Mordred

David Clusters grow in size from the time of decoupling till now.... at the time of the CMB they were initially forming. You can't base the size of a cluster now as the size of the cluster then. The cluster size themselves grow as more and more particles decouple from thermal equilibrium. Not to mention galaxy sizes themselves have varied since then via galaxy mergers. Also the percentages of metals has been steadily growing via star fusion processes. 13 Billion years of merging etc has caused a significant change in cluster size and composition. You seem to have this tendancy to jump to incorrect conclusions, I'm really not sure why this is, when you obviously have a desire to learn. Perhaps if you spend a little less time looking for faults in models you should learn why those models state what they do. the anistropies in the CMB were the earliest detectable point we can measure in cluster formation. There is a large database of articles on large scale cluster formation. Particlularly on arxiv.

You know we can measure particle with a magnetic field. It's surprisingly easy to do so. I suggest you Google magnetosphere and how it interacts with the solar winds. As Strange pointed out gravity is definitely not electromagnetic... As pointed out we can easily measure plasma interactions with a magnetic field. This has already been pointed out several times this thread. A little common sense would easily tell you otherwise. "How many non magnetic objects can you name that still have weight" ? What's your explanation for that question

This forum section is for mainstream and established models. Not for personal theories. In other words what you would find in textbooks on astronomy and Cosmology. We have a section for personal models under Speculations. Having said that, there is little true science within your pdf. From what I glanced over your basing your assumtions on the number of elements. Then deriving misplaced conclusions upon that. I would recommend you look into how those elements formed in the first place. Then consider the availability of elements throughout the history of a galaxy. Then stop to ask yourself why Rocky planets typically form in orbits closer to the star than gas giants. None of this section makes one ounce of accuracy. It's so full of errors the only recommendation I can make is pick up an astronomy textbook.

The average energy/mass density compared to the critical density formula determines our overall geometry. [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] [latex]\Omega=\frac{\Omega_{total}}{\Omega_{crit}}[/latex] [latex]\Omega{total}=\Omega_{\Lambda}+\Omega_{dark matter}+\Omega_{baryonic matter}+\Omega_{radiation}[/latex] From the chart on the link one can see baryonic matter is a minor contribution. Even less so considering matter has negligible energy/density to pressure influence. The rate of expansion incorperates the equations of state for each particle contribution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) These factors determine the rates of expansion. With the acceleration equation. The acceleration equation is given as [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] This leads to [latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex]

David all those stars, galaxies and large scale clusters account for a measly 4.6% of the energy/mass density. The major portion is dark matter and dark energy. A mere 4.6% is treated as mere dust at these scales. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html

Here is a free open end user textbook. Yes it's SR as opposed to GR however the mathematical level is easy to handle. http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ the Beaz site already mentioned is also good

Oh I'm not worried about figuring out what your up to. My only purpose in this forum is to assist others in learning, and providing guidance and assistance.

Your probably going to be waiting for a while. I've always been a firm believer in no one is more intelligence than another. The only difference is a persons interests and education background. Environment influences inclusive. The other concern is those that believe they are more intelligent than others typically learn less from those they feel superior to. Kind of self limiting if you ask me. Then again those that feel they have all the answers refuse to learn anything new as they have already closed the book on any topic.

I'd say this thread is an immediate candidate for the trash bin. Other than pumping your excessive ego was there anything scientific to discuss?

Well in the interest of being fair I downloaded one of his papers. I couldn't complete it. I found it incredibly lacking in analysis details. He also jumped around too much by referencing his own papers on the details of key elements. Sorry but I'm not about to download all his papers. I got about as far as his declaring the emf as a scalar field, then stating that with his Binary something particle he solves gravity implying them to be one and the same. Yet he showed no knowledge of the spin statistics of either electromagnetic or gravity. A little digging he also proposed at one time the luminiferous ether exists. On a professional note his mathematics is lacking for a peer review level. Takes more than the basic equation forms. He would also need to include and compare the quage symmetries in U(1) and SO(3.1). Of which the Maxwell equations work well within. ( some mathematical Langrene and Hamilton's showing his understanding of QED would also be advisable) On spin statistics electromagnetic is spin 1/2 gravity matches spin 2 statistics he would need to show how he goes from one to the other. One thing to consider, electromagnetism, the weak force and the strong force are already essentially unified in unification theories. Gravity isn't. He is trying to reformulate the electromagnetic to include gravity but in doing so cannot maintain unification of the three aforementioned forces. ( edit, in many ways my hesitance is for many of the reasons Ajb already mentioned ). The key one being the supreme amount of experimental evidence of the standard models involved) not simply on individual theories but also in how the theories interconnect (PS the equations in the one article I read are atypical for electrical engineers. Physicists specialized in electrodynamics examine far more complex and interconnected relations.) Google Maxwell equations and electromagnetic stress tensor for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_stress_tensor Second link is the Maxwell stress tensor I should also mention the Poynting vector which will help establish that it's mathematically applicable to model the EMF as a vector field. (Poynting vector is highly used in solar wind models ,just a side note) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector Lastly any field can and is modelled by its geometric properties. Simple example. Take a photon field, establish a photon at every point and at equal energy value. Now drop an influence onto that field. Voila you now have a means to geometrically describe an influence. (Note you can have an infinite number of points in a field of any given volume). THAT's the INFINITIES he's arguing about..... Which is still mathematically solvable by the lessons in QFT. Basically he's taken standard misconceptions and complaints as evidence of his model without showing a more complete solution. Only his basic formulas without interconnections to gauge theory or lie algebra Is that sufficient enough to make you question his model? If not I recommend studying the electrodynamics textbook by David J Griffith. All his books are excellent. http://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Electrodynamics-Edition-David-Griffiths/dp/013805326X

Why is it whenever someone supports a new model developed by someone else. Whose papers did not pass the peer review process. The immediate blame is the peer review board? It's not that difficult to pass peer review, not all the papers necessarily are viable. One good example is one I read a year or so back that discusses blowing away the event horizon of a black hole to glimpse the singularity. Now if a paper of that ambiquous nature can pass the peer review. One should ask themselves why can't the model being discussed here ? Is it incorrect mathematics? Was it gibberish? No one on this site can say for certain. Personally I have met numerous people that have successfully passed peer review. Others I've met on forums such as this one. There is some members on this site I am aware of. Yet your asking us to translate your third party interpretation of someone else's model that didn't pass? The other common place accusation is the atypical scientists conspiracy theory. As mentioned science doesn't work that way.

Not quite, tensors are used to show linear, or geometric relations such as vectors or scalar relationships in an arbitrary coordinate system. This isn't necessarily velocity. Though is involved in the EFE. As well as geodesic mapping. There is for example scalar tensor theories for gravity. Brans-Dicke gravity. The Riemann curvature tensor for example represents the tidal force experienced by a rigid body. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor the metric tensor may loosely be thought of as a generalization of the gravitational potential familiar from Newtonian gravitation. The metric captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as distance, volume, curvature, angle, future and past. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You have a vacuum tank, a computer and a scanner. You want to somehow use the scanner to find the entangled states, then alter the vacuum conditions using that data by altering the entangled states. This description accurate?

That's beside the point, were trying to get you to explain what your doing or looking at so we can understand how to help you. Thus far I can't make heads or tails of your posts. (No pun intended) I also have no idea who moved the thread. However that doesn't matter Now we're getting somewhere thanks for explaining your setup.

It was moved to speculation as we're still trying to make sense of what your doing or proposing. Of which I'm still not having any luck.

Yep that clarifies things. (Note the exaggeration) Here is a suggestion try fully explaining what your getting at. Thus far everything I read is pure gibberish. Particularly with your terminology usage

I definitely agree with this statement. I find 24 Vdc far more dangerous than 120 ac.

I find it extremely humorous that even a forum for psionics don't find the psiwheel valid. http://psionguild.org/forums/showthread.php?p=63709 A quick research on the psiwheel shows that it's been around since 1967. So I wouldn't bother taking this test to a university. Just saying....

We describe all particle interactions via coordinates. However some coordinate changes are better described by different symmetries. On unification metrics it's sometimes more convenient showing those. For example the SO(3.1) Lorentz group alone has 255 degrees of freedom. However this reduces down to 11 partial derivitives. That's just GR alone. Now add the various charges. The mathematics can get mind boggling. Figuring out how to simplify these possibilities of the numerous interactions is highly sought after. Twistor theory is one of the better adept at it from what I understand, though I understand little of twistor theory except in principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension Although mathematically intense this resource I often find handy http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205: "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields I forgot to add if you add up all the interactions of the standard model elementary particles you have 196 degrees of freedom. Simplifying and reducing this number is highly sought after. ( though that number will vary depending on which gauge theory your using..SO(5), SO(10) etc

Dimensions in these cases is analogous to coordinate systems or degrees of freedom. lets take a simple example. Space Dimensions is 3, then add coordinate dimension of time. Now take each particle interaction. Charge, color, flavor, assign them a seperate coordinate system. The first spacetime dimensions being well described by GR. However the interaction coordinates may be better represented by rotational symmetry, or translational symmetry etc. Each dimension represents different coordinate systems or degrees of freedom. Not all coordinate systems need to be like flat sheets of paper. Some can be like a cylinder, others rotational This is essentially how Kalabu Klein works.. he describes gravity by the usual 4d dimensions which does well for energy/momentum but shows the symmetry to the electromagnetic degrees of freedom via a coordinate system for the electromagnetic. (Loosely put) it's simply adding another degree of freedom into the metrics of GR Ppl get confused on the dimension elements Fundamentally they are merely representative on added degrees of freedom within the mathematics For example start with gravity 4d Add charge+2, color+3, flavor+3. Wow 12 dimensions, remind you of anything? With Kaluzu you can lower charge to 1 dimension =11

You probably didn't see the editted portion where I posted the pdf. The higher dimensions needed came later in string theory. Kaluzu Klein being a precursor. Even then the mathematical side of Kaluzu Klein is well detailed.

Fair enough, now that we've cleared some of the misreadings. I'm still uncertain how your proposing Kaluzu Klien in the weak interactions. By the way I did some digging. Turns out this was tried already "In order to unify gravitation, not just with electromagnetism but also with weak and strong interactions, it is necessary to generalise the five-dimensional theory of 5 1 to a higher-dimensional theory (Klein 1926, DeWitt 1964, Kerner 1968, Trautman 1970, Cho 1975, Cho and Freund 1975, Scherk and Schwarz 1975, Cremmer and Scherk 1977) so as to obtain a non-Abelian gauge group. In the five-dimensional case, an Abelian gauge group arose from the coordinate transformation" http://www.het.brown.edu/people/danieldf/literary/eric-KKtheories.pdf

As far as the Pauli exclusion principles is concerned. This involves the wave functions of a particle. "A more rigorous statement is that the total wave function for two identical fermions is antisymmetric with respect to exchange of the particles. This means that the wave function changes its sign if the space and spin co-ordinates of any two particles are interchanged." Fermions being antisymmetric bosons being symmetric. Sounds to me like your trying to change the probability functions in the entirety of QM. Your definitely going to need some strong mathematical and experimental evidence for that. Let me ask what do you think it means when it's stated a "particle has no internal structure" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles PS we can avoid these confusions with those mathematics.

Well unfortunately wave-particle duality is an extremely repeatable experimental certainty. Trying to seperate one from the other is akin to separating energy vs mass. This has even been photographed to an extent. http://m.phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html Belief is well and good, but unless you back your modelling with the mathematics and experimental evidence does very little good. So please feel free to show how your adapting Kalazu Klein coordinates to your viewpoint of a particle. How does Kalazu Klien provide the necessary degree of freedom to allow particles that don't interact with the weak force and how other particles do so. Please show how this interaction geometric dimension does so. (Mathematics) preferred. Now as your viewing a particle as merely pointlike. (Like a ball). It seems your viewpoint of what spin is also requires clarification. I would suggest looking at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_Experiment it should be obvious from this that spin does not mean the particle is spinning like a planet etc. Which from your post above in your gears analogy you appear to describe. For example ask yourself this fundamental questions. Why can electrons only have two spin states 1/2 and -1/2? If they were truly ball like point particles they should be able to have as many orientations as a ball. (Take a ball place two dots on opposite sides). How many orientations can you place those dots? (Magnetic poles). This is where the image of spinning point like particles breaks down. An electron is either spin up or spin down. Not spin 20 degrees etc. Another aspect is that it takes an electron or any other spin 1/2 particle 720 degrees rotation to return to its original quantum state. Can you replicate this with that ball? Lastly spin meaning angular momentum never changes for a Particle it never speeds up or slows down. It's an intrinsic property for a particle.