Mordred

Keep in mind I posted a single field example above. When it comes to mass you must involve all fields and their coupling constants that are present. For example you can have electromagnetic mass or mass due to the strong force interaction. The stress energy tensor is the term that describes the energy and momentum relations in the EFE. Tensors take some considerable time to learn. Each position has its own unique derivative. Which will depend on what that is being related to ie the curvature tensor. I'll dig up some examples once I unpack my textbooks( just finished moving) However in the meantime this article may help. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://mathreview.uwaterloo.ca/archive/voli/2/olsthoorn.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjY1ceOqdHMAhVU3WMKHegsCW8QFggUMAE&sig2=cKOZEEemRIw0wylOMc0lYQ&usg=AFQjCNEOA2zinwqJc_O4wdiLvAirH1GfqQ

I don't need to wonder why mass curves spacetime. If you think carefully about my last post the clues are provided. First define mass. Then define what is truly meant by spacetime curvature. (Mathematically) Remember space is just volume, spacetime is simply any metric system that involves volume and time as a coordinate. Then look at the diagonal terms under the stress tensor. (rho,p,p,p) [latex]T_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}-\rho&0&0&0\\0&p&0&0\\0&0&p&0\\0&0&0&p\end{pmatrix}[/latex] You have mass density and various types of pressure relations. So lets use a simplified analogy. Two particles that interact with each other (attraction) has binding energy. That binding energy is related as a resistance to inertia. (Mass) So lets say we have a Higgs field. This field supplies a binding energy to Say just the w+ bosons. The more w+ bosons you have in a unit volume the more mass that volume has. (This applies to all fields, electromagnetic, strong and albeit via the Higgs field the weak force) Now recall that neither mass, nor energy exists on its own. These two terms are properties. In order to measure a property you need to measure a particle or object. Now if you think about binding energy and mass being related, then realize that spacetime metrics is a coordinate system. Time dilation and length contraction becomes easier to understand. For gravity you can use a field of test particles. Each coordinate being the location of a test particle. Then add your mass influence upon that field. Voila the measured amount of influence upon each test particle will have a curved distribution in strength of attraction. As we're using coordinates (ct,x,y,z) this means spacetime is curved due to mass( resistance to Inertia). ( keep in mind the equivalence principle). It might help to also understand that all interactions are usually described by a coordinate system. For example when you measure a frequency we use the x,y coordinates. X being the amplitude, y being the period or wavelength... Spacetime curvature is no difference, we simply add the z, coordinate but as time also varies we need a time coordinate. An analogy I often found useful is to think of a massless field of test particles. As there is no mass there is no resistance to inertia. Everything moves at c... Now add mass via some binding energy you have resistance to inertia so those particles can no longer travel at c. To get to coordinate b from a will take more time. Now given the above this quoted section should make more sense

If cold fusion was a feasible reality it would have been marketed and announced world wide. Plain and simple. You have no idea how many times I've heard these arguments on forums over the past 15 years or so. I've heard nearly every argument on cold fusion, and every argument ends up in pointless bicker and endless skew of links both for and against... If cold fusion is found to be a conclusive reality then you would literally hear it on the News. Plain and simple. If I recall correctly Mossier Boss work was countered by Prof. Paul Padleys. It's been a while but if I recall the problem Padley showed that Boss couldn't provide any believable theoretical explanation of how a fusion process could occur in condensed matter systems under such experimental conditions. However that's off memory as I lost interest in the cold fusion debate years ago. Just a sidenote.. years ago I ran into a professor who claimed to have built a salt water carburetor. He even showed me his patent and manuscript. That was back in 1990, to this day we still use gas primarily. If you wish to believe in cold fusion feel free. My only objection is stating there is conclusive proof or evidence. Which is false.

There hasn't been 20 years of overwhelming proof... there has been 20 years of crackpot/con artist trying to suggest overwhelming proof. Overwhelming proof would have strong support by the scientific community by being readily replicated beyond reasonable doubt. That type of proof would earn a Nobel prize. The most common argument against this is typically conspiracy theory related... Here is a related review http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiF9PDXotDMAhVC-mMKHQhEC6oQFggRMAA&sig2=w0HGg-YO8dihuCaUTObOow&usg=AFQjCNHohRR7dvRULT2pXO69WsIUJaXT3Q

We don't throw out SR, because in many circumstances it still works out accurately. It is also not possible to understand GR without a firm understanding of SR. Much of your last post is so scattered I can't make any sense of it. It reads like random thoughts thrown together without any effort to apply a logical sequence to your post. Although it is evident that your math skills may be lacking on the relations involved. In particular the choice of coordinate systems.

You would be far more accurate in mass curving spacetime. Matter applies to fermionic particles. When you think in terms of Mass-density and keep in mind the definition of mass. (As resistance to inertia) GR becomes easier to understand. However you also have to throw away pop media visualization aids to spacetime curvature and switch your thinking to a geometric distribution of influence. (Ie variation of strength of influence at a given coordinate) Given the above one can recognize that it is the stress energy/momentum term in the Einstein field equation that tells space how to curve. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

No nothing here is conclusive enough to be considered as conclusive. All the articles mention is the possible viability and details some of the research. Conclusive proof would hit the news in this subject.

While I don't work the biotech industry. Never forget to search the related industries. Myself having my own degrees. I can relate to completion of a strong acedemic level to work correlation. Take some advice, " DON'T ignore the stepping stones to a strong profession.". !!. Look for related channels of related fields that can use your knowledge pertaining to your field.

The above makes little sense. I'll assume a language translation barrier. Sounds like your comparing proper and coordinate time. However even that doesn't help. As your post reads that we must recalibrate our clock to what you call SR time. Which is simply foolish, simply due to the fact the clock rates change in inertial frames without a recalibration. Which is the point of SR. A good example is muon decay rates. Muons being so short lived, they should never reach the Earths surface. Yet due to time dilation they do. Feel free to post the math in your theory. Though you should have posted your personal model into our Speculations forum.

The wiki link is just on how to create an entangled pair. It's basic enough not to need further detail. The point being the process is local. Ie at the same location so your still stuck with how to get one half the entangled pair to the new location. By the way +1 on your last post. Not many are so easily willing to drop a pet theory right or wrong. PS I read that article before it's handy to keep around

C) never use your computer for anything financial oriented. (I only ever type prepaid master card numbers online. Limits significantly the potential loss) I also never access any account via online.

Neither is you and I the speed limit of c is well proven and well tested reality. It even applies to the maximum rate of interactions. So good luck. The only known viable method is possibly the Alcubierre drive which manipulates spacetime (theoretically) PS GR is one of the most tested theories in physics. Thus far its incredibly accurate. QM isn't likely to change that. Let's play a suspension of reality and hypothesize that two entangled particles allow faster than light communication. So lets create two entangled particles using spontaneous down metric conversion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion How did you plan on getting the entangled particle to the new location ? How do you plan on keeping the entangled pair stable enough for the journey? How would this help if you cannot know the state of either particle (once you measure the state the entanglement collapses) You can't choose which state to entangle the particles nor can you know which of the state's either particle is in.

There is some vacuum assist toilets. Vaccuusan toilets used on Naval ships is one example. However I seriously doubt they would apply in your scenario above.

New research can always bring new insights. However particle entanglement is getting to be a rather well studied field. QM isn't my strongest area of study, however the faster than c misnomer is a common misconception on numerous physics forums. I've had the occasion to even discuss some of these aspects in the past with DrChinese. From those discussions with him and other professors specialized in QM. DrChinese is considered extremely well versed in this particular arena. PS if you look through the QM forum the subject has come up numerous times in recent threads

You really have to watch out for pop media descriptions. In particular when it comes to entangled particles. The two particles don't communicate, nor is faster than c communication possible via entangled particles. Despite what these pop media articles state. DrChinese has a decent and accurate coverage. (Without the math) http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm#Overview_3

Why would you think the above if you understood Keplar orbits? Have you be never heard of eliiptical orbits? The speed of the orbitting body is definitely not constant at all points of the orbit. Part of Kepler orbits is the Vis-Viva equation. [latex]v^2=GM(\frac{2}{r}-\frac{1}{a})[/latex] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics Here perhaps this YouTube will help. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6vCl9LHF_8k

I'm definitely guilty on that end. Also being one of a select few members responding with math in physics and speculation forums I can honestly say I take a serious effort in using the simplist forms of the majority of the equations I post. Unfortunately keeping those posts as simple as possible has often led to even further confusion. (One of the reasons I try to avoid too much Einstein notation) or langrene's Usually I supplement my posts with further study material to assist the OP. Unfortunately often they don't get ready by the OP. (Understandable in some cases, as ones eyes can gloss over due to the metrics involved) The rule I follow is to attempt to be as thorough as possible on a forum without trying to teach an entire chapter in a textbook lol.

While good advise I wish more people would post the related math (preferably in latex). Also it's often useful to provide a study aid when answering questions. In many replies the needed details are often lacking direction for the OP to self study.

Inertia vs gravity through the principle of equivalence gives the same results. However expansion isn't inertia based though it seems to be. The distances increase but no galaxy gains inertia due to expansion

I've always preferred star trek to star wars. In Star trek morality issues is more grey to define compared to light vs dark side. On warp vs hyperdrive I would go for warp drive as it involves essentially a spacetime curvature scheme similar enough to the Alcubierre drive (theoretical). Hyperdrive never seems to involve time dilation effects. The lasers in star trek are slightly more realistic as a full length beam compared to the bullet like bursts in Star wars. Light sabers are completely unrealistic. Though neither program completely follows true science. Probably one of the more accurate programs though short lived was "Firefly". Really wish they had kept that series going,

Actually that's not quite right. The finite point is only our observable (finite) portion condensed to the smaller than an atom size. It doesn't model the infinite portion, it only models the region of shared causality of our observable portion and how it expands from there

Kind of hard to tell without knowing exactly which study your referring to in your OP. I mentioned two of the more popular competing models. (At least as far as rotation curves go)

LCDM has an extremely high confidence level in accuracy however MOND has a couple of successes in better predictions in rotation curves for certain specific galaxy types. Yet MOND gradually lost out to LCDM as the latter model became more and more fine tuned. This is one aspect many don't realize is that sometimes competing models provide an aid to better improve the models its competing against. Simply by showing where improvements is necessary. With galaxy rotation curves the problem can be complex, while one metric has high accuracy with spiral galaxies, those same metrics become less accurate on dwarf galaxies. The most successful metric for galaxy rotation curves is the Navarro Frenk White profile. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro%E2%80%93Frenk%E2%80%93White_profile However this does absolutely nothing for anything other than rotation curves. This metric is extremely successful in all galaxy rotation curves, as it better correlates the enclosed mass as a function of radius compared to the Keplar methodology which MOND originally competed against. Just a side note eventually the later MOND models also required dark matter, but didn't use cold dark matter.

Neither model suggests that dark matter causes variations in the gravitational constant. There isn't any scientific evidence that supports a varying gravitational constant. MOND describes variations in Newtons acceleration equations in order to replace dark matter. LCDM is the BB model that uses cold dark matter and dark energy aka the cosmological constant. Dark energy and dark matter are two separate entities. You have no idea how many posters try to invent their own model, to replace dark energy or dark matter. Let alone relativity. Amazing enough they rarely understand the concordance models in the first place and rarely understand the associated math or physics. Some attempts are similar to what you posted, yet they never heard of the NFW profile for galaxy rotation curves.

I believe the two models is LCDM vs MOND.