Mordred

The point I'm making is that in order to get the best accuracy one cannot necessarily stick with any favorite or preferred theory. So its best to be able to use whichever theory outside of any preference that works best with a given system. Nor is it realistic to use the same equation to describe all possible interactions that can occur. A good example is the standard model Langrangian which is a little over a page Long. Your far better off using the portions applicable and reduce the equation to simply the relevant portions of the system being described.

Well as stated it's not a conjecture I've chosen to follow closely so wouldn't really know if Boltzmann brains exist or not. Given the probability errors on that link. I hadn't read anything stating such conclusively. Truth be told I never found any practicality behind studying the conjecture. So never wasted much time on it. Usually when I do it's to assist some poster understand the physics involved as numerous papers have the FLRW metric as well as SM processes such as EW symmetry breaking and inflation.

I think one of the trickier examples of statistics given enough time is the Boltzmann Brain conjecture where given enough time the Universe itself could develop a brain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain It's not a conjecture I particularly follow but it's one example of how statistical systems given enough time can be applied to some highly speculative outcomes.

Well here is another challenge to add to the proverbial headache. Let's say your comparing two or more methodologies to describe a class or category of systems. Ie galaxies /plasma clouds/ hydrodynamic systems etc. Lets say theory B makes better predictions to certain subcategories (example one class of galaxy) than theory A but theory A makes better predictions than theory B in other subclasses. How does one objectively determine which is better theory A or theory B for an all inclusive theory ? For higher accuracy the theory best suited for the specific system should be the one used. This is one of the fundamental challenges in science it's the choosing of the best fit for a specific system. Far too often one wants to use one theory on all subsystems in a given study however if one wants higher accuracy this isn't always possible. So in this case higher accuracy is achievable by using multiple competing theories in the same study.

Let's try a simpler example then you have some system. When you describe the velocity terms (first order ) you have some error margin but it's acceptable. (It's never 100 percent) now on that same system you want to add accelerations which involve force terms (second order) your accuracy will naturally decrease. As you increase to third order (stress/shear) the problem progressively gets more and more inaccurate. All the above it's literally unavoidable its a natural consequence all you can do is minimize the error margins. This is also one of the dangers with having too many degrees of freedom in the same integrals. So accuracy is best achieved by avoiding trying to do too much in the same equation.

Here is a useful example in regards to the scientific method. Using math (I won't bother with the specific formulas) when estimating DM distribution based on the viral theorem for gaussian distribution. The first order equations are used. The second order equations led to higher inaccuracy so the second order equations are not being used. This was checked by observational evidence. So even with the same methodology higher order equations can often lead to higher error margins (which is very typical )

None of the above is useful for GR besides the geometry itself. When applying the Lorentz transformations the x coordinate is by convention chosen for the particle momentum. Any orientations are handled via symmetry relations involving rotational and spatial translations. So one can arbitrarily apply GR to any orientation of any object relative to any other orientation. You also mentioned absolute space above. Forget that there is no absolute reference frame or space. How objects behave in the the presence of spacetime curvature has nothing to do with the composition of the mass terms so relating that to magma makes little sense. The composition merely contributes to establishing the mass distribution which in turn leads to the spacetime curvature terms. For oblate spheroids a choice of orientation won't matter as the mass terms is asymmetric and the mass distribution will also be non uniform. This is already handled under the EFE.

It might help to consider that any complex problem can always become understood once you break that complex problem down into manageable smaller problems. So to ask how the scientific method deals with worldviews isn't something that's easy to define. In one regards all theories and models are typically interconnected with other theories. You can readily learn those connections by studying the mathematical proofs of a given equation. Secondly it's typical for a given theory to deal with specific states/systems/mixtures etc rather than any worldview. This is true regardless of field of science the vast majority of theories deal with specific systems etc rather than a worldviews or all inclusive into one theory. However they are always interconnected with other relevant theories. In terms of objectivity cross examinations are an essential tool used to improve objectivity. At all scientific levels as cross examinations is common to even metaphysical theories. Naturally the scientific method cannot afford to ignore Any counter evidence. So any good theory deals also with any counter evidence as it presents itself. So a robust theory will typically improve as new research including counter research presents itself. If a theory cannot counter a piece of evidence then there is something inherently wrong with the theory.

Another good example of scientific objectivity is to look at good quality research papers. A good quality paper not only presents it's own theory but also includes any counter theories or competing theories and performs an examination of each with regards to accuracy with experimental evidence. You also will find numerous papers by other authors simply comparing different models to establish which model is the best fit This is one of the many steps in the pursuit of objective examination.

have you ever stopped to consider a science forum is the wrong place to post anything in regards to spy service etc. This site is to discuss science it has nothing to do with how governments are run. Nothing you have presented involves any scientific discussion. Your advertising in the wrong forum and the wrong manner. If you have been doing the same thing on other forums then its no wonder your account is getting banned in them.

there is no absolute frame of reference that in itself is not supported by mainstream physics hence one of the reasons why this is in speculation and not mainstream physics. An absolute frame doesn't even exist in any quantum treatment with regards to decays and aging. Those formulas you claimed do not matter in fact show the above quotation as false.

Yes I stated as such but you seem to be trying to include those factors in terms of the twin paradox. As I mentioned before the primary purpose of the twin paradox is to distinguish between the first order velocity terms and the second order acceleration terms resulting in the solution of the paradox which was never a paradox to begin with but amounts to improper examination by ignoring the second order terms. If you recall you kept bringing up factors such as Higgs ZPE etc. Hence I'm showing that while related has nothing to do with solving the paradox.

I wouldn't go quite so far as to state the article conclusively shows the Lorentz invariance violations of LQC as being inaccurate it certainly supplies strong constraints on any Lorentz invariance violations. Which does include LQC. I would think there will be subsequent rebuttals in defense of quantum gravity models with inherent LIV being published so for myself I will wait and see the rebuttals which I fully expect. though this certainly isn't the first attempt to find evidence of spin foam using cepheids. All other attempts have also failed AFIAK. In one of the earlier examinations it was argued that the spin-foam lattices were too miniscule to have an measurable effects in signal propagation. This was in regards to one of the earlier tests resulting from a supernova event.

Swansont and I cross posted the distinctions for the turnaround is presented in the Ryder article I posted. There is a way to show muon decay that doesn't even involve the twin paradox in terms of gamma factor effects the twin paradox isn't needed to explain why particle decays are affected by its momentum terms such as velocity explaining why time is variable isn't part of the twin paradox. The primary use of the paradox is to help understand the distinctions between the first order terms (inertial frame/constant velocity) and second order terms (non-inertial frames/ acceleration) One can readily show for example the decay rates of the Muon using Fermi's Golden rule for the gamma factor corrections. as this is something I already have in latex form I'm going to time save a bit Fermi's Golden Rule \[\Gamma=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|V_{fi}|^2\frac{dN}{DE_f}\] density of states \[\langle x|\psi\rangle\propto exp(ik\cdot x)\] with periodic boundary condition as "a"\[k_x=2\pi n/a\] number of momentum states \[dN=\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^2}V\] decay rate \[\Gamma\] Hamilton coupling matrix element between initial and final state \[V_{fi}\] density of final state \[\frac{dN}{dE_f}\] number of particles remaining at time t (decay law) \[\frac{dN}{dt}=-\Gamma N\] average proper lifetime probability \[p(t)\delta t=-\frac{1}{N}\frac{dN}{dt}\delta t=\Gamma\exp-(\Gamma t)\delta t\] mean lifetime \[\tau=<t>=\frac{\int_0^\infty tp (t) dt}{\int_0^\infty p (t) dt}=\frac{1}{\Gamma}\] relativistic decay rate set \[L_o=\beta\gamma c\tau\] average number after some distance x \[N=N_0\exp(-x/l_0)\] Another related relation being the Breit-Wigner distributions. \[\sigma(E)=\frac{2J+1}{2s_1+1)(2S_2+1)}\frac{4\pi}{k^2}[\frac{\Gamma^2/4}{(E-E_0)^2+\Gamma/4)}]B_{in}B_{out}\] E=c.m energy, J is spin of resonance, (2S_1+1)(2s_2+1) is the #of polarization states of the two incident particles, the c.m., initial momentum k E_0 is the energy c.m. at resonance, \Gamma is full width at half max amplitude, B_[in} B_{out] are the initial and final state for narrow resonance the [] can be replaced by \[\pi\Gamma\delta(E-E_0)^2/2\] The production of point-like, spin-1/2 fermions in e+e− annihilation through a virtual photon at c.m. \[e^+,e^-\longrightarrow\gamma^\ast\longrightarrow f\bar{f}\] \[\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=N_c{\alpha^2}{4S}\beta[1+\cos^2\theta+(1-\beta^2)\sin^2\theta]Q^2_f\] where \[\beta=v/c\] That should be sufficient to demonstrate that particle decay rates do require the twin paradox to explain and that it is the beta correction \[\beta=v/c\] with the above that explains the difference in the decay rate. It should become obvious that it isn't the acceleration that determines the differences in decay rates but the differences in the velocity term in regards to the beta function. here is a reference using the above specific to muon decay https://web.njit.edu/~sirenko/Phys450/MU.pdf page 11 and 12 it should be trivial to relate the above to inertial mass and gravitational mass equivalence in terms of the gamma/beta functions (shown in the link )

I've always liked the solutions using redshift/blueshift it does help simplify matters but also introduces the distinctions between longitudinal and transverse Doppler effects. Though another solution I liked was by Ryder Lewis in his Introduction to GR in that he will show the distinctions between the constant velocity cases and the constant acceleration case for the twin turnaround under the four momentum and four acceleration. Which is useful given that in accordance to the weak equivalence principle \(m_i=m_g\) he provides the details to further show acceleration due to gravity has equivalence to inertial acceleration this is a preview print but it has the relevant section page 26 is where he details the twin paradox https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780511577468_A24404000/preview-9780511577468_A24404000.pdf the hyperbolic relations he derives is useful specifically in regards to constant acceleration \[x^2-c^2t^2=\frac{g^4}{c^2}\] the next chapter goes into the Sagnac effect leading from the twin Paradox then examining the Sagnac effect.

Along with the reply by Swansont. It may surprise you that under field treatment at the quantum level you don't apply GR as its far too weak to have any significant influence. Hence even under QFT all particle interactions and couplings for all particle fields the equations only apply SR. The couplings directly relate to the mass terms naturally. However the Schrodinger equation is not Lorentz invariant so one must use the Dirac equations for QM/QFT which incorporates the the Klein-Gordon equation. However none of that is necessary for solving the twin paradox for the reasons mentioned by Swansont primarily different observers measuring an object does nothing to alter the properties of the object being measured. It only influences how its being measured not the object itself. It sounds to me like you may also be trying to describe variant mass (relativistic mass) as opposed to invariant mass (rest mass), the terms in the brackets is the old terminology and yes both mass and energy are variant to the observer your GR application required to handle the inertial mass terms that being the need for a stress energy momentum tensor. So yes the use of GR with the stress energy momentum term is certainly a large bonus under GR however GR uses the same SR transformations including all the Minkowskii metric transformations. Under GR the Minskowsii terms are part of the Newton weak field limit \[g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}\] this of course all applies to the SO(3.1) Poincare group so yes in that sense GR does become more useful to describe the inertial mass in terms of different observers in particular for the inclusion of the stress energy momentum term however there is also nothing to prevent SR from also employing the stress energy momentum tensor which it already does. It should be indicative that the distinctions between SR and GR become more trivial when you consider the same transformations apply to both it becomes more a matter of practicality. Particularly since any quantum examination under QFT employs the weak field limit under the same EFE statement above including the SO(3.1) group. little side note one also shouldn't forget that those transformations differ depending on the type of acceleration change in velocity or change in direction. However there is no real need to understand or use any tensor to understand the velocity as opposed to acceleration relations in the solution for the twin paradox.

You might want to look into what's already on the market. G.I. Gen 6 Nanophotonic Refraction Stealth Operator Suit is one example

That link pulls a different YouTube video not that it matters as one should never trust YouTube videos to begin with. Anyways if you factor in the number density of Cosmic radiation from the sun then the clearing of those rays from the magnetic field. Any charged particles from the Sun reaching the Earth's surface is negligible in terms of any potential mass gain compared to the losses mentioned above

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox. Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration. Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

I would find that difficult to believe as well. Particularly since a large quantity of charged particles from solar winds get deflected by our magnetic field. Secondly there are studies that show Earth has a net loss due to atmospheric escape which is greater than infalling material such as from asteroids, dust etc. You can go through the references this wiki link uses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass#:~:text=Earth's mass is variable%2C subject,4 long tons) per year. Do you have a reference ?

Sure if I wanted to argue with ChatGpt. A textbook itself would be a better resource to learn from. There isn't much more to say, we haven't confirmed 100 percent on either issue. When you get right down to it no theory is ever 100 percent. Our best evidence is our best evidence. Till something better comes along that's what we have to work with

The decay rate far exceeds the age of the Universe. How would one fulfill that ? The evidence supports the decay rate but there has never been an observed decay afiak

Thankfully decay rates are essential to determine when a particle drops out of thermal equilibrium. Though it's oft described as "when the expansion rate exceeds the reaction rate" in Cosmology applications.

Your definition of truth based on your misunderstanding of the article. Misunderstanding something isn't the reason you were banned.

Nothing honest in a discussion with a previous banned member using a sockpuppet