Mordred

There really isn't enough information on tetryonic geometry itself in any formulized mathematics to really offer any great assistance. The author itself has yet to publish any serious peer reviewed content. I can only assist in stating that geometry is already used in describing gauge groups. Symmetry and assymetry groups utilize coordinate geometry. I can provide material on the subject but it will still take years to adapt that to suit tetryonic geometry without having any formulized mathematics to work from. Looking over what few papers I could find, there's no real completed leg work done. One major hurdle is the gauge groups work with 4d coordinates. t,x,y,z. I see no literature in tetryonic geometry covering the time component as a vector coordinate. So how he claims to cover lorentz boosts and rotations using 3d is a mystery to me. To start learning gauge theory your going to need the tools of differential geometry. This is the main mathematics behind particle physics. Without this lie algebra and group theory development is impossible. So here is a good set of articles covering the differential geometry of particle physics. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395part 2 An Elementary Introduction to Groups and Representations http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0005032 http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CEgQFjAJahUKEwj20drBpuHGAhUGnIAKHc9hDvo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tufts.edu%2F~fgonzale%2Flie.algebras.book.pdf&rct=j&q=Introduction%20to%20lie%20algebra&ei=24CoVbb4I4a4ggTPw7nQDw&usg=AFQjCNEgqEso2cp_9hJXTd44RDKgrbPmZg&sig2=pkp078ZX5-YHZzjT7G_n8w GR will be needed http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau Here is a good reference on fields. http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205: "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields As you can see from the above your request involves an extreme amount of time, particularly since there isn't any mathematic modelling already done by the author of tetryonic geometry of any significant level. A little assistance though your U(1) unitary group is primarily electrodynamics. SU(2) is your electroweak,(Su(2)*U(1)y*U(1)em. This group also covers flavor dynamics SU(3) is your chromodynamic group. SO(1.3) is the Lorentz group. SU(5) flipped group is the unification model by Georgi-Glashow GUT model. Currently you also have SO(10) MSM and SO(10) MSSM. Minimal standard model and minimal super symmetric standard model. This group covers all the afformentioned groups but also incoperates Pati-Salam model as a subgroup, also includes the Higgs sector. Other important groups. Heisenburg group [latex]H_3 R[/latex] Your Poincare group has specific letter designations. (Minkowskii space time isometries) Translational P (time and space displacements.)abelion group Rotations J in space. Is non abelion boosts k (transformation connecting two uniform bodies) J and K together work in the Lorentz group. Your Euler group is covered here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics) Here is a list of simple lie groups https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_simple_Lie_groups https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Lie_groups Hope that helps

I posted some material in your other double thread

Sorry the last post makes even less sense. It sounds like your trying to find a way to describe shell theorem. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

When you accelerate an object you change its velocity. Gravity is measured in the same units as acceleration m/s^2. Velocity is just m/s. Inertia is the tendency of an object to maintain the same velocity. Even if that velocity is zero. Any change in velocity (including direction) requires an influence( force, space time curvature can be described as a type of force). Weight can be described as the relation between an objects resistance to inertia (mass)*the acceleration due to gravity. (At least for simplicity sake, the Earths rotation also influences weight) were not ready to go into this detail. We would need to cover net acceleration due to location on Earth. W=ma and W=mg are in this case equivalent. Speed is just the magnitude scalar portion of velocity. Units and definitions are important. As they describe specific relations

Not bad the term force is fine. Pressure is just force per unit volume. Change this to oppose my free fall acceleration.(keeps the units straight) Weight is the measure of force on an object due to gravity. W=mg

Further data and calibration could change those results. The point being is its still too early pto be certain. You posted an example where one dataset doesn't precisely match the other. The next set may or may not lead to different results.

Here http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1507.02704 look at page 4 take thousands of the sensor readings on the images on the right hand side page 4 power spectrum etc. Then read the full document on all the calibration procedures and formulas involved in those calibrations. Then form the images on the left hand side on page 4. The axis of evil in the 2012 Planck dataset was due to improper calibration. Local noise ie gamma rays etc is indeed there, if you don't filter that noise out. You will not be able to take readings of an event at 380,000 years old. You really should learn to understand a process before assuming the explanation is wrong. I've lost count how often you've jumped to conclusions without understanding the theory or model in this thread. You keep jumping from mere description either on this forum or pop media style articles to conclusion. That's why I supply references and articles to fill those gaps that lead to why a model or theory states what it does.

Your still not understanding.... Take thousands of wavelength readings filter out noise etc. Assign a pixel location for each wavelength data set. The process takes several years. You also have to compile multiple sensors into one dataset for each pixel. Does that help explain how it's an interpretation of the data? Think of the difference between a radio telescope and one using lenses.

The image on the CMB isn't anything close to a picture say from a camera. Its a complilation of multiple sensor readings, each sampling is subjected to numerous calibrations to filter out background interferance from our local Milky way radiation and movement (redshift effects) If you change any of the calibration settings you change the image. I wouldn't call this fact. I would classify it as a data interpretation.

No matter how accurate any theory or model is. Science never states any theory or model as 100% accurate. Every model or theory has a degree of accuracy. Granted the closer that model or theory conforms to repeatable experiments and observation, the more likely one can consider it as being a fact. With the caveat above.

Well it wouldn't be a legal radio antennae in The US by today's regulations. Max transmit power for UHF and VHF antennaes are usually 25 watts. 50 watts with specific licensing. Even then most mobile radios for extra long range max out at 100 watt. I've never encountered one higher even on the repeaters. Highest I've come across in 3 different models is 100 watt but that takes licensing to run at that level. At least in accordance with today's regs in US and Canada. Portable radios ie handheld are 5 to 10 watts

Your welcome that's only volume one of three books available on that website. There is very little in science we call fact. TBH I can't think of a single example. Everything in science is modelled or explained as to the best of our knowledge or model to measurements and observation. This isn't necessarily fact. If for some unpredicted evidence comes along our knowledge and understanding must conform.

Oh man you really have to sit down and look at how vectors work with force. This is basic physics stuff. when you jump you exert a downward force. The ground exerts an equal and opposite reaction. If it didn't you wouldn't go up. I suggest you study this basic physics textbook. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html In particular chapter 9

You really need to study action/reaction in Newtons laws. If this law didn't exist. You push on the ground if there was no counter push you would sink. Much like quicksand. Ever fire a gun? What do you think recoil is? How do you think you can walk. You push with your feet backwards the ground pushes back. If it didn't you wouldn't gain forward momentum.

Is it? We're talking about Newtons laws of inertia. In Euclidean geometry these three laws does an excellent approximation. It's currently used by engineers mechanics etc far more than GR. Works well for everyday applications. The main difference between the two comes into play via geometry/coordinate change. In curved space time those laws still apply, just under different coordinates. For example Newtons laws of inertia works under the Three Geodesic transformations. Those laws still hold true. I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. III for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. your objection is based on the use of the term force. "In physics, a force is any interaction that tends to change the motion of an object. In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull." Space time geometry certainly counts as an interaction. It certainly tends to change the motion of objects. By any definition space time fits the bill of a force.

Einstein would have known that himself. It's part of the scientific method.Here is a translated quote from one of his papers. Keep in mind he is specifically stating in Euclidean geometry (flat). Newtonian physics is highly accurate, but only valid until you have space time geometry changes. "As is well known, the fundamental law of the mechanics of Galilei-Newton, which is known as the law of inertia, can be stated thus: A body removed sufficiently far from other bodies continues in a state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line. This law not only says something about the motion of the bodies, but it also indicates the reference-bodies or systems of coordinates, permissible in mechanics, which can be used in mechanical description. The visible fixed stars are bodies for which the law of inertia certainly holds to a high degree of approximation. Now if we use a system of co-ordinates which is rigidly attached to the earth, then, relative to this system, every fixed star describes a circle of immense radius in the course of an astronomical day, a result which is opposed to the statement of the law of inertia. So that if we adhere to this law we must refer these motions only to systems of coordinates relative to which the fixed stars do not move in a circle. A system of co-ordinates of which the state of motion is such that the law of inertia holds relative to it is called a " Galileian system of co-ordinates." The laws of the mechanics of Galflei-Newton can be regarded as valid only for a Galileian system of co-ordinates." http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf An authorized reprint of Einsteins Special relativity paper Here is an excellent paper on the difficulty in quantifying gravity. On particular GR to QM. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0004005 ( by the way your arguments are getting better ) just needs polishing. As well as recognizing that regardless of how robust and accurate GR is. It's not the final chapter on gravity.

In science any theory until proven false is viable. Get used to it. Its more accurate to state until we can quantize gravity to particle to particle interactions. Or prove this to be impossible. All forms of geodesics is a space time curvature path. Just not the same path. Three geodesics are involved. Null, spacelike and time like. Particles with mass follow time like specifically free falling particles. http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~luke/research/masters-geodesics.pdf Key note there is an excellent line in this article. "Energy=curvature"

Here you can see how GR affects massless photons differently than massive particles. "massless particles like the photon instead follow null geodesics (replace −1 with zero on the right-hand side of the last equation). " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity Whether or not you wish to call gravity a curvature influence only or a force is entirely up to you. However GR doesn't necessarily invalidate the graviton. It's still incomplete in that regard. Wrong . a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force. Mass is resistance to change in inertia. Not inertia itself.

Gravity only directly influences bodies and particles with mass. Hence photons with no rest mass follows null geodesics. While particles with mass following time like geodesics. You can't have space time deformation without energy. Energy is equivelent to mass via e=mc^2. The problem is you keep thinking mass implies matter. It doesn't. Any form of energy even. Gravitation wave can cause gravity via resistance to inertia=mass. The problem you seem to have is that you fight against the term mass. Yet the term itself doesn't mean due to matter. It means resistance to inertia change.

(PS don't completely trust wiki links. The anti gravity description on that link is misleading). It's anti gravity like. However works via negative vacuum w=-1 [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] The influence whatever the cause still boils down to sources of gravity causes movement (attraction). There is no source of anti gravity. Gravity attracts only. Lambda is oft misrepresented by stating its anti gravity like. This does not mean the same thing as anti gravity. So it is semantics. GR describes the cause of this movement due to space time deformation. Newton due to force. In both cases objects move towards each other due to gravity. The source of gravity in both cases has the mass relation included. An object doesn't need its own peculiar movement. You place a ball at rest on a table. You can still measure its weight even though it is at rest. ( where is the movement?) Gravity is still influencing that ball even though it is at rest. That should tell you there is still an attraction even for objects at rest. GR and Newton both have different explanations for this but both GR and Newton recognize gravity attracts. The main difference is "Is that attraction due to curvature geometry only ? (GR) or is there a force carrying gravitational boson? Graviton. Neither answer is ruled out. GR cannot quantize gravity at the quantum regime. Single particle interactions gravity becomes immeasurable. Simply too weak particle to particle. We cannot generate nearly enough energy to create a graviton. So we still haven't found any spin 2 particles. If we do it's most likely the graviton as gravity follows spin 2 statistics. Hopefully one day quantum gravity solves that quantizing problem. Till then you can accurately describe gravity as a force or due to curvature. Either or mass does attract mass via one of the two mentioned processes (Possibly even both) In either case mass is simply "resistance to inertia changes" any Form of binding energy can cause mass. The strong force is simply the most common source. The Higgs field only affects certain particles.

However you wish to define how gravity attracts as either due to force or spacetime curvature is up to you. Either way gravity attracts mass in that mass moves to sources of mass. Even if the cause of gravity is due strictly to space time curvature. The mathematics still work for Newtons universal laws of gravity. For everyday applications. There is nothing wrong in calling this a force. Particularly since Newtons laws of inertia can still be applied. Your objection boils down to mere semantics. And yes I am confident of my answer. I already posted to you the ideal gas law applications including the acceleration equation in the FLRW metric. You once stated you have a copy of Barbers Rydens "Introductory to Cosmology". Please review the section. "Learn to love Lambda"

Sorry I didn't answer your math question. I was busy and when I saw it figured you would have googled a math review. Anyways that being said this last post you still seem to be having some trouble in how expansion works. Take the average energy/mass density of the cosmological constant (negative vaccuum.) The average energy density is 6.7*10^-10 joules/m^3. It's extremely weak. So weak that locally gravity and gravitational bound objects can easily overcome the cosmological constant. Where the cosmological constant has the most influence is where there is a significant void between large scale structures. So yes both effects can be present in the exact same region, it's just the weaker influence is overpowered. Here is a useful analogy. Take a rock and suspend it. The Earths gravity attracts the rock yet the strong force binding the rock is stronger. So the rock maintains its shape. Increase the gravity (say a BH) the rock undergoes spagetification. Gravity vs the cosmological constant is the same scenario.

Possibly, like I stated there is still studies underway. As to feasability. That too is a yes. NASA has already been exploring this option. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjABahUKEwjukeDdz9vGAhWLOT4KHcpsAPg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fntrs.nasa.gov%2Farchive%2Fnasa%2Fcasi.ntrs.nasa.gov%2F20080036588.pdf&rct=j&q=nasa%20wireless%20power%20transmission&ei=xYalVa6bMovz-AHK2YHADw&usg=AFQjCNHdEETW3wGazwsevEaMQlGqXMZTCg&sig2=bC7iK4T20ozPMLL79ylL5g

Here Is some possible side effects currently under research. http://www.nature.com/news/electronics-noise-disorients-migratory-birds-1.15176 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1941976?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Is human organs the only thing at risk? The SAR values I've come across are developed for human risk. What about insects, plants and birds. I have encountered any surveys on this. Might bear looking into. The main risk is although your talking low frequency. You have a continuous stream. This alters the safe threshold limits on exposure times. When I worked radio towers, all transmitters had to be shutdown. Regardless of transmission power and frequency. The only exception was when you were aligning microwave links. (Directional) even then we made sure to be behind the transmitter. The effects of Radio wave pollution is still largely under study. We simply do not know for sure which frequencies and radiative power is considered 100% safe. As such most sites state low frequency non thermal effects are still under debate. although sunlight on Earth is on a daily schedule, this can be countered via battery storage. Far safer as your not introducing added radiwaves. Plants, insects and wildlife have already adapted to the sunlight itself.