for any reasonable means of detection. Marcus and Genady answer is both correct on the non linearity aspects.

One of the difficulties of understanding geodesics of GR is the parallel transport aspects with the affine connection. Which is rather essential to understanding GR. Where the Raychaudhuri tends to give that eureka moment is that it takes parallel transport and applies even more vectors which allows us to apply geodesic congruence. Where this comes in particular use by examining the area between these vectors field lines is it gives a better understanding of the stress, vorticy and shear terms. How this is of particular use with the Einstein field equations is how the stress, vorticity and shear affect the stress energy momentum tensor. I have been considering writing up something with regards the Raychaudhuri equations showing the above but it will take time to formulate and do properly. First one would need to explain geodesic motion under parallel transport. Show the affine connection, explain it's relation to the Rayleigh metric and include the Christoffels. That's the preliminary details but those preliminaries don't describe bulk flow. That's where Raychaudhuri becomes useful in connecting the stress energy tensor to those preliminaries. Raychaudhuri also gives a better understanding of the FLRW metric as well as event horizons including cosmological. There is even a usage and application to Hawking radiation. However as mentioned it does require a preliminary understanding of geodesic motion and how parallel transport works with it. That's where diagrams of course would be particularly useful.

Considering I define evil as desiring something to the point of not caring how one obtains their desire regardless of how it harms others. I simply deal with that by avoiding that behavior and showing respect for others. If I cannot obtain what I desire without harming others I simply deal without. However I don't follow religion I find many of the acts conducted in the name of religion evil by the above definition. However I have nothing against religion it's simply the acts conducted that I have issue with.

It's an interesting thought experiment and I for one thank @Linkey for bringing it up as it's the first time I have heard of this. My take on the paper is that the author is rather clear that no causation is involved nor does it allow any FTL communication. What the author refers to as psuedo-telepathy I took to be a descriptive of as "seeming to involve communication".

Well if you can't take formal training your next best option is the textbooks. Trying to learn any physics topics through searching the internet will lead you down too many garden paths. Feel free to ask any questions on the articles above and I and others will be happy to help you understand it.

I never bother using ChatGpt I tried it when it first came out and found it rather lacking in accuracy on more complex physics problems that require more than being a search engine.

It's likely alright the read/ write heads have some protection to prevent the heads from damaging the disks

Well I was thinking this would belong more in Speculation however there is actual research papers on the topic. Wiki does a very poor job explaining it by the way. "Quantum Pseudo-Telepathy" https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407221 Haven't studied it yet but figured the article would prove useful

Here is a couple of low level math overview of CPT. It's in essence a quick descriptive of each https://ps.uci.edu/~cyu/p224/LectureNotes/lecture13/lecture13.pdf https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ho/SM.pdf

Hadn't seen ya in a while glad to see your visiting. Even though I'm quite knowledgeable in physics I find I still learn things here. That also includes certain discussions in physics.

No I hadn't looked at that one yet thanks it looks well done another search parameter to assist is charge conjugation as charge conjugation ties into CPT. http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/ab1u06/teaching/phys3002/course/20_PCCP.pdf https://courses.washington.edu/partsym/15Spr/ch06.pdf These two references contain much of the essential mathematics involved in particle physics so will be helpful though not directly on CPT it will assist in understanding the essential mathematics. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 No problem it does take a bit to learn QFT formalism one of the simpler treatments to learn from is Quantum Field theory Demystified. The author does a decent job of keeping QFT simplified

I forgot to ask if your familiar with QFT mathematics or the gauge groups with regards to the standard model. I have no idea what skill level your at so if what I post is beyond you feel free to let me know and I will try to find simpler treatments. As I find half decent articles outside of textbooks in regards to textbooks one of the better ones covering CPT I found is Gauge theories in particle physics volume 1 by Ian J.R. Aitchison and Anthony J.G. Hey. I am still looking for good outside textbook literature. I may end up just posting the essentials here myself using my copy of the above book but I will see what else I can dig up.

Well for one thing his job is a science popularizer. That is what earns him his paycheque. In that aspect he does do an excellent job in many cases he is following a script. That in an of itself doesn't require expertise in the topics he is discussing. That doesn't mean he didn't retain his skills in his field of expertise. For one thing galactic mass distributions isn't a popular topic in pop media. Secondly his audience is assumed to have next to zero understanding of physics in general so anything he states is essentially dummied down and that in and of itself can lead to inaccuracies. (Trust me on that, the effort to dummy down difficult physics topics is one of my greatest challenges when I reply to posts here on this forum) those replies can oft get misrepresented as a result. I have little doubt that if Neil had to work on a research project in his expertise he would excel at that. Pop media isn't a reliable method to judge a physicist skill set a far more reliable way is to study his research papers and not pop media. Lol there was a lot of statements Hawkings said in some pop media that had my head shaking but there was little doubt he was a physicist.

He does have the formal credentials it doesn't matter how much material one publishes or how long ago. For the record simply having a Ph.D in physics doesn't automatically entail knowing every aspect of physics. For example my formal training in Cosmology didn't necessarily involve say String theory. Knowing String theory isn't necessary to understand and have expertise in the field of Cosmology. That was a field I chose to study on my own outside of my formal training. If I recall Neil is an astrophysicist so his formal training has different requirements than those of my field of study. Which when you get down to it is no different than the skill set between Swansont and myself as we both took different physics branches in our formal training so we both have different expertise in physics. I read his dissertation years ago he is quite knowledgeable in that particular topic although I haven't a copy today "A Study of the Abundance Distributions Along the Minor Axis of the Galactic Bulge"

So would I actually there are plenty of physicist jobs that have little to do with publishing papers such as teaching

Sure I will dig up some literature though to be honest any decent introductory particle physics textbook will contain those details. Currently at work so this afternoon will list the recommended textbooks and whatever good literature I have or can find for you.