Aethelwulf

No. Radius has dimensions of length, 2 is just a constant. Dividing by two on both sides is actually the same as multiplying by a half on both sides [math]\frac{1}{2} x = \frac{1}{2}(x' + t)[/math] Radius has the same dimensions as the spatial coordinate x. The only kind of coordinate based system for a metric which would use a radial coordinate that I can think of is something build from what are called Polar Coordinates. Oh, and time isn't the speed of light. Time is what we use to measure intervals. The reason why it appears in the metric is because there is a kind of length to time as there is to things moving from one point in space to another. A journey in space will always equal some kind of journey in time, unless you where a photon for example (a particle of light). A light particle according to relativity doesn't even go anywhere because it does not move through time. Of course, from our frame of reference particles of light do in fact move from A to B. There was a problem for a while, and that was understanding how a particles frame of reference could be dilated so much that it could not even experience time pass. While this provided an answer why they do not spontaneously decay in spacetime, they actually don't possess frames of reference (the inertial kind) we often speak about. (just to add) Sitting in your chair is a journey in time as well, even though you might not be moving in space.

If the Higgs Boson has been found conclusively, will you show me some conclusive evidence for this statement, otherwise, I call BS on you.

As the title says, investigators now believe that Alan Turing's death may have been accidental. Interestingly, the apple found at his bed side was never tested for Cyanide http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092

''This is where I made the mistake of x+t, I should have meant x+y = metric * time = space time coordinate tensor.'' That is still wrong. I thought you were working in natural units at first but I realize your mathematical capabilities are lacking somewhat. Consider a Galilean Transformation Property. You have an x-axis (horizontal axis) and a t-axis (a vertical axis) which acts like a map for a moving observer. Now, x=vt (this means that the position which has units of length) equals a time component multiplied by a velocity. If we use your example, you had x+t which would have been right for natural units - in the natural unit system, we set the velocity to 1 and assume the velocity beforehand has the value of the speed of light ''c''. This means it would ''vanish'' from the equation. A similar transformation property would be [math]x = x'+ct[/math] where c=v for light, and now setting c=1 then we have [math]x = x'+t[/math] Which is something akin to your expression.

Yes that's the one... my I couldn't remember... If I said anything, I probably would have hit out with Cambridge lol

The future of ketchup lovers will not need to worry about this problem, because only a few months back scientists at a university (my memory cannot remember which) designed a bottle which was coated with a special lubricant which will help tomato ketchup flow easily from the bottle.

Well yes, I was thinking in natural units.

I appreciate you have taken time into this. However, I still see a complication. let us assume that the christoffel symbol used does indeed have dimensions of acceleration, that means in your force equation, you have an extra factor of velocity squared to account for. Take into consideration your equation [math]f^k = m\Gamma^{k}_{\alpha \beta} v^{\alpha}v^{\beta}[/math] So if the connection was dimensionless, you would have the problem I showed before. If it has dimensions of acceleration, then what you'd have is force = mass * acceleration * velocity squared

That's simply not true, he defended his theory to his death. In fact, Hoyle continued to point out flaws with the BB, even though most cosmologists had abandoned the Steady State theory, and as this link shows you, he never gave that up. http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/extsteadystate.htm

Well, I think its safe to say the origins of pyramidal structures went even before the ancient Egyptian culture. Arguably, they could have mastered the technique of pyramidal building before their empire had even formed. Secondly, it was not unheard of for pharaoh's to see their predocessors as sacred... nor is it unheard of that certain pharaoh's ignored ''old ways of things'' and tried to out do them.

I just typed out a whole load there to find out the system glitched. And my work no longer exists. Short version: No you can't talk about time before the big bang. In fact you can even talk about relativistic time during the first instances of the universe since there was no geometry involved ie. All objects in the universe diverged from a single point (without dimensions). So time as we usually see it, cannot be viewed in it geometrical form at the very beginning. This can only happen when geometrogenesis occurs. (I don't understand some of what you are saying, so I will skip to Hoyle part) As far as we know it, the Steady State theory has been overthrown by the back ground radiation ---- However, the back ground radiation may have a different explanation, such as being the limiting temperature of stars, which is entirely feasible. Was it Eddington who calculated this? My memory is a bit hazy.

If the results where conclusive,we would not be sitting here debating this. It would have been on the screens of news reports and I wouldn't have created this thread. No doubt, the information gathered will have to pass a great many minds before anything conclusive is brought forward.

A statement can sometimes be destroyed by an ugly fact --- I don't know what you did wrong, but not the end of the world.

I'm just saying we don't know enough to make any ''assertions''. They may have started off very grand, then over a few hundred years piped down on their size and quality to reserve the heritage of their ancestors... then later a more frivolous and egotistic pharaoh came along and decided to out do them, making the later, |but yonger models| look primitive.

Maybe you can clear the dimensions problem up for me as well. I think you may have a made a mistake. I think you defined velocity squared as (m/s)^2 but that's acceleration I thought. If it was acceleration, that would make sense, since kg*m/s^2 = force. But your equation doesn't use acceleration, it has a velocity squared term in it.

Oh I know, I was just stating the question I asked because of the 4-acceleration. I was aware your equation was using a 3-acceleration (which is why I asked the question about whether it had dimensions of acceleration). I think the reason I called it field momentum is because that is what I have written down as. Just having a look at wiki, it describes a type of field momentum ''Electric and magnetic fields possess momentum regardless of whether they are static or they change in time.... The definition of canonical momentum corresponding to the momentum operator of quantum mechanics when it interacts with the electromagnetic field is, using the principle of least coupling P=mv + qA'' Where the q we can assume is playing the charge e. Howsoever, it does say right below it ''Non standard terminology is sometimes used for these momenta:[18] P for canonical momentum, Π = mv for kinetic momentum, and q A for potential momentum'' Of course, this is not where I learned to begin saying it was a ''field momentum''. No doubt this was a terminology my lecturer used for pi. But there is some clarification needed with the wiki article as well, since it defines a field momentum then described non-standard terminology... (as for the dimensions thingy) I was wondering whether the christoffel symbol in this case was dimensionless, you have to be careful as well because some of them aren't. Yes, that would be right, but velocity squared doesn't have dimensions of (m/s)^2, that's acceleration. So maybe its just me, but if you christoffel symbol is dimensionless, then in your equation what you have is really mass x velocity squared, which is an energy. Unless I have messed up somewhere.

Well I said what I said because of the four acceleration [math]a^x = \frac{du^x}{d\tau} = \Gamma^x_{ij} v^i v^j[/math]

No actually we don't. If we are basing this on Egyptian culture, we have only seen a small percentage of all the pyramids. I showed you this. How can you base an ''earlier'' picture on an incomplete set of information?

That helps a lot pmb, thank you. I had just never seen it before. I actually wondered if the derivation had anything to do with momentum over time. Your link is clearing it up for me. Just to let you know then, it must be wrong in your paper... around eq 15 I think. I copied it exactly I believe, except for changing ij = alpha beta.

I loved this part.

I've not read anything here in detail, but you find such things from a metric. An affine length plus a time coordinate.

We actually don't know if they started off small and shoddy. State of the art technology using infra red has mapped out an entire civilization of Egypt - over 90% more than what we realized to be there in the first place and tens of tens of more pyramids have been discovered lurking under the hot sands of the desert. No doubt they have found more: http://earthsky.org/human-world/egyptologists-discover-17-new-pyramids http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13522957

I might from time to time use partial derivatives instead of full derivatives when I shouldn't. It's a nasty habit I need to snap out of. ''The same link that you give states clearly that the relativistic generalization of the Newtonian law [math]\mathbf{f} = m \mathbf{a}[/math] is'' To be honest I wasn't working from any link. I found that link on the spur of the moment because someone asked what dP/dt was. I actually found a different link where it is customary to link hookes law with the definition of the second law http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5299

If F=-kx and F=dp/dt then I am actually quantizing both. But, I concentrated on the time dependant part as well, sothe -kx is completely lost at the end anyway. Oh that's nice, I knew this could be done linking the left relativistic force of Newton for the Hookes law ''The pair comes from taking Hooke's law to be the force appearing on the right of the relativistic expressions: dp/dt or dp/dtau'' http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5299

Yes it would replace it, since the word ''dark'' is to refer to not knowing what the stuff is. If we knew what it was, then there would be no need not to call the matter by its first name.