Mordred

Sigh you don't have a homogeneous and isotropic explosion. Please define homogeneous and isotropic as your definition isn't one used in physics apparently Yeesh let's do basic vector addition. You have an observer moving with the constant vector monitoring some other observer or event and you try and claim that the second observer will get the same gamma factor when his movement is parallel to the constant vector as am observer moving in a perpendicular vector. Tell me have never looked at transverse doppler shifts ?

In those regards I even suggested a test methodology previously. One that mathematics could be applied towards.

If V is a vector how do you square root a vector ? You can square root the scalar quantity but not the direction. \[(v_x, v_y, v_z, \tau) = \dfrac{c\ \tau}{\sqrt{c^2 - v_x^2 - v_y^2 - v_z^2}}\]

Mass and energy are not equivalent. If they were equivalent m=E. Not \(E^2=(pc)^2+(m_o c^2)^2\).

You claimed a mystery involving inertia frames. There is no mystery involved the only mystery is to those that have never studied kinematics.

Well your getting closer I will give you credit for that. Your missing some key details assuming \(V_[n)\) are vector spaces. (Hint if that's the case it's a matrix). I don't know if you misses the details here. I assume your working on how to get a set of constant vectors as per the vector algebra example in that quote. Key note incorporate your constant vectors into the permutation tensor ([h_{\mu\nu}\) for the non vanishing terms due to the vectors. Good example to look at is look at the examples under gravity waves. However if the vector involves any terms directly relating to energy and momentum you also need the stress energy momentum tensor.

There is no mystery inertial frames were used as early as the 16th century under Galilean relativity. An inertial frame is simply put an observer at constant velocity. A non inertial frame is an accelerating observer. Might I recommend before making declarations with regards to physics you might consider a little research.

point taken in so far as the Schwartzchild is a static spherically symmetric mass solution lol setting static in terms of the stress tenser though may be a bit too high level for the discussion. As static also requires the metric to not depend on time and its pressure and energy/density terms must also only depend on radius using curvilinear coordinates

\[R^{\mu'}_{\phantom{\mu'}\nu'\alpha'\beta'}=\dfrac{\partial x^{\mu'}}{\partial x^\mu}\dfrac{\partial x^\nu}{\partial x^{\nu'}}\dfrac{\partial x^\alpha}{\partial x^{\alpha'}}\dfrac{\partial x^\beta}{\partial x^{\beta'}}R^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\nu\alpha\beta}\]

Lol everyone always seems to have the wrong idea of what Einstein was seeking or physicist seek in a theory of everything. The only reason we haven't got a theory of everything at this moment of research is simply renormalizing gravity above one loop integrals for divergences. The main reason we haven't got that is we have no effective cutoff for the maximum mass density to put it simply. We can already renormalize every other fields including the EM field so I don't see how anything you have stated helps in that as we already have a solid understanding of the EM field for the TOE. Same goes for the strong and weak force. Part of the problem is unless you read textbooks or good physics articles most people don't even know what the term "normalize" means let alone renormalize. Yet we see posters all the time trying to present some TOE. Granted you stated yours won't get a TOE but rather help however everything I read in this thread deals primarily with your brain conjecture and how it relates to EM based observations. So I don't see how it helps when physicists already have the EM field covered in that regard

The research done by Sir Roger Penrose applies physics and formulas in his research papers. That's a big difference from what you have presented.

As to the first do you consider a variable which is a number set of possible answers deterministic. Depending on the answer is any formula that uses a variable deterministic. The probability functions of QM uses variables just as does relativity. Subatomic particles once observed are determined for the predicted properties we look for. Pretty much every particle in physics was mathematically predicted with predicted properties that once observed matches the predictions. Just an FYI on the last part

We use the best tool for each application mostly the one that best simplifies a problem. However we can still use any of the above methods

Funny how I get the same results in any cosmology based examination I have done in 35 years regardless of whether or not I use the QM/QFT methodology or that of Relativity. These three methods work quite well in every cosmology study right up until you hit the singularity conditions. For example I can use any of the above methods to calculate the number density of any particle species at a given blackbody temperature (though you do have to calculate each particle in sequence of when they would drop out of thermal equilibrium. (Used for metalicity data for BB nucleosynthesis) I can determine the temperature history of our universe. Give you calculated rates of expansion that matches what we observe etc etc. It doesn't matter what physics problem I need to solve. I can do so with equal success regardless. The only time I can't use GR however SR still applies is the quantum regime. Simply due to the fact that gravity bring the weakest force doesn't have much influence on individual particles. However there still is influence

Has nothing with reality or philosophy of any kind. My question is strictly on the experimental basis. Your trying to state that your brain conjecture deal with specific physics related situations without using any actual physics. I'd like you to prove you have something of interest in that regard that could possibly peak the interest of a physicist like myself.

I believe you missed the point of my last reply. If processing speed of the brain or computer were an issue then how does different tests with different equipment with processors with different processing speeds all arrive at the same constancy of c as well as all the variations of Lorentz invariance tests and tests with regards to time dilation. Each test has its own processing speeds each test has different equipment. Yet they somehow arrive at the same answers.

Just pulling a link to an older thread with some articles and references to use for this thread.

Fine then explain how a previous experiment prior to any computer gave the same value for the constancy of c as that same experiment performed today using computers. You have zero mathematics to show a single error margin due to different processing speeds on any experiment if that experiment was measured with different devices with different processing speeds. You have zero data to show where the processing speed has an impact on the speed of light beyond your declaration of an impact.

Well I skimmed your entire pdf. Not a single formula to validate any claims. Sorry to inform you that is not how physics works. So if your interest is developing something useful for a physicist you might consider studying physics and applying some formulas. Also the brain has its own processing rate just like a PC. You mentioned both even went so far as to detail processing speeds inherent in a CPU etc. Yet for the brain you hint that different observers measure time differently with regards to the speed limit and time dilation but as the brain also has a fixed processing speed that makes no sense. Anyways I come to scienceforums to help others learn physics. I see nothing of interest for me in this particular thread so have fun and good luck

None of this is necessary to understand superposition so it's essentially not of any use. Let's look directly at superposition. The mathematics of QM uses probability equations as per statistical mathematics with its formulas. So those formulas include all possible outcomes. Now if you have some interaction between two particle states to entangle those particles. You have a range of possible outcomes that depend on the numerous conservation laws in particle physics. Ie conservation of charge, spin, flavor, color, momentum,lepton number, isospin etc. Taking those laws, the type of interaction and the detector setup one can determine a correlation function. Now until you measure the resulting entangled states you have the range of possible outcomes. The probability being the correlation function. However once you "observe which is a very confusing term used for measure" an entangled state the probability wavefunction collapses as you have now determined the state.

Time symmetry doesn't bend light nor does time. Time is just a property of a state/object etc that describes a rate of change. Spacetime however is a geometric mathematical process that uses the interval (ct). This gives dimensionality equivalence of length via a vector. It is the interactions of the particle fields via its energy/mass density relations that curves spacetime. For example spacetime without particles to generate a mass term has zero curvature. Gravity under GR is a pseudo-force that results from that spacetime curvature. Hope that helps

I don't know of any either and I keep track of CPT tests on a regular basis.

Relativity doesn't use probabilities in its equations. QM does that's the only difference but everyone believes that's some reality issue when it's nothing more than a different method of mathematical treatment. Nothing more, that includes superposition wavefunction collapse. A wavefunction is a mathematical object that may or may not even involve a physical measurement. Waveforms are a measurable range of values. Wavefunctions are strictly mathematical objects. One of the biggest sources of confusion is where to distinguish when a math statement describes a physical measurement or when it describes a mathematical set of some complex variable.

As one who knows all the major formulas and how they work in Cosmology, GR, QFT, QM and even string theory. After 35 years of examining every major theory. I can attest that for anyone that truly understand why and how thr theories work that are very functional for their intended purposes. Regardless of all the pop media articles and all the articles denying physics and any theory they don't like for mere philosophical reasons. 90 percent of the time it's the ones that don't understand the actual theories that create those articles claiming this or that theory doesn't work . Yes the mathematics of physics is complex. They are used to mathematically describe a huge range of observations. That's the primary reason why statistical mathematics is used by QM. Those mathematics do nothing to determine nor control realism. It's only purpose is to make predictions of cause and effect.

A little warning wiki pages can be written by anyone, sometimes professors but not always. expansion and a BB doesn't rule out the possibility of an infinite universe. Our current observations still hasn't ruled out either possibility. yes but at the same time QM has its Planck unit restrictions which is related to the BB and the resulting singularity condition. What isn't mentioned in most webpages such as wiki is that the singularity is a mathematical singularity. We do have working theories of quantum gravity for everyday observations of our universe. It is only in the extreme range where the issue comes up.