Mordred

Radiation has an equation of state, under relativistic radiation. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) so your correct in that it does exert pressure. However it is already accounted for

Here I'd rather use this than your informatons, particularly as your not answering our specific questions I had to go elsewhere to find the answers GAUGE SYMMETRY AND GRAVITO-ELECTROMAGNETISM http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0003115

I still don't see how your handling the invariance of c within your papers. This is one of the key problems with GEM. That was why I asked about the Lorentz group

None of this answers my questions. The gauge groups I asked about are classical physics. Classical particle physics to be exact. My problem with your entire model is that your trying to show that photons and gravitons can be explained by informatons, but you do not show any detail on how informatons carry charge, spin parity etc. QFT QED, and quantum geometrodynamics already knows how to add the relativity relations to electromagnetic forces. You claim that the Heaviside Maxwell formula is the same as Your theory which doesn't cover how your theory differs from the existing theories. In point of fact it sounds like your trying to claim the works of others. I refer specifically to this statement. "These are the laws of Heaviside-Maxwell or the laws of GEM" Which is in your second link.

I will concur, I've read numerous proofs on the naked singularity issue, enough to know possible, but not highly agreed upon. Though not my specific interest. I leave that in the hands of the specialists in that arena.

Join the club, I held off replying in case someone could find a logic

My first take on the article may or may not be off, going to study it in greater detail If this is your paper can you show the orthogonal group correlations, in particular the O(3.1) orthogonal group, ( Lorentz group) I would also like to see your gauge symmetry breaking . Those details are missing in your paper, so I cannot see how your running The coupling constants. This papers purpose is to unify gravitons to photons. Gravity vs electromagnetism. I'm surprised you didn't include those details, where is your symmetry breaking? How do you correlate the Lorentz group to the Su(2)*U(1) group? The O(3.1)group is the Lorentz group. Your paper refers to relativity. So this should be detailed. (Feel free to go as technical math or other wise. I most likely can follow) ( I am probably one of the hardest to convince audiences. So I will need the full mathematics.) Key details conservation of charge, isospin and parity Feel free to include QED and quantum geometrodynamics. I studied both fields. ( keep in mind, numerous posters on this site have various levels levels of degrees. We may or may not choose to divulge our particulars) myself included

If you actually study the FLRW metrics, the Einstein field equations or even LQC. Then look at the term Homogeneous and isotropic expansion, as it is measured to apply to how large scale structures are separating with uniformity you would realize that LSS, are not being pushed. Take a uniform and even interaction every where in equal measure at every point in space. Let's use pressure. Which is force per volume aka vacuum energy density. Then apply Newtons laws of motion. Lets use any object say a galaxy, Now as that pressure is homogeneous and isotropic there is no preferred direction or location. The pressure is uniformly distributed. As this uniform distribution surrounds the galaxies, there is no net direction in the sum of forces. The galaxies can therefore gain zero momentum. This is in extremely strong agreement with observational evidence. Your electromagnetic whatever force cannot cause a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. Polarity has preferred directions. The cosmological constant (dark energy is a possibility) is a homogeneous and isotropic term, with the properties that can be described accurately as a vacuum ( pressure) influence. The only thing that changes between LSS, and galaxies is the volume between those structures. The structures do not gain any momentum or inertia. You cannot have a homogeneous and isotropic expansion using any of the 4 forces as they all have preferred directions and locations. According to the best of observable evidence, the cosmological constant (dark energy, possibly a contributor) Has a scalar uniform distribution. The four forces are vectoral

No your understanding is incorrect. Take the Earth itself for example. It's a spherical mass Is the force of gravity zero beneath the surface? Come on use some math not just descriptions. The key is NET force and vector sum. Dark matter distribution is NOT a hollow sphere its treatment is the same mathematically as the SOLID example. Yeesh The only difference is density. Do you not understand that term????: Density, every formula related to rotation curves uses this term learn it. I even gave you a galaxy modelling article. Did you bother reading it? Why do I even bother trying to teach you the real science involved I post you references supporting EVERY statement and example I provide. You still refuse to accept it. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCwQFjAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwikis.uit.tufts.edu%2Fconfluence%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F9440479%2Fchemouni_bach_GE_dec07.pdf%3Fversion%3D1&rct=j&q=singular%20isothermal%20sphere%20profile%20of%20spiral%20arms&ei=xNQDVaDFLsfwoATsxoCACQ&usg=AFQjCNGm931PDgYo5WOdtIksZVMLKqwVSQ&sig2=fa628v9sgDG0sloyufaLVg&bvm=bv.88198703,d.eXY Here is the galaxy modelling article again. Read it There is no such thing as anti gravity. Gravity affects dark matter the EXACT same as baryonic matter. It does obey the shell theorem, you don't understand how the shell theorem Is correctly applied. Reason you don't apply it correctly is your not applying the vector sums. In shell theorem when the vector sum of mass =0 is the center of mass. It's also used in barycenter orbits. and Keplers laws. (The saving grace with all the effort I put into these answers is even if you don't study the material other readers will. )

In point there is a spherical symmetric treatment of the dark matter halo. The trick is defining the radius boundary. A common methodology is to set the boundary at [latex]R_{200}[/latex] The 200 value is 200* the critical density. This is the method used in the older universal rotation curve. Ned Wright has a good coverage. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Battaner/node7.html I had almost forgotten that method as its more common to use NFW (Don't ask me why 200 was chosen, I honestly do not recall why. In regards to the question of the Op The spherical symmetric DM shell has net force zero within the shell, if and only if you have uniform density, which we don't. But even if we did the net force is only zero at the center of mass. This line is the one you overlooked on the wiki page. "A corollary is that inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero by symmetry at the centre of mass" The main difference between a solid and a gas is density in terms of gravity.so assuming a perfect ball of uniform density the net force is only zero at the center of mass, not throughout the inner sphere. Now here is the next problem, the assumption of a ball like spherical DM halo. The halo being defined by R_ 200 will be elliptical. Remember gravity affects dark matter the same as baryonic matter. Now lets look at the singular Isothermal sphere. You have a sphere defined by velocity rotation. This causes a flattening, much like an asteroid belt or the the rings of Saturn. The galaxy rotation affects the dark element in a similar manner defined by R_200. We have to set the radius boundary somewhere. This is where the formula [latex]\rho_r=\frac{\sigma^2_v}{2\pi Gr^2}[/latex] comes into play, this is part of the NFW profile. [latex]\sigma^2_v[/latex] is the velocity dispersion Note [latex]R_{200}[/latex] is also used as the radius boundary of the dark sector in the NFW profile. I would also suggest you look at how the virial theorem is involved. Read this wiki carefully. In mechanics, the virial theorem provides a general equation that relates the average over time of the total kinetic energy, [latex]\left\langle T \right\rangle[/latex], of a stable system consisting of N particles, bound by potential forces, with that of the total potential energy,[latex] \left\langle V_\text{TOT} \right\rangle[/latex], where angle brackets represent the average over time of the enclosed quantity http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virial_theorem

The detail your having trouble with is the distribution of DM is everywhere within and outside the galaxy . The difference is in the density at different locations. This is detailed in the NFW profile note the NFW uses the virial theory. Shell theory is great but it's not practical when your distribution is everywhere at varying densities

We already know it's not. Dark matter is influenced by gravity, it falls into gravity wells just as normal matter does. We account for this in the BAO (baryon accoustic oscillations) in the CMB measurements. As anisotropies form DM falls into the localized anistropies. This provides a major aid in early large scale structure formation. Around galaxies (spiral) your distribution profile is the Navarro Frank White NFW profile http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro%E2%80%93Frenk%E2%80%93White_profile

The Feynman lectures are excellent for teaching the math as well as basic physics, anyone here can help. We also have some very capable mathematicians on this site. The handy part is you can reference the page your stuck on in the lectures.

Usually at Planck Epoch 10-43 seconds forward. This is the region of our shared causality or worldline Though this can be set different ie CMB forward. CMB being an ideal reference frame in Cosmology.

No problem it's never a waste of time when someone learns. A good site that provides some textbooks to read online is http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ My signature also has numerous textbook style articles

This description is similar enough to the Eather theory, this theory has been proven wrong. Space itself has no substance, it's not in and of itself made up of particles Or some phantom medium Space is geometric volume, that volume has the particles were all familiar with residing within that volume. In terms of forces, virtual gauge bosons transfer the momentum, charge etc from one particle to the other in an exchange. Or more correctly interaction. This is true even in field theories. One thing to note QM uses a mathematical representation called phase space. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space_formulation Sometimes called the Wigner distribution functions WDF. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcds.cern.ch%2Frecord%2F709576%2Ffiles%2F0402021.pdf&rct=j&q=phase%20space%20formulation%20pdf&ei=xBgFVaX3BcKrgwT4toGICA&usg=AFQjCNGEs3lCFu3-O9xA9uSIwJEajgJiVg&sig2=3W-ujG3_AamjWAWXigBuuw This article has a good coverage. Though technical in the mathematics This article discusses several formulations used in QM, and does a quick comparison review of each "Nine formulations of quantum mechanics" http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CDYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmath.bu.edu%2Fpeople%2Fmak%2FStyer%2520Am%2520J%2520Phys%25202002.pdf&rct=j&q=phase%20space%20formulation%20pdf&ei=oR0FVeSHE8rmoATa1IKAAw&usg=AFQjCNHdWWBw7bMzkO-_n0EeW40pT0R2Jw&sig2=lANnuT-YaLUdkjUFnm79tA

As near as our ability to determine we can only go back as far as 10-43 seconds. Prior to that our known physics breaks down. Singularity condition. (Not the same as the point like BH singularity.) The actual time scale depends on the Gut model used. The most common albeit one of the first is the Georgie Glashow model based on SO(5) standard model of particles. This is the chronology wiki presents. The break down here is pretty much the same http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html Here is wikis graphical timeline. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe The above is well presented in Weinbergs "First three minutes" http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Three-Minutes-Universe/dp/0465024378 Here is a good review of GUT theories. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES it delves into a few variations including super symmetric SO(5) and SO(10) GUT.

If you can supply us with a particular field of interest to study. Let us know I have a huge database of useful training guides to help.

I posted a detailed articles in your other thread http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCwQFjAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwikis.uit.tufts.edu%2Fconfluence%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F9440479%2Fchemouni_bach_GE_dec07.pdf%3Fversion%3D1&rct=j&q=singular%20isothermal%20sphere%20profile%20of%20spiral%20arms&ei=xNQDVaDFLsfwoATsxoCACQ&usg=AFQjCNGm931PDgYo5WOdtIksZVMLKqwVSQ&sig2=fa628v9sgDG0sloyufaLVg&bvm=bv.88198703,d.eXY "Constructing basic galactic models" This should show you the complexity of the various factors. Keep in mind the title specified Basic

I really don't get you at all, I already provided all that information in 6 pages of posts. In all those posts you continously missed the terms Energy density profile. This term is where the Navarro Frank White this is the thread where we continously told you rotation curves follow density profiles. Not point mass from stars only. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87496-newton-gravity-for-spiral-galaxy/ Those energy density profiles use in part the NFW profile. The bulge itself has a different energy density profile than the disk. In some ways its the closest you get to modelling in terms of rigid body. The disk is modelled as either thin or thick disk, some of those papers in the first link uses both methods, this is done as an isotherm The halo is more uniform in distribution, the dark matter halo itself is usually considered a uniform develop and collionless. This is the specific section covered by The NFW profile that's why that link states Dark matter profile. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro%E2%80%93Frenk%E2%80%93White_profile The regions were separately modelled on this link here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem note different formula for the bulge, disk and halo. All this information was provided to you already. Jeans instability and the virial theorem correlates the interstellar medium You can honestly Google each term yourself. I'm positive that if you Google the terms and terminology in all those links, you will come across hundreds of related papers. pretty much all of them use Energy density/mass density distributions this is your mass distributions. The power law formula is an approximation of those other formulas A short hand if you prefer instead of having to continuously recalculate The separate density profiles in each region then combine them. Or go through the extensive NFW profile. You keep looking for easy answers, news flash there isn't any... We have formulas that help simplify things but how those formulas get developed involves dozens of formulas, Power law formulas are always an approximation, they are typically used to save steps. You have been provided the information, we have continously told you galaxy rotation curves are treated as a medium. The Interstellar medium, which is modelled as a Plasma/gas. Here http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CDUQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp%2F~sofue%2Fhtdocs%2F2013psss%2Fsofue2013psss.pdf&rct=j&q=galaxy%20rotation%20curve%20profiles%20pdf&ei=S8wDVb_sIsOdgwS4uIPgBw&usg=AFQjCNHOQ8f9k5pSmpGu5eSYpAQX4isv0Q&sig2=nxEIWgq67Gn664YkAVojpA&bvm=bv.88198703,d.eXY this is a 54 page article. It has the density profiles. That is the key term you kept missing, every article we posted uses that term. For a reason. This symbol is vital to understand. [latex]\rho[/latex]=energy|mass density This symbol is vital to understand. Some papers may use the below for spiral disk regions and NFW profiles http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_isothermal_sphere_profile Here is a paper that discusses Jeans,NFW,virial theorem,density wave etc http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCwQFjAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwikis.uit.tufts.edu%2Fconfluence%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F9440479%2Fchemouni_bach_GE_dec07.pdf%3Fversion%3D1&rct=j&q=singular%20isothermal%20sphere%20profile%20of%20spiral%20arms&ei=xNQDVaDFLsfwoATsxoCACQ&usg=AFQjCNGm931PDgYo5WOdtIksZVMLKqwVSQ&sig2=fa628v9sgDG0sloyufaLVg&bvm=bv.88198703,d.eXY "Constructing basic galactic models" That last article is similar to what you would find in astronomy and astrophysics textbooks on the subject

The other details you need to include is the vector aspects of spin and how spin-spin interactions interfere with one another. Yeah that formula looks easy, it's a good approximation only, the reality is far far from simple. As it's a decent aspect here is Jeans instability and Jeans mass http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability http://m.iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/507/1/226/fulltext/?providedHtml=38384.text.html

Not all particles behave the same, charged particles behave different than uncharged, DM behaves different than baryonic. Then you have collisionless vs collission hydrodynamics, relaxation times etc. Hydrodynamics is a complex field, so is thermodynamic temperature influences. These can be appropriated using the power laws.

That's why I provided the other links in your other thread. Keep in mind I'm trying to keep the explanations simple and straight forward. To account for every aspect is usually several chapters in textbooks. In " Essence of Astrophysics" they go through close to 30 related formulas. The majority players being Jeans equations, Poisson, Euler, NFW, Einstein field equations, etc, these are simplified to the power law equation I posted. I'm certainly not going to post dozens of equations and relations when I can supply you references and links that show the details.

That's not the truth, that is one of numerous models one without supporting evidence. We have zero zip evidence of a multiverse. We have zero zip evidence of a rotating universe which is one of the consequences of that model. No matter how slow a rotation you cannot maintain a homogeneous and isotropic universe. So observation evidence doesn't support the above model. This forum is specifically for mainstream questions and answers. What one would find in a textbook for example. The model you presented has been considered before it is not a unique idea. However no study has been able to support it. A universe forming from a wormhole has a preferred direction. Black holes rotate that rotation will impart its rotation upon ours. Measurements show no rotation. Poplowskii tried this model for years its still has not gained mainstream acceptance. Last I checked he is now trying an ADS/CFT approach.

Ajb's mention of fields is what I also see you explaining. Instead of interconnected, think of it as a field of baseline particles. well use the electromagnetic field as an example. Fill every point in space with photons (photon is the force carrying gauge boson. Add a particle to this field then describe the range of influence in that field. The key thing to note the forces are mediated by particle to particle interactions. Called gauge bosons, electromagnetic is photons strong force is qluons weak force is w and z bosons gravity would be gravitons but we have no proof of gravitons