Mordred

I would like to touch a bit on this using Maxwell equations but also Lorentz force law divergence and curl of the Electrostatic field Gauss Law \[\nabla \cdot=\frac{1}{\epsilon_0}\rho\] \[\nabla \times E=0\] magnetostatic Field Amperes law \[\nabla\cdot B=0\] \[\nabla \times B=\mu_0 J\] Lorenz force law with Maxwell for the presence of both the E and B field (Maxwell equations fundamentally is another way of stating Biot-Savart Law (with superposition) just a side note. \[F=Q(E+v\times B)\]. so the electric field diverges away from a positive charge, (Gauss law) the magnetic field curls around a current (Amperes law). Electric fields originate form a positive charge and terminate on a negative charge. Magnetic lines do not begin or end anywhere and form closed loops as they have zero divergence. (though divergence can be forced). There is no point source for B ( not unless they ever discover magnetic monopoles lol). Now something interesting to note the magnetic field specifies an electric current.( A permanent magnet induces an electric current). So with the 90 degree phase shift between E and B using the right hand rule for Lorentz force law. The following statement applies. The magnetic field does no work.... so take for example a magnetic crane the work isn't performed by the magnetic field but rather the electric field as well as the cranes mechanical energy. This is something that isn't well known among laypersons unless they studied introductory electrodynamics and the Maxwell equations. Hence why I decided to mention it here as its related. The above is better detailed in Griffiths "Introductory to Electrodynamics". I've found his simplified approach useful as a reference in many of his books.

No problem, it all depends on how detailed or how far you choose to pursue the concept. One thing to consider however is that in order to look at stress and stain aspects. You require the force/work terms as well. For example far too often I've seen perpetual energy articles discussing some popularized perpetual device use nothing more than first order equations. However when the same setup gets examined using second order relations by others that the energy loss is found exceed the output power. As Swansont mentioned in physics one cannot arbitrarily choose to ignore this interaction (in this case different forces) or that but should take everything in consideration. Stress tensors are particularly useful in that as all forces are applied with a means of keeping track via the tensors regardless of angles. Not saying perpetual energy is involved here however the above is also useful for efficiency calculations.

We cross posted see my last post

Look at your own image is not the rotor plate larger than the magnets and the placement off center ? Now am I correct those magnets will be shifting inward and outward ? So as it shifts outwards as opposed to inwards you will get variations

Really explain how it's going to be distributed uniformly across the plate if the surface area of the plate is greater than the magnet. Go ahead give it your best shot. I honestly don't know why you can't determine your PE relations in regards to applied force I shouldn't have to explain something already shown via Hookes law you won't need the spring constant per se but the elastic and gravitational potential energy is applicable. Every detail I have provided including the stress tensors are applicable. Regardless of your opinion. I take it you never lifted a sheet of plate steel using a magnet and seen the outer edges flex downward due to gravity ?

Ok so your lifting the plate in say the center so the only upward force is at the center but you have a downward force uniform throughout the plate. Obviously there will be differences of the sum of forces from the edges and the center. Potential energy is energy due to location so obviously there will be differences as there is differences in the sum of forces at different points on the plate. Put simply which leads to non uniform strain.

What I stated still applies if the sheet will move without deformation it's still detailed under the Cauchy stress tensor. As far as the RH rule apply it separately to the E field and B field. The results may surprise you. The B field is perpendicular to the E field.

Yes the RH rule is precisely what applies but so does the stress/ strain relations I mentioned. Hence referring you to continuum mechanics. Your sheet will not have uniform strain as it's mounted on one side so to get an accurate calculation will involve more than Hookes law.

There is no dodge, I provided three related formulas that are easily looked up. Hookes law, the Em stress tensor, and the Cauchy stress tensor. The EM stress tensor will involve the cross and dot products mentioned by Swansont via the Maxwell equations. Maybe our mistake is assuming your aware the magnetic field has a 90 degree polarity shift from the electric field. Perhaps that will help understand the cross product terms Swansont mentioned. The best way to understand what Swansont has here is to look at the Maxwell equations. An introductory electrodynamics textbook will cover this. By the way it's also a common exam question As to what performs the work. The magnet or the E field.

Just a side note the better literature covering the Cauchy stress tensor is any decent textbook on continuum mechanics particularly for Engineers. However you would need decent math skills as well as a decent understanding on classical physics. (No need for any quantum physics or relativity) to get through said textbook.

Stress and strain Both involve energy. If the sheet is attracted to the magnet that induces both. Of course that also involves Newtons laws of inertia. You have an equal and opposite force as well to consider. Hookes law would be applicable here the law isn't restricted to springs. As long as the sheet returns to its original shape regardless of how miniscule the change in shape it's considered an elastic condition. For the EM side of it however the EM field has a stress energy momentum tensor that would apply. Particularly as Hookes law is only a first order approximation. Using the tensor will get your second order. For the mechanical side the Cauchy stress tensor would apply. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_stress_tensor

Nothing the JWST has shown implies that main stream physics has failed. Quite frankly if you study any of its findings through the peer reviewed literature and not pop media coverage. You would understand pop media coverage is literally garbage. Lol pop media stated the same thing with the first Planck results. Thar turned out to be calibration errors for dipole anistropy resulting from the velocity relations to the CMB background. So far, from what I see the only request is to show how one can make testable predictions. That is a very essential aspect of any physics related theory. Without that any theory is literally useless. That is a simple fact. If that cannot be achieved there isn't really any purpose to publishing. Anyone can pay to publish that doesn't mean anything. Even a peer review published article can be incorrect. Peer review simply means the article is on topic with no legal violations and some possibility of viability. That doesn't mean it's correct or would even be used in the Professional circles. I certainly know I couldn't use anything you have thus far for my research and I am a professional Cosmologist. I'm also not the only professional physicist involved in this thread. Just a little side note. No forum ever changes science. The purpose of a forum is to learn the science and in your case the needed steps for proper model building.

Confucius says, "It is only when a mosquito lands on your balls, that there is a way to solve problems without violence"

Quite easily done but that's off topic in this thread. If you really want to understand Cosmology I will be more than glad to help but in a more suitable thread. However put simply our Observable universe will always be finite and we do not know beyond our Observable portion. It is equally possible being finite or infinite. The current datasets both are possible.

How are you possibly disturbing and scientist here ???. Every scientist is well aware of the speed limit of information exchange or that it takes time for our brains to process information. It's absolutely nothing new.

Well I for one wish your time was better spent learning formal physics. Your claim of being like string theory though not doesn't even come close to the mark. String theory isn't my strongest suit but I am familiar with it to understand that should I choose to use it's formulas. I could make the same testable predictions involving particle properties as I can in QFT. Nothing was random in string string theory. Knowing it's rules one could determine a particles properties such as spin, charge, mass etc. You could take its formulas and directly plot a given string by all the rules of calculus of variations. I simply do not see anything in your post that allows me to make any testable predictions. In essence everything you have a physicist could not make use of. The very purpose of physics is to make testable predictions of cause and effect. For example the vast majority of particles in the standard model were predicted prior to any detection. One of the more famous examples was the Higgs boson. It's properties were well estimated via mathematics prior to its discovery. Your welcome to demonstrate via mathematics how your hypothesis can make testable predictions but I don't see it

The other fields have different coupling constants. They don't apply the index of refraction as per the EM field. Though all fields are still subjective to spacetime curvature that's a different devil. As well as the speed limit.

No idea, particularly since any unification would require mathematics. Considering our Quantum theories of gravity do work for everyday scenarios. They diverge only in the extreme UV scale. Trying to solve the problem without math is literally pointless. ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculation please review our rules and guidelines in the pinned threads above.

There isn't anything in that paper that presents any challenge to main stream understanding of DM or DE which are quite different from another. Gravity waves do not work the way you describe for starters. They do not not cause any attraction toward the galactic centers where the SMBH's you mention are located. Gravity waves are not continous attractor once they pass the original spacetime geometry is restored. I would strongly suggest you study the NFW profile, it will show that the galaxy rotation curves we see require a uniform mass distribution surrounding the galaxy. Any central mass being greater than the spiral arm mass distribution simply leads to Kepler rotation curves. Doesn't matter if it's the galactic bulge itself or due to SMBH's. Secondly we measure indirectly the presence of dark matter via gravitational lenses occurring in regions where no baryonic matter exists. By the way welcome to the forum just a forewarning the first day your limited to 5 posts after that you can post as often as you want. (Anti-spam measure). I have no idea why your confusing flat spacetime with the plane orientation of spiral arms. Flat spacetime doesn't mean flat like a sheet of paper. It means Euclidean 3 dimensional geometry that preserves pythagorus theorem. So I fail to see how using Boyer Linquist coordinates helps your case. Spiral arms are best described using the density wave theorem as the rings of Saturn albeit there are a few differences such as how it leads to different mass distributions with regards to metalicity distribution in regards to star formation. As that formula is the basis of your paper and you don't even show mathematically how it can get a non Kepler curve. Let alone dark energy which is a scalar field I would say you on the wrong track.

All the above can be found in Quantum field theory Demystified by David McMahon. Though its also found in any decent introductory textbook. David's book is done in a manner to keep QFT as straight forward as possible which is why I chose his format here. However there is a problem with the above. If you run the positive and negative frequency parts over all of momentum space you will end up with infinite energy levels. So one must apply constraints via renormalization to prevent that. Furthermore one can correlate this for the effective equations of state for the FLRW metric by examining how it relates via the Two statistics I mentioned (Bose-Einstein, Fermi-Dirac). The FLRW metric isn't particularly useful to describe the quantum regime hence QFT supplies those details.

I realize that you likely aren't familiar with the QFT treatment of the harmonic oscillator but the treatment has a elegance about it that shouldn't be ignored so I am going to demonstrate. first QFT uses creation ad annihilation operators. It also employs the Hamilton as the energy of a simple harmonic oscillator in this case \[\hat{H}=\hbar\omega(\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}+\frac{1}{2})\] now as this involves both matter and antimatter it is a complex field with both positive and negative frequency modes each in essence two overlapping fields each with a number density. Key note in QFT position and momentum are operators and its solutions are canonical just mention that for completeness. the creation and annihilation operators for the harmonic oscillator can be rewritten as \[\hat{a}=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{x}}(\hat{x}+\frac{i}{m\omega}\hat{p})\] \[\hat{a}^\dagger=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{x}}(\hat{x}-\frac{i}{m\omega}\hat{p})\] the number operator becomes \[\hat{N}=\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}\] giving us a simplified Hamilton \[\hat{H}=\omega(\hat({N}+\frac{1}{2}\] with eigenstates of the Hamilton being \[\hat{H}|n\rangle=\omega(n+\frac{1}{2}|n\rangle\] where \(|n\rangle\) is the number states for the number operator \[[\hat{N},\hat{a}]=-\hat{a}\] and \[[\hat{N},\hat{a}^\dagger]=\hat{a}^\dagger\] the annihilation operator drops \(|n\rangle\) by 1 and the creation operator increase \(|n\rangle\) by one. \[\hat{a}|n\rangle=\sqrt{n}|n-1\rangle\] \[\hat{a}^\dagger|n\rangle=\sqrt{n+1}|n+1\rangle\] with ground state \(\hat{a}|0\rangle=0\) now the interesting thing about the ground state is that it has no particles but the field is still there. (a field is a mathematical construct) so don't confuse it with any realism arguments please. As its rather lengthy to go over how the wave vector k is derived I will skip that for now in particular detailing the Fourier transforms involved. However we can step up from the vacuum to a wave vector state with the following \[|\vec{K}|\rangle=\hat{a}^\dagger\vec{k}|0\rangle\] for a single particle state we can expand this to multiple particle states for example \[|\vec{k_1},\vec{k_2}....\\vec{k_n}\rangle=\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_1}),\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_2})....\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_n})|0\rangle\] where \(\omega_i=\sqrt{\vec{k}_i^2+m^2}\) the RHS this is just the invariant QFT derivative of\( E^2=(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2\) using the Klein Gordon equations with the four momentum/four velocity. From this we see a creation operator with \(\hbar\hat{a}^\dagger(k_i)\) and energy \(\hbar\hat{a}^\dagger\omega\) for clarity. we further need the negative and positive frequency parts. (now that we have wave vectors with our invariant energy momentum relations) given as \[\varphi^+(x)=\int{\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\sqrt{\omega(k)}}\hat{a}(\vec{k})e^{-i(\omega_kx^0-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x})}\] \[\varphi^-(x)=\int{\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\sqrt{\omega(k)}}\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k})e^{-i(\omega_kx^0-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x})}\] since \(\hat{a}(\vec{k})|0\rangle=0\) the positive frequency part is composed of the negative frequency parts while the creation operators comprise the negative frequency parts. now here is the elegance, I have just modelled the zero point energy field with the harmonic oscillator that I can further calculate the particle number densities as well as provided the mathematics for each states wavevectors. One can then take this and using the QFT version of the Bose-Einstein statistics and fermi-Dirac statistics apply the above to obtain number density of any particle particle species knowing the black body temperature. Further more all the above is invariant and under the Hamilton. This simply demonstrates a far better tool to model a universe from Nothing as I also correlated the momentum space via \(d^3(k_i)\) so already am in a field treatment and as were applying the four momentum and four velocity have Lorentz invariance.

There is one major fundamental question that universe from nothing models based on zero point energy cannot answer. Zero point energy uses the quantum harmonic oscillator. We all agree on this. However in order to have a harmonic oscillator one requires a particle field to oscillate. It would be impractical to apply virtual particles as the initial temperature is to extreme. All particles have sufficient kinetic energy terms that they are all in thermal equilibrium and relativistic. Energy as previously mentioned is a property so doesn't exist on its own. So using the zero point energy the best one can do with it is describe conditions at the moment of BB. I should note zero energy universe models suffer the same problem.

Agreed I still recall all the heated arguments in regards to the Higgs field back in the 80's. It's amazing how far and mainstream research has developed since it's discovery.

There is so many mistakes in everything you have posted that everything you have in this thread is literally useless. Obviously your not heeding anyone's advise so have fun with that. I prefer dealing with those that wish to learn so I'm out. Good luck

When you try to describe physics in a non mainstream manner that is the equivalent of reinventing physics. In the last example above gravity waves do not behave in the manner you described and neither does its related mathematics You tried redescribing time with your math and ended up with incorrect equations that don't match observational evidence. Relativity is one of the most rigorously tested theories in physics with precision in all its predictions. Instead of trying to develop your own mathematics and conjecture. You would be far better off learning the mainstream physics and formulas instead of trying to invent your own. GR is such a successful theory that it predicted the possibility of gravity waves Long before ever measuring one. The mathematics was so convincing that governments invested millions of dollars on huge gravity wave detectors (LIGO) with only the possibility of detection. They also knew it was limited in the gravity wave frequencies but it's polarity isn't dipolar as the EM field but quardupolar. That required a different design of detector. The L shape of LIGO. Once again predicted by its mathematics. We have measured time dilation countless times far to many to name all the tests and every time the mathematics of SR/GR give the correct answers to match what is observed. So I seriously ask you with all GR's incredible successes. Why wouldn't someone take the time to understand it and its mathematics to understand why it's so incredibly accurate instead of trying to come up with their ideas. An expression you may be familiar with " If it isn't broke, don't fix it". Another expression that applies. " You can't fix something if you don't understand how it was built." For example think about the fundamental purpose of gravity theories. It is to explain why objects move in spacetime the way they do. That is one the primary reasons velocity is used in its equations. It is also why using the Interval for time is convenient as we can now apply vectors in the same manner as the motion of particles. Every formula in physics always derives from other well established formulas. They form the basis of their mathematical proofs. In GR all the main formulas has Newtons laws of inertia as part of their mathematical proof. Including \(E^2=(pc^2)+(m_o c^2)^2\). This is why it's so incredibly successful. It derived from known physics primarily kinematics. So instead of trying fix something that works incredibly well. Your time would be far better spent learning how and why it's so successful. As a side note in order to ever get a paper peer reviewed approved. You would need to prove you understand and can use those mainstream formulas that apply to any new theory. So if you ever want a good working theory you will need a good working knowledge of the mainstream physics. Its not guess work or sudden Eureka moments its painstaking work starting with known formulas. Let's take another GR equation proper time \[\Delta \tau =\int \sqrt{1- \frac{1}{c^2} \left ( \left (\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^2+ \left(\frac{dy}{dt}\right)^2+ \left (\frac{dz}{dt}\right)^2\right )}dt\] one wouldn't think Newtons laws of inertia is involved in the above unless one studies the kinematics of the four momentum, four velocity. Every equation applies other known equations.....