Mordred

Just a side note rest mass is often called invariant mass, while relativistic mass is now called inertial mass.

Here is an open source textbook on SR. http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ this one is another lecture note on GR. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

Been a while since I last read a paper on solitons lol. For a good starting point metrics a good approach would be to model as a scalar field. Last formula on this page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology).

Aether theories aren't mainstream physics.

Mass is simply resistance to inertia. There can be multiple or even singular contributors to a particles mass. For example some particles do not interact with the electromagnetic or strong force. Example neutrinos. It's only two interactions is gravity and the weak force. However the weak force interaction uses the Higgs field. Other particles such as the w-,w+ and z bosons also gain their mass from the Higgs field. These particles gain no mass from the strong field or the electromagnetic field. Yet other particles that interact with the Strong or electromagnetic force do gain mass from those forces. (Do not treat the Higgs field as a force). Each force has a coupling constant, "In physics, a coupling constant or gauge coupling parameter is a number that determines the strength of the force exerted in an interaction" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant This shows us the amount of force, and correlates that the strength of that force at a certain radius (using formulas not on that wiki page) The strong force though is the strongest force falls off in strength at a given radius faster than other forces. The electromagnetic force has infinite range, yet the Strong force doesn't. Now recalling that mass us resistance to inertia, and the coupling constants we can start to correlate some examples. For example in a solid the majority of the rest mass is defined by the electromagnetic force. Yet in a proton or neutron the majority of the mass is the Strong force with the Higgs field being a small contributor. So even though a solid has all these interactions involved we still consider the majority of the mass of a solid being the electromagnetic force. The reason being is from one atom to another atom, the strong force interaction is extremely miniscule. The strong force interaction falls off too quickly. Yet dominates within the structure of a proton and neutron. A way to think of mass is the resistance to inertia due to interactions with the various fields. Each field though has its own properties and each particle may interact differently to different fields. Now all the above is essentially rest mass. Inertia mass is slightly different. If you consider gravity as a result of spacetime curvature. We can also think of spacetime as a field. (Fields can overlap, ie the electromagnetic and Higgs field must follow the same curvature) Inertia mass is simply due to the particles interaction to the spacetime. This includes gravitational and inertia mass as both are equivalent in GR. However this includes the observers measure of mass which influence the measured mass. From the above one can see that mass isn't easily defined. Certainly not just involving compression though how that compression is applied in some cases can apply. Yes I know that's why I gave him better details on mass that I was working on when you posted the quoted section.

Mass isn't determined by compression. At least not in the manner you are implying. For example if a star collapses to a black hole. It's mass doesn't change. The only thing that changes is the radius.

Along with the comment by Strange. Many of the tests supporting Aether and seeking its properties, ended up being tests that support relativity.

Might be a good place to start. The fact is Aether theories has been around for centuries. Relativity doesn't require an Aether, and tests looking for Aether ended up showing zero evidence for Aether. Quintessence which was a more modern version of Aether, was also shown wrong for many of these reasons. Another killing blow to Aether is lack of stellar aberration. An aether drag, via Aether wind should cause distortions in long range measurements. There is zero evidence such distortions are present. As I don't know your math skills I've been avoiding posting the related math.

As you were posting at the same time I doubt you saw my last post. I would suggest reading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether Then I would look up each test mentioned on Aether from that link. You will find that those tests seeking Aether ended up showing that an Aether isn't viable. Those tests were designed originally to isolate Aether properties however didn't match predictions and found no detectable Aether. As the expression goes, " your flogging a dead horse"

The problem here is Luminiferous aether theories has been proposed in numerous models. These aether style theories have been largely disproven. One of the more famous tests is the "one way speed of light "Michelson and Morley " tests. Having a medium has specific drag effects on light as it travels through a medium. When light light travels through a moving fluid (in both cases moving slower than c) in one direction with the liquid light will be dragged, so will propogate faster with the fluid than against. However if the fluid is just space there is no drag effect. Most people who argue aether theories are typically not aware that this older experiment has been repeatedly tested in different methodologies at extremely high precision. Thus far there is ZERO evidence supporting aether style theories. Believe me I lost count how many variations I've come across. Most I can't even name anymore. As mentioned before the study of field theory is your best approach. Particularly since its well tested. Aether theories is pretty much a dead end. Though I also lost count on how many posters try to argue aether theory. Over 90% of them never show any mathematics, and typically don't even have a good understanding of basic physics.

It's close to what GR describes, but remove time reversal. A region compressing to a higher mass density time will slow down to an outside observer. However even though the Universe was denser in the past. At any spacetime slice of the Universe. There is no mass gradient so no time dilation. I'm not sure if the OP though is suggesting time reversal. The reason for the Universe being described above as flat is however wrong. There is numerous flaws in the above, However those flaws could be descriptive flaws. At least you got the homogeneous and isotropic aspects correct. Time has a forward direction though At a different rate depending on observer for a region of spacetime that is compressing or shrinking. According to GR. So the above isn't accurate. I have no idea why you need the living vs machine perception aspects. The last quoted section isn't particularly related at least not how I read that section. Please clarify ! Moderator Note hopefully you will be one of the extremely rare posters that presents a speculative model that will provide some mathematical rigor. As per the speculation rules http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/#entry839842

God I always hate that misrepresentation. It is so wrong it's not funny. If you take our observable portion and compress it back in time to T=0 our observable portion is the size of an atom.. That is just our observable portion not the entire universe. This is out region of shared causality. Or in other words our worldline/lightconein GR terminology. Anytime you see the fiery explosion from some God particle REMEMBER that is incorrect. The pop media always shows this God particle surrounded by empty space... Again that's wrong. We don't know the volume of the beginning. We only know how our evolves from an atom size portion of that origin.

The idea behind the other group is to also show recognition to certain members. That reliably provide helpful and accurate answers that are not flavoured by personal ideas. In particular those posters that go the extra mile to teach mainstream science.

You have no idea I hear this on numerous forums. I can name the mask. The mask is observational evidence that favors one model over another. A model is only viable, if it has mathematical predictability, yet even this isn't enough. It must conform to observation.

The CMB is a result from earlier conditions primarily inflation and nucleosynthesis. However strange as it sounds an infinite universe or a finite universe can undergo the exact same dynamics. The CMB nor the curvature constant is sufficient to exclude either possibility. That being said it's hopeful to isolate the cases using these two related principles. We haven't been able to do so yet. I believe I've already explained the curvature constant aspects previously. The CMB is uniform in all directions, that part I do agree with. However an infinite uniformity can also occur in the infinite universe case. Keep in mind we still have no idea how the Universe started. Most Cosmologists I've corresponded with feel we may never know if the Universe is finite or infinite (unless we somehow solve how it began). We will simply never know how much of a slice of the observable universe is related to the entire universe. One of those professors specializes in CMB measurement correlations to inflation.

We can't put a % chance to defining if the Universe is finite or infinite. Not enough data. The only data we have is our observable portion.

Sorry I didn't see this question earlier. If you truly want to understand Mass, the best way is to first look at the definition of mass. "Resistance to inertia". Now you can apply this to particles. Key note particles are in essence excitations in a field. Not little bullets. Every particle has a set of fields it will interact with. Some bosons specifically gauge bosons only interacts with its field and of course spacetime. A particles rest mass is in a sense a measure of the interaction strength with the Strong, electroweak and indirectly through the Higgs field the weak force. Spacetime essentially involves all other fields, in sense it's the distribution strength of all fields present at a particular locale. Inertial mass being the interaction with spacetime, which is essentially a field or combination of all fields. Plus observer effects which is included in the spacetime metric.

The answer really depends on which mass your using. If you use rest mass of the two objects or the enertial mass. For the OP if you place the same dumbbells into a higher gravitational potential they would gain inertial mass. So they wouldn't be the same mass. As they gain in inertial mass they would emit stronger gravity waves. Remember GR teaches that inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical. You can find the formula for radiated power https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave under mathematics. They provide a Newtonian style formula for power.

Most of the variations are covered in the various inflation models. There is 70+ variations in Encyclopedia inflationarious. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwio2r_hkIzMAhUJwmMKHeBBBq4QFggRMAA&usg=AFQjCNF04zrTjFJanQx2Yb1Ze-Lp571U5Q

At least infinite theory theory using false vacuum related metrics. The closest possibility would be the zero energy universe model. That particular variant may allow the possibility. The metrics however require potential vs kinetic energy in a geometry. Curvature requires the use of pseudo tensors which GR advocates tend to frown upon. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj598fEoIvMAhVUzWMKHeuPC-kQFggRMAA&usg=AFQjCNETzVlkxJseEroHw2ZaZsxV-vHoOg It is another variant of universe from nothing. Though seems similar to the David posted there are differences in the actual metrics. Least this is the closest possibility I've run across.

Although this is a good article, this particular model conjecture doesn't imply an infinite universe. The main reason is it requires rapid inflation from a Planck length. Universe from nothing models though theoretically plausible, are typically finite. In many ways this model is a quantum variation of Bubble universe creation. Very similar to chaotic eternal inflation. I personally know of no universe from nothing model that is considered infinite. Doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any. I honestly can't see how the mechanism in this paper could be used for an infinite universe.

Too hard to tell from this article, the full article may be more revealing. At a glance though I would think it involved the conservation of momentum laws.

Yeah right I forgot your the role model to higher learning and good behavior LMAO. I'm done wasting my time have a good life

Why are we talking about angels lol. Honestly the shows yet again a lack in your willingness to learn. It's too bad really, you limit yourself. However that's not my problem. That's your self limitation. The math works with observational evidence plain and simple. You can choose to deny that fact all you want. Personally I couldn't care what your opinion of me is. I happen to be a proud grandfather. So quite frankly insulting me with regards to children makes you extremely petty. Not that your lack of substance in your arguments is particularly worth much merit. Enjoy your ignorance. If you want answers to the meaning of T read the links

At one time, quantum process via virtual particle/ antiparticle pair production. This process was later shown unlikely due to too much energy in the process. About the same time quintessence, which didn't match. Now I would say a possibility involves the Higgs field. At least the majority of recent papers are moving in that direction.