MJ kihara

It boosted the understanding. No, since that observer would be in motion relative to both. A velocity discerned from the graph would be of the asteroid relative to the sun. Let's simplify it,the observer is having a telescope, a watch, a pen and a piece of paper,he is doing the plot...the arguments was that the sun position is fixed...it's clear at a given length/distance the asteroid will be using less time(from observer watch) to cover it as it approaches the sun( towards the minor axis).

....In Quantum Field Theory (QFT), as discussed by Steven Weinberg [19], the vacuum energy density arises from summing the zero-point energies of quantum fields, including massless bosons like photons and gravitons. It is calculated as: ρ QFT vac c2 = (2π1ℏ)3 Z 0PPl d3p ℏω p 2 , (17) where PPl = EPl/c is the Planck momentum, and ωp = c|⃗p| for massless particles. Integrating up to the Planck scale yields: ρ QFT vac c2 ≈ E 4 Pl ( ℏc )3 ≈ 1076 GeV4/(ℏc)3 Page 18 of the author article....they are considering all fields,and his cut off is planck scale, meaning that it's taking care of volume smaller than the on considered by SU(3) symmetry unit. Your approach and this one which one is more advantageous?

Of course velocity from viewer standing on earth surface. The asteroid has already factored that by being in that orbit, therefore,the orbit becomes a geodesic. An observer on earth surface will note increase in speed towards minor axis.

No that is not his description; There is a time when the asteroid is on major axis,and as it free fall on the minor axis. The Opening statement is about depiction of geodesic/ orbit. I now see we are talking past each other My intention is that the graph should also fact in the velocity of the asteroid.

It used to be a graph depicting; an orbit....a path. ...a wavy line... a geodesic...it's becoming something else,after the above modifications... of course both sun and asteroid are free falling in space...let the background be fixed.

Parallel to the time axis? It's becoming a confused diagram...just put a zigzag😟

Which constraint?

Assuming mass(sun) is a point or a spot,where do you indicate it in the above diagram ?

Pause a little bit what are you deriving at ? In relation to cosmological constant.

I think specifically it for a circle... avoiding definition complications.

I don't think so...the asteroid is orbiting sun elliptically...that's for a circular orbit.

...and since the wavy line is the orbit and the orbit is the path tracing the asteroid as it free fall,then wavy line is the geodesic... You wavy line is not for an elliptical orbit?

Assuming we have an asteroid having an elliptical orbit around the sun..can this orbit/ geodesic be illustrated as a wavy line extending from the larger mass(sun)?

I have not seen such issues in this thread.People throw such ideas in a thread to try discredit important issues under discussion...it's a common trick.

How many different ways can someone illustrate geodesics. Can a wavy line be used to illustrate a geodesic?

Ads/CFT correspondence-wikipedia article. .....It also provides a powerful toolkit for studying strongly coupled quantum field theories.[2] Much of the usefulness of the duality results from the fact that it is a strong–weak duality: when the fields of the quantum field theory are strongly interacting, the ones in the gravitational theory are weakly interacting.... I like wikipedia because it's easily accessible to the public domain. I haven't seen anyone in the thread claiming that. Are you scared by one two three 123 in 10^123.

Am not getting it when did the clue given? SU(3) gauge symmetry is related to strong force....I talked about strong- weak duality. Are you agreeing with this definition.

That's not the way to look at....you should in a manner,the volume coming out of a blackhole...remember in holography volume is an illusion...

Am all a where of that....the universe is well evolving towards that...am trying to be careful however,I think we can get something out of that...or maybe learn more...

What am learning from you is that to get a solution of anything it's so difficult and requires complexity of mathematics beyond comprehension....what am asking myself is that,if there was such an attitude 120 years ago I doubt if the theories such as GR could have been accepted were it not for experimental support they got...almost majority of solutions are approximation. Am trying to think from a holographic perspective if there is an experiment that can be designed factoring in Bose Einstein condensate to look at 1/100^123 validity.

Back to square 1.

Surely...I asked you if the formulas employed by the author were wrong you never replied to that...the author is using physics mathematics,I don't understand which other way should someone reason to get a solution....?(I myself questioned the use of the term SU(3) atom given I had a diagram related to that, I was told to throw it down the sink..it's resisting the sink....am getting to know the jargon...who knows next round it's mathematics...)...what is correct is correct no matter the different language verbal or mathematic that one uses to give the solution.

I don't usually get along with mob justice.....there are no 100^123 atoms!😂

You are giving an answer and yet you can't see it from the explanations...soo weird.

Strong-weak duality.....strong force-gravitation... arbitrary chosen not because it gives desired answer but it's because it's the right parameter to choose and it gives the correct answer..otherwise from the duality which other parameter can you choose?