Mordred

you need to reply outside the blue box when quoting lol. I had to cut and paste your reply out of the qoute of my post. "-my model of the universe is constructable in a computer simulated world and is designed to be symetrical to the universe from beginning of the big bang to the end of the big crunch. and this counts as math because its all very logical and symetrical to the universe. which is the point and as i make this im sure ill find mathematcal equations to support my theory i just havent done this yet." Not really, I can construct a mini universe out of N-body codes or using similar relations although due to computing power the number of particles is greatly reduced. I do own an N-body code textbook. Gravitational N-Body Simulations: tools and algorithms. by Sverre J Arseth. A simple 250 particle N-body code done properly takes over 3 days to show a mere 1 million years of development, on an average desktop computer. Do you honestly think you can compete with this Virtual universe? in detail? http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10 http://www.illustris-project.org/ this took the fastest supercomputer 3 months to perform, on a desktop it would have taken roughly 2000 years. You claim to have a program that covers the entire Universes history? and yet you cannot even post a simple mathematical relation to show your model??? What do you take us for? You need the mathematics to write the program in the first place. Post the math you used. I'm not that gullible here is a simple point to point algorithm grr can't get it to latex properly equation 2.1 http://www.usm.uni-muenchen.de/people/puls/lessons/numpraktnew/nbody/nbody_manual.pdf page 8 that's just a P-P gravitational code between two particles, now repeat that for 250 particles with interactions with each other, and keep track of each location using memory stacks and indirect addressing via pointers you have a program PPFFFTTT you do.

Its just a review paper, its not introducing anything that isn't in the original peer review paper, that isn't in this paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013 or this one http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5663 besides its a NASA published paper, I'd say that gives it some credence considering all the scientists they have working for them for that matter why would NASA want to publish its test results? Ever heard of security? They wouldn't want the details published until they have a working drive edit forgot to add, NASA probably won't even tell you which scientists are working on the project, the name on that paper is probably just some NASA public relations editor. For something like this all the scientists would have to have a security clearance

no unfortunately you would need to show the math as they say. A simple verbal explanation isn't sufficient to understand what your describing. Particularly since you didn't answer the 10 questions I posted also a rotating universe is not homogeneous and isotropic

oh my, OK where do we start. LOL some of the repliers have already started. So lets start with a couple of key questions with the asumption your model is correct. 1) How do you explain the gravitational attraction between asteroids in the Oort cloud? 2) How do you explain how we do not detect increased gravity or dark energy in nuclear reactors here on Earth? 3) How do you explain a homogeneous and isotropic expansion ? according to your model any relevant math, would show that the rate of expansion due to dark energy would be stronger near the galaxy centers and radiate outward, it would follow that larger galaxies would have a stronger repellent force than smaller galaxies, in other words the rate of expansion between any 3 galaxies would depend on their overall size and number of stars in a given region. So I cannot see how you can have a cosmological constant. It would entail a cosmological variable, that depends on location. Ie localized preferred locations and direction. 4) if gravity was similar to magnetism via a polarity, why do we not detect gravitational polarity curves such as we do with magnetism? For example the radiation belt surrounding Earth due to Earths magnetism. Why isn't there similar waves around gravitational bodies? We do analyze the same spectrums used to detect the Earths magnetosphere, when we look at stars and other large bodies.( it would follow that matter would follow similar pathways in much the same way as iron filings) 5) How would stars form in the first place without gravity? According to you model gravity is due to the collapse of stars, What about when there is no stars? The strong force is extremely short range compared to gravity. 6) How would you explain the universe expanding at a time when the temperatures was far hotter than any star, how did inflation work in this circumstance? Ie hotter than when protons and neutrons could form be stable (quark/gluon plasma). 7) Can you describe you model in terms of the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics? with relevant phase transitions? 8) How would nucleosynthesis work in this model? 9) can you show the particle interactions within the precepts of your model with the relevant Lie algebra, and guage symmetries? 10) Can you describe GUT, starting from Planck time forward in the thermodynamic and quage symmetry steps? Ie when each particle species would drop out of thermal equilibrium (after all your claiming to have solved GUT. lets see the full model)

To be honest I never trust Youtube, nor any individual site that makes claims. There is no replacement to buying textbooks, and using pedagoginal peer reviewed articles from www.arxiv.org as one example. Though nothing is as good as formal education through an institution. When I first started studying cosmology I fell into the trap of looking for the easy ways to relate to cosmology. Ended up with all the wrong misconceptions as a result. Finally I broke down and started buying textbooks. My first was a lucky hit, in that it was well written in an easy to understand format. Introduction to Cosmology by Barbera Ryden http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Cosmology-Barbara-Ryden/dp/0805389121 my second was also excellent but a bit harder to at first understand Modern Cosmology 2nd edition by Scott Dodelson http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Cosmology-Scott-Dodelson/dp/0122191412 my collection has grown tremendously from there, in that I currently have 21 various textbooks, not all in Cosmology, though related. Some in QFT, particle physics,physics,QED,QCD,QM,Differential Geometry, etc Another useful avenue and one often overlooked is the read various Dissertations. Sometimes you can get lucky and get Introduction to a particular model from Arxiv.com. this one is an older textbook that Liddle has released, as its now outdated. However its still good for a starter http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde Here is a few examples http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4598 "Introduction to Loop Quantum Cosmology by Abhay Ashtekar http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields Forums are handy regardless of what method you use in learning, they help clarify, correct and teach. Keep at it, and always be aware there is lots of misleading information. However forums such as this one do help filter those out.

Warp Field Mechanics 101 Dr. Harold “Sonny” White I've uploaded a copy to my website try it there make sure you have a pdf reader http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/local--files/main/Warp%20Field%20Mechanics%20101%20Dr.%20Harold%20%E2%80%9CSonny%E2%80%9D%20White.pdf

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html there this one works

string theory by itself isn't as strong however ADS/CFT correspondance and twistor theory still have a decent following AFIAK. Both are string based models

some do, some don't The older, some involve lasers such as the Michelson Morley tests, there is a huge range of tests I added one site on an edit. http://math.ucr.edu/...xperiments.html this site has a huge list of various tests done

Here is a list http://www.quantum.physik.uni-mainz...._861(2007).pdf Length Contraction in Heavy Ion Colliders : http://home.broadpark.no/~ccsernai/Csernai-textbook.pdf Tests of General Relativity Universality of Gravitational Red Shift : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf Gravitational Potential at Short Distances : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf Tests of Lorentz Invariance : http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...005-5Color.pdf Gravitational Red Shift / Pound-Rebka : http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures...avRedshift.pdf Light Deflection within the Solar System/Shapiro Delay : [astro-ph/0302294] The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Experimental Results Lunar Laser Ranging to test Nordvedt Effect : Phys. Rev. 169, 1017 (1968): Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies. II. Theory Hafele-Keating Experiment for Time Dilation : Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains Thirring-Lense Effect : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03007.html

you might want to check out Shakarov Gravity. Sakharov's 1967 notion of ``induced gravity'' is currently enjoying a significant resurgence. The basic idea, originally presented in a very brief 3-page paper with a total of 4 formulas, is that gravity is not ``fundamental'' in the sense of particle physics. Instead it was argued that gravity (general relativity) emerges from quantum field theory in roughly the same sense that hydrodynamics or continuum elasticity theory emerges from molecular physics. In this article I will translate the key ideas into modern language, and explain the various versions of Sakharov's idea currently on the market. http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0204062 here is another related http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2012/Files/damasco.pdf While general relativity explains gravitational interactions well, it only answers the question of the nature of gravity by telling us that the geometry of space-time is gravity. Some physicists theorize that gravity is not fundamental, but emergent Coincidentally the quantum study of gravity is quantum geometrodynamics. currently reading this article, it will take me some time lol 231 pages GEOMETRODYNAMICS:SPACETIME OR SPACE http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0409123.pdf

This question has come up in another thread, rather than post again the same articles I'll add a reference. As the zero point articles are already mentioned here I'll link the later post where I posted some of the original model articles including Sydney Coleman's work in the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82331-universe-creation-theories/?p=807150

found some older articles, showing the Universe from nothing tunneling process. http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf in this paper the tunneling is done via the instanton tunneling from nothing. now as Sydney Coleman was mentioned, who also showed it was possible to have a universe start from nothing, using false vacuum by Allen Guth. Here is one of Sydney Coleman's earlier works http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/ph564/Coleman.pdf here is his biography http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/Coleman_Sidney.pdf Unfortunately I never could find his Fate of the false vacuum II. Here is a copy of one of Allen Guth's 1980 papers https://www.astro.rug.nl/~weygaert/tim1publication/cosmo2007/literature/inflationary.universe.guth.physrevd-1981.pdf This paper discusses the Hartle Hawking mechanism as well as the Wheeler Dewitt relations. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/CH-3-Documents/ch3-Stengler-on-Origin-math-model.pdf As you can see Lawrence R Krauss in not the only one to consider a universe from nothing nor even the first scientist. There are numerous forms and equations that can be used to show a universe from Nothing.

there is that possibility as well

good articles, not sure on your question however I do have two other articles you will probably be interested in. This one discusses the risks involved in the Alcubierre drive. One statement in it is the potential to radiate the system you arrive at and left. Quite the eye opener. The attached article also discusses the possibility of the alcubierre drive without exotic materials. http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5708 Metamaterial-based model of the Alcubierre warp drive.pdf

no problem, I'm still studying these myself but looks like it covers the lie algebra involved including the SO(n) groups. Its been a while lol, O(n) is a sub manifold http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~kirillov/mat552/liegroups.pdf http://www.math.toronto.edu/mein/teaching/lie.pdf Forgot to add I'm to see you enjoy the articles I regularly post. My signature has numerous articles designed to teach basic Cosmology. Took me a long time to find solid and good articles for that purpose. Without pushing any personal view points. Some textbook style articles are also on that link

both wind and solar power both have one significant problem, in that they require huge battery storage. Although technologies in such are improving both methods still have problem supplying enough electricity to meet peak hour demands. Even when both methods are used on the same grid

Actually I had the wrong supporter of the model, It was supposed to be Lawrence R Krauss, Not Leanard Susskind. Not sure why I confused the two. Anyways that correction aside, the universe from nothing model, uses quantum processes, more specifically Heisenburg's uncertainty principle, and virtual particle creation. (there is solid support of virtual particle production, as well as Heisenburg's uncertainty principle) a minimal vacuum still has energy, QM has a slightly different view of the lowest possible vacuum state. Due the the Uncertainty principle the lowest vacuum state is [latex]\frac{1}{2}hv[/latex]. This is part of the Casimiir effect. The Cassimiir effect led up to the development of the zero-energy universe model. In this model the total energy of the universe is zero. Gravity is positive energy, vacuum is negative energy. The zero energy universe and the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is the premise Lawrence R Krauss uses. He has a book on it "Universe from Nothing" Lawrence R Krauss. Scientifically speaking its mathematically plausible, however not proven or disproven. Coincidentally the Universe from nothing model is often referred to as the "The ultimate free lunch" here is some articles on the history of the zero-energy universe, the second article discusses some mathematical problems with the model. Specifically a perfect zero energy universe would lead to a perfect flat model. The model is limited to cartesian coordinates and must use pseudo tensors to describe curvature. However still feasible "Preludes to dark energy:Zero-point energy and vacuum speculations." http://arxiv.org/ftp...1/1111.4623.pdf. http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf I should note there is numerous ongoing tests of vacuum energy. The fact that energy is present in what would seemingly be a total vacuum is gaining support. However you also have to watch out for all the crackpottery in articles related to such. There is a huge number of articles of gadgets and patents of people trying to get free energy and devices that purport to such.

sounds quacky to me considering all the measurements of the CMB

Thanks for the attempt I'm more interested in the SU(10) portion, David Griffith didn't cover this group, or at least my copy didn't. No worries though. I found some material on the seesaw mechanism type I and Type II. I already have numerous Higg's articles as well as several Higg's inflationary model articles, and a couple of CERN Higg's thermodynamic papers. Just need to fit the pieces together. Along with the textbooks I do have. My problem is none of my textbooks cover S0(10) I would much rather have a textbook that does, than a scattering of potentially misleading articles

Thats a good way of putting it

hard to find peer reviewed sites for health benefits for eating meat. However here is one site that explains some of the health benefits, processed meat and processed fruits and vegetables are of course no where near as healthy as unprocessed. http://authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/ some supportive links http://www.medicaldaily.com/3-benefits-eating-meat-234798 However I should note its also not without its health risks, Red meat being higher in trans fats in processed meats this is often higher. The key is a balanced diet, you can have too much calcium, too much vitamin c, too much iron, etc. Balanced diet is the key. However every persons individual chemistry is slightly different. Thats why its important to have blood tests and find out what your system is lacking, as far as vitamins and nutrients

ah kk,

GR is general relativity Do you perchance have the paper on that study, I would be interested in studying it

Do define gravity as a force, the boson it would need is the graviton. So far we haven not detected the boson. However that does not mean it doesn't exist. We just recently detected the Higg's particles (we may have not found all the predicted Higg's particles yet). The problem is the extreme energies required. The graviton is considered to be one of the hardest to detect and it would take higher energy levels than we can currently achieve. Our understanding of gravity is far from complete in all its workings, we still do not know how to apply gravity to obtain Unification of the forces. Its hoped that quantum gravity, QFT or string theory will be able to one day integrate GR completely into the quantum. However keep in mind GR is a well tested model of gravity, much of what it says it does has yet to be disproved. a line from Introduction to particle Physics by David Griffith describes it well. "In general the heavier the particle you want to produce, the higher the energy of the collision must be" In general the lighter particles are discovered first with the heavier particles coming later..