Mordred

A relative value isn't absolute. By absolute do you mean invariant?

No problem +1 for asking such a little known question.

This has been measured, the universe on large scales is magnetically neutral

Yes, though it's been years since I last heard those terms used. Newton's third law is also known as the weak law of action and reaction. It states that for every action force, there is a corresponding reaction force which is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/WeakLawofActionandReaction.html For every action force, there is a corresponding reaction force which is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Furthermore, the forces are central forces, i.e., they act along the line joining the particles http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/StrongLawofActionandReaction.html. Weak law is linear momentum Strong law is angular momentum. the difference is shown here. https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Advanced_Classical_Mechanics/Many-Particle_Systems The strong law involves the central force. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_force Here is a decent coverage on both. http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:PHYS350/Many-Particle_Systems

I'll look at this later on in greater detail one thing I spotted on the last image glueballs are still hypothetical. Also you might want to goto arxiv and look at papers in regards to asymptotic freedom in QCD chromodynamics. In regards to number of gluons. In particular work by Frank Wilcez. Asymptotic freedom to radius relations different for the electromagnetic and chromodynamic. You have a lot of ground to cover. I recommend starting with Maxwell's equations and run a comparison data set. Focus on the electromagnetic aspects first. Classical to Qm then to QED.

First letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_isothermal_sphere_profile

False

Isothermal sphere- distribution of matter around galaxies.

Well thank you for your honesty. From what you described its primarily dealing with electromagnetic and gravity. (It's definetely not the first attempt, neither is trying to explain gravity via the strong force) So we can ignore for now color and flavor charge. However not totally. The reason not totally is all three except gravity are part of the electroweak symmetry. However you already have your work cut out for you. The way you described your KEM field may never gain acceptance. It's a considerable hurtle.( You already recognize several of the key reasons, as well as admit to them) How does KEM work with neutrinos, they don't interact via the electromagnetic force yet do with gravity? Then there is also the first generation to third generation particles. Does KEM define the sequence of decays ?

Here we go again. You really need to stop and actually study and perform the math. You keep stating things as being wrong when you make countless errors in why you believe them to be wrong. The fact is you cannot perform the majority of the mathematics involved in Cosmology and astronomy applications. So how can you possibly argue with professionals. Instead you base your understanding on your own fallacies and personal logic. Now as to the motion of stars have you ever heard of Keplarian decline? Probably not if you believe stars should orbit the galaxy at the outer edge as fast as stars in the galactic halo. The velocity of stars farther away from the center of mass (bulge should decline as the influence of gravity declines at a rate of 1/r^2. The velocity to radius relation of a solar system follows the following formula. This is based on the patent star being the Center of gravity. Such as our solar system. [latex]v = \sqrt{\frac{G M}{R}}[/latex] However this doesn't quite work for a galaxy. Instead we have to look at the distribution of mass as a function of radius. [latex]v = \sqrt{\frac{G M r}{R}}[/latex]. The mass distribution on spiral galaxies is [latex]M_{R} = \int_0^R \rho_{r} 2 \pi r h * dr[/latex] Now based on this stars moving faster than the escape velocity at a certain distance from the galactic bulge should literally leave the galaxy. That doesn't happen. Even using GR the result should be the same. So don't bother arguing about space time distortions stating different. If a body is in a stable orbit its velocity equals its escape velocity. This is true in Both Newtons laws and GR. Based on the escape velocity to stable orbit relationship and the FACT that the influencal strength of gravity decreases as a function of radius from the source. Stable orbit stars should be slower the farther you get from the the galactic bulge. The second formula accounts for added contributors to mass as you increase the radius. However based solely on baryonic matter distributions the Rotation curve should still follow Keplarian decline. However if you account for dark matter distribution by including the Navarro Frenk White profile and baryonic matter. Then and only then does the second formula show the correct measured rotation curve. The third formula wouldn't work as it's specific to a specific shape of mass distribution. That being a disk distribution. You would need the derivitave for an isothermal sphere. ) halo distribution. This is the Navarro Frenk white distribution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro-Frenk-White_profile The isothermal sphere formula is [latex] \rho_r=\frac{\sigma_v^2}{2\pi Gr^2}[/latex] [latex]\sigma_v^2[/latex] is the velocity dispersion. Didn't we cover this? I recall a certain discussion on redshift and the Sache Wolfe effect. I already explained this to you I don't understand you at all. In previous posts you specifically mentioned Hawking radiation, also the inflaton. Are you not aware that Hawking radiation is a virtual particle specifically virtual photons. Why would you accept that but not virtual gluon? Its precisely the same process just a different quage boson. All gauge bosons can be real or virtual. The difference is in the energy wave functions. All particles have point like and wavelike characteristics. I did mention this before. QM studies these wave functions in extreme detail. Google wave-particle duality and the two slit experiment. Here are other examples. Bernstein radiation, Casimiir effect, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Unruh_effect http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html (Awarded a Nobel prize) guess he must be wrong. Hawking radiation. (Also awarded a Nobel prize.) In regards to Gluons you might want to look up asymptotic freedom. (Also applies to gauge photons QED.) " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_freedom " understood qualitatively as coming from the action of the field on virtual particles carrying the relevant charge. The Landau pole behavior of quantum electrodynamics" QCD gluons is covered on the same page. (3 different people were awarded the Nobel prize for their separate research and contributions.) Are they wrong too? A gluon cannot cause any measurable space time distortion its mass is far too small. I also went through considerable time and effort showing you that spacetime is not A mysterious MATERIAL. Yes I'm shouting. In sheer frustration that you aren't grasping the energy density to pressure relations to the spacetime metric defined by the EFE. Now here is a neat discovery. According to the asymptotic freedom link above. The strong force between two quarks Increases and not decreases as the distance between them increases. Doesn't work with your theory above.

no property of a particle exists on its own. Color, charge and flavor are also exchanged via gauge bosons. there is two main categories of evidence. Direct evidence and indirect evidence. Both DM and DE, fall into the latter category for different reasons. They may not have direct evidence, but both have TONS of indirect evidence. You really must consider what steps it takes to convince the majority of the professional scientific community of the existance of something never before detected. Believe me professional scientists required CONSIDERABLE evidence to finally br accepted. Rotation curves require the velocity of stars and plasma. The velocity of the outer stars is precisely the problem. Don't you think Scientists haven't tried that? Of course they did. It didn't solve the problem. Neither did modifying the graviational constant. Aka MOND. Modified Newtonian gravity. goto YouTube watch a cloud chamber video, you can watch the trails of particles appear then dissapear. that is not what "off shell" means. How many times do I have to mention the conservation of energy momentum laws to you. You cannot create particles without first having sufficient energy from the original particles. How many processes can you name in the universe today has sufficient energy of 173 GeV ? Nuclear reactors don't even reach this energy scale, neither does fusion on stars. In the Early universe definitely.

The answer to this that you provided. Doesn't sit well with me. "From what I understand the answer is yes. But in the case of a KEM field or a standing wave of Matter it is restrained from just propagating outward toward infinity by the way that it joins together in the KEM field. You can see in a detailed picture of a KEM field ( I cannot put one up another one now because the website only allows me so many picture uploads or posts within a given time frame ), that a KEM field is made up of positive and negative quanta " Sounds like your describing the KEM as its own particle. A field isn't energy exclusively, it is a distribution of particles at every point in space. In detail its more a baseline establishment. For example an electromagnetic field consists of virtual gauge photons at every point. A vector or scalar field established the background momentum. In order to have a KEM field you would need a carrier particle. It's also must be a boson. Energy even as a field doesn't exist on its own. It's a property of particles or objects. If the KEM is a particle with quanta of energy it must be measurable and have some property that is measurable to distinquish it from any other standard model particles. In this case What property separates it from the photon field used in Quantum electrodynamics? How does it decay into other particles etc...

Ok thus far I must admit this is of a higher quality than most posts in speculations. (You have also asked for assistance in filling in the lack of math with is good) Thus far you've covered the electromagnetic charge relations. I noticed he has the correct normalization spin rotations. ie spin 1/2 requiring a 720 degree rotation. Does it work for color and flavor charge? On the aspects covered so far you have aspects of U(1) and several aspects in SO(3). Without necessarily being exact matches. I mention those two groups and energy-momentum relations are covered in the latter group. Magnetic charge in the first group. Now we need to see if there is correlations to the SU(2) group and SU(3) group. Thus far what I can tell is what he's done is develop a visual tool on the standard model. In so far as I haven't spotted any contrary claims of any of the standard models being in error. Though on relativity is his correlations based on Gauss Bonnett gravity? You had mentioned Gauss Bonnett theory in one of your posts.

It's not a peer reviewed paper. Either that or you misread the tevetron paper. You don't form 173 GeV particles without significantly increasing the energy levels of the particle being smashed. Here is the Tevetron peer review paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2460 Here is the details on the Tevetron itself. As you can see it accelerates protons. Up to 98O GeV resulting in collisions of 1.98 TeV https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tevatron The rest mass of the proton is roughly 938 MeV. Remember that energy momentum formula I posted earlier in this thread? [latex]e^2=(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2[/latex]

You asked what the strong force is. The answer to that question is above. The gluon doesn't define the strong force. The gluon is the exchange particle between two or more quarks. In point of detail its a field of gluons not necessarily an individual gluon. mediate in this application means exchange of energy, charge or color etc between two quarks. One quark emits say it's color property the gluon carries that color charge to the next quark. The same thing happens to to the energy for the strong force. This isn't the reason for dark matter or for that matter dark energy. Those weren't added to our models on a whim but based on observation evidence. Based on matter distribution of visible matter (baryonic) galaxies should rotate slower the farther you get from the center. They didn't. It took over 60 years of alternate model fighting to try to explain this without dark matter. I recall some of the elaberate arguments as I was a member of another forum before dark matter was finally accepted. The fact is only the existsnce of mass/ matter in a halo distribution enveloping galaxies could explain the rotation curve. Then on top of this observations spotted gravitational lensing where there shouldn't be any. There was no nearby baryonic matter of sufficient densities. We can measure and detect baryonic matter quite easily. We can even give estimated values of how much in a given region and type. Dark energy aka the Cosmological constant is needed to explain expansion in particular the accelerating rate of expansion. Based on baryonic matter and dark matter distributions our universe shouldn't be expanding as fast as it is. The late time integrated Sachs Wolfe effect is used to measure the density of the cosmological constant as the universe evolves after the CMB. Now as to how to go from the beginning of the universe to the particles we know? Well you have to understand how virtual particles work. Particles can pop in and out of existance all the time and at any time in particular virtual particles. You have quasi particles. These are used to describe particle like interactions. One example is your inflaton. Quasi particles usually only describe a specific particle property. In the case of the inflaton that is energy. However this isn't a real particle. It's more of a placeholder till the real cause or particle responsible is determined. However virtual particles are different than quasi particles in that they act like specific particles. However they are what's called "off shell" basically means not quite a real particle. One reason is they lack the energy to form a real particle this leads them to decay quicker than the real particle. Particles form in matter/antimatter pairs due to the conservation of charge, color and energy laws. To fully understand that would take more than I can post. As far as gluons forming top quarks 75% of the time. Well quite frankly you can't trust that pop media article you posted that in. We can't accelerate qluons in any LHC for one. Secondly there are no unbound quarks in the universe today. They are bound in protons, neutrons etc. The LHC accelerate magnetically charged particles. The gluon doesn't interact via the electromagnetic field. What we do is accelerate protons. The protons gain inertial mass, this results in highly energetic gluons within the proton along with highly energetic quarks that make up the proton. This reaction is then possible 75% of the time. This does not mean this occurs 75% of the time in ordinary conditions. One should never trust pop media style articles. They always tend to mislead or misinform.

It is a measure of the interaction between two or more quarks . Yes the gluon mediates the interaction. However that's due to energy not existing on its own. All forms of energy is a property of either a particle or object.

Why would that make any difference??. All forces are a result of some form of interaction. Regardless, how they relate to changes in motion remains the same. I fail to see your objection. All forces is a descriptive of how a interacts with b. It is not something that exists without a and b. Regardless of what a and b represents. In other words its a defined unit of measure. One with a magnitude and direction,

Oh it's possible but you wouldn't understand the equations. Not how the units themselves are defined. Why do you think the Feyman textbook is organized in the sequence its written in? Do you believe the author isn't aware that GR involves space time curvature as opposed to force? When you study a textbook you start at chapter 1 not skip to the portion that agrees with you. Here look at the description on this page in regards to force in GR. " By the early 20th century, Einstein developed a theory of relativity that correctly predicted the action of forces on objects with increasing momenta near the speed of light, and also provided insight into the forces produced by gravitation and inertia." Then look at the definition of force on the same page. "In physics, a force is any interaction that tends to change the motion of an object.[1] 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. " Then read the section including the formulas under Special relativity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force Your fighting a battle based upon personal feelings instead of actual knowledge. The term force can be used anywhere there is any form of interaction that influences motion.

That's the gist of the problem. You won't accept any as you put it older and far simpler concepts. Instead you want to comprehend complex partial differential geometry equations. When you don't even understand the basic terminology. Quite frankly that's impossible.

The other difficulty will come in Cartesian to Polar coordinate transformations. Needed for SR and GR. Tell you what prove you understand basic physics and terminology first. Otherwise no explanation I can offer will make any sense. Considering I posted the Einstein field equations stress energy tensor for Cartesian coordinates to Polar coordinate transformation in the stress energy tensor. ( Which defines how space time curves) several pages ago. You didn't understand it then, still doubtful your any closer to understanding it The issue your missing is you need a clear understanding of Basic physics before handling the complexities in GR and SR. If you don't know the difference between velocity and acceleration and how mass is defined in its relationship to inertia. How do you expect to understand GR? Newtonian physics teaches those relations. ( it would be like building an automobile with just a hammer)

I'm not going to bother trying to type my answers to suit your viewpoint on what you think is involved. Both GR and Newtonian physics use the term mass. When you study Newtonian based models you use force. This helps to understand the formulas involved. Perhaps if you had done this in the first place. You would have had a better comprehensive understanding of basic physics. Use the terminology of the model under study. I have enough difficulty getting you to understand basic physics math relations. Your math skills is not near enough to sit down and explain how geodesics cause acceleration change without applying a force. Quite frankly we've just scratched the surface on the field of kinematics. In point of detail we've only covered the basic terminology involved. Of which you still need to improve your understanding of including units, unit conversions, and vector calculus. Without these firmly in place you won't understand a single geodesic formula. For example inertia as opposed to moment of inertia. On basic vector addition. I have 20 Newton of force in direction 90 degrees and 120 Newtons of force in direction 180 degrees. What is the sum of force (net force) and direction ?

Well we still have the same problem. All measurements of quanta are observer dependant. A good example is redshift. Measurements of energy is also observer dependant. A quanta is a measure of energy. Bosons are defined as integer spin particles. It's spin doesn't depend on how much energy the particle has but on its spin statistics (angular momentum). None of the formulas in those images are involved in spin statistic. They lack the details on rotations and boosts to do so. Bosons have rotations that commute Fermions have rotations that anticommute. Or in other words fermions, have antisymmetric multiparticle wavefunctions, bosons have symmetric wave functions. This has nothing to do with the statement bosons has an odd number of quanta. This statement reads as garbage to me. Spin statistics involves specific wavefunctions. The two slit experiment on photons is a good way to learn how spin is determined. A particles spin is an intrinsic property of the particle it neither increases nor decreases in levels of energy. So once again we hit the barrier of lack of mathematics. None of the images include rotations and boosts in particular to wave function symmetry, antisymmetry Yet he's making claims to explain how bosons and fermions work with his model.???? Where is his j rotations? He doesn't show any details in regards to the Poincare group. Which is involved in spin statistics. Not does he have any correlation to the Pauli exclusion principle.

Bh space time curvature is an extreme case. Were dealing with far reduced gravitational bodies. Remember the strength of gravity from any object falls off at a rate of 2/r^2. [latex]f=\frac{GM_1m_2}{R^2}[/latex] The other detail you missed is in the case of the Earth or galaxies the gravitational strength curve is different. Let's use the Earth. Remember the Earth is made up of particles, each particle with its own point mass. Also remember the term net sum of vector forces. I hope you know how to add and subtract vectors? http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-1/Vector-Addition Now as you go from the surface inside the Earth to its center the net sum force of gravity decreases. Not increases. This is because there is now mass on both sides of you. Mass ahead and mass behind. This also occurs in the galaxy as you approach it's center of gravity the force of gravity acting at each point decreases in terms of net sum of gravitational force. Mass ahead and mass behind. In the case of a BH, your always outside the shell as all its mass is at the singularity.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=16&ved=0CDYQFjAFOApqFQoTCJ_GjL-848YCFQSKDQod3PcGnA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saddleback.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fbhubbard%2Fdocuments%2FSHELLTHEOREMPROOF1_000.pdf&rct=j&q=shell%20theorem&ei=V6SpVd--CoSUNtzvm-AJ&usg=AFQjCNEdTSOlRrQpfMyVdnkyOeTtahSKMA&sig2=z93zf7__9bC8TxZw3s_mIg Think of shell theorem as not just one shell but a series of shells. Like layers of an onion. At each layer you apply the net force. At the center the force from each point on the shell pointing toward the center cancel each vector out. Remember the vector direction of force in the shell theorem always points towards the center of mass. So say you have x force due to mass pointing to the COM at 90 degrees and the same amount of force going 270 degrees. The net sum is zero. In the case of a galaxy you don't just calculate the outer shell but every shell as a net sum of force as you approach the center. So imagine your flying a ship towards the center. At every point during your flight the net sum of force varies. Once the ship reaches the center of mass of a perfectly spherical galaxy the net sum of forces from all directions equals zero.

The images do have some similarities to the baryon octect, meson nonet, baryon decoupled. Here look at the image for SU(4) last page this article. http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/np3/lect-quarks.pdf The problem is these representations show how particles decay into other particles. Does not include Lorentz transformations. This is what the tetyonic images remind me of which makes me wonder if he simply pieced the conservation rules ( in their representations together ) without bothering to deal with the math or understanding what those images actually cover and describe. The conservation rules being ,color,flavor,parity,isospin,charge, energy momentum, etc. These being inclusive in the eightfold way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) None of the above include relativity. Which brings back the question of how does he claim to use 3d to describe a 4d coordinate system? Sounds to me more claim than possible with what the images could possibly cover. (Particularly since the word tetryon is a subspace particle from star trek.)