Speculation arising from the Paradoxical Nature of Black Holes

[Mordred]

It's not a peer reviewed paper. Either that or you misread the tevetron paper. You don't form 173 GeV particles without significantly increasing the energy levels of the particle being smashed.

Here is the Tevetron peer review paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2460

Here is the details on the Tevetron itself. As you can see it accelerates protons. Up to 98O GeV resulting in collisions of 1.98 TeV

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tevatron

The rest mass of the proton is roughly 938 MeV.

Remember that energy momentum formula I posted earlier in this thread?

 

[latex]e^2=(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2[/latex]

Edited July 19, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Thank you for your answer and explications two posts back; Mordred. I really appreciate it.

 

 

 

In point of detail its a field of gluons not necessarily an individual gluon.

Which is normal since a gluon is a boson. So a "field" of gluons is defined. This is even better and is an important fact that had escape me. It's in this field that the quarks will "appear".

 

 

 

mediate in this application means exchange of energy, charge or color etc between two quarks.

 

Ok; and since energy doesn't exist on its own, charge or color etc. are what exist on their own and are change between two quarks, So there's no sense in thinking that massless particles appeared in the universe before mass particles?

 

 

 

One quark emits say it's color property the gluon carries that color charge to the next quark. The same thing happens to to the energy for the strong force.

 

And this is the way physicist see the interactions. Color properties exist as "color properties" and energy doesn't exist on its own?

 

 

 

This isn't the reason for dark matter or for that matter dark energy. Those weren't added to our models on a whim but based on observation evidence.

 

"Evidence" here is a big big word; because nobody never observed dark matter or dark energy. I would agree to "where deduced out of necessity and where applied to some observations adaptable.

 

 

 

Based on matter distribution of visible matter (baryonic) galaxies should rotate slower the farther you get from the center. They didn't. It took over 60 years of alternate model fighting to try to explain this without dark matter.

 

In fact, nobody cared about this problem before 1998 when was discovered acceleration of the universe and the CMB of COBE or WMAP. But you don't explain the fact that a lot of stars, orbiting in a very large corridor around the galaxy have the same speed?

 

 

 

The fact is only the existsnce of mass/ matter in a halo distribution enveloping galaxies could explain the rotation curve.

 

Maybe the curve but not the speed I was talking about, just now.

 

 

 

Then on top of this observations spotted gravitational lensing where there shouldn't be any.

 

That can be easily explained another way by having a geodesic deforming space-time, without matter which is not what deforms space-time.

 

 

 

Now as to how to go from the beginning of the universe to the particles we know? Well you have to understand how virtual particles work.

 

Don't worry I do.

 

 

 

Particles can pop in and out of existance all the time and at any time in particular virtual particles.

 

I hope you understand why and don't see that as "magic". So I'd like to read the official explanation for that "magic".

 

 

 

You have quasi particles. These are used to describe particle like interactions.

 

And let's add that interactions are exchanges of a quantum of energy between particles. So those quasi particles represent quanta of energy.

 

 

 

One example is your inflaton. Quasi particles usually only describe a specific particle property. In the case of the inflaton that is energy.

 

First, it's not mine; it's Hawking's. And since energy doesn't exist on its own, so does Hawking's inflaton.

 

 

 

However this isn't a real particle. It's more of a placeholder till the real cause or particle responsible is determined.

 

Since the need is a massless particle that will manifest "motion energy" to support the expansion of the universe at the Big bang, I already made my choice with the left handed neutrino. So I won't have to "invent" anymore particles. I'm kind of "lazy" on the subject.

 

 

 

However virtual particles are different than quasi particles in that they act like specific particles.

We sure agree on that. Quasi particles are something that "holds the fort" until we find what it is, while virtual particles are two dimensional particles that appear and disappear because they rotate. When they gain a volume they become specific particles.

 

 

 

However they are what's called "off shell" basically means not quite a real particle.

I agree since "off shell" means "no volume".

 

 

 

One reason is they lack the energy to form a real particle this leads them to decay quicker than the real particle.

Normal since they don't have volume to contain energy. But the decay into what?

 

 

 

Particles form in matter/antimatter pairs due to the conservation of charge, color and energy laws.

 

They use to form even before the definition of those laws, anyway.

 

 

 

To fully understand that would take more than I can post.

 

Don't worry; I am informed of the process.

 

 

 

As far as gluons forming top quarks 75% of the time. Well quite frankly you can't trust that pop media article you posted that in. We can't accelerate qluons in any LHC for one.

 

Bof! You can't accelerate Higgs boson either; so there's no problem there.

 

 

 

This reaction is then possible 75% of the time.

 

And because of a law in Quantum dynamics, "If something is possible, you can bet your hat it's going to happen".

 

 

 

One should never trust pop media style articles. They always tend to mislead or misinform.

 

I extend that precaution to everybody I exchange with. I feel lucky being able to exchange with you and appreciate it. Thanks.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Strange]

"Evidence" here is a big big word; because nobody never observed dark matter or dark energy. I would agree to "where deduced out of necessity and where applied to some observations adaptable.

 

We have observed their effects. That is true for all types of matter and energy.

 

In fact, nobody cared about this problem before 1998 when was discovered acceleration of the universe and the CMB of COBE or WMAP.

 

What has that to do with dark matter?

 

But you don't explain the fact that a lot of stars, orbiting in a very large corridor around the galaxy have the same speed?

 

The presence of extra mass that we cannot see explains that.

 

Maybe the curve but not the speed I was talking about, just now.

 

The rotation curve is a reference to speed.

 

That can be easily explained another way by having a geodesic deforming space-time, without matter which is not what deforms space-time.

 

So you are suggesting an alternative source of space-time curvature that isn't mass? What is it then?

 

I agree since "off shell" means "no volume".

 

No it doesn't. (All fundamental articles are treated as if they are point particles; i.e. "no volume").

 

virtual particles are termed off shell (mass-shell in this case) because they don't satisfy the Einstein energy-momentum relationship; real exchange particles do satisfy this relation and are termed on shell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_shell_and_off_shell

[Mordred]

 

Ok; and since energy doesn't exist on its own, charge or color etc. are what exist on their own and are change between two quarks,

no property of a particle exists on its own. Color, charge and flavor are also exchanged via gauge bosons.

 

 

"Evidence" here is a big big word; because nobody never observed dark matter or dark energy. I would agree to "where deduced out of necessity and where applied to some observations adaptable.

 

 

there is two main categories of evidence. Direct evidence and indirect evidence. Both DM and DE, fall into the latter category for different reasons. They may not have direct evidence, but both have TONS of indirect evidence.

 

You really must consider what steps it takes to convince the majority of the professional scientific community of the existance of something never before detected. Believe me professional scientists required CONSIDERABLE evidence to finally br accepted.

 

Maybe the curve but not the speed I was talking about,

Rotation curves require the velocity of stars and plasma. The velocity of the outer stars is precisely the problem.

 

That can be easily explained another way by having a geodesic deforming space-time, without matter which is not what deforms space-time.

 

Don't you think Scientists haven't tried that? Of course they did. It didn't solve the problem. Neither did modifying the graviational constant. Aka MOND. Modified Newtonian gravity.

 

 

I hope you understand why and don't see that as "magic". So I'd like to read the official explanation for that "magic".

 

goto YouTube watch a cloud chamber video, you can watch the trails of particles appear then dissapear.

 

 

I agree since "off shell" means "no volume".

 

that is not what "off shell" means.

 

 

Bof! You can't accelerate Higgs boson either; so there's no problem there.

 

How many times do I have to mention the conservation of energy momentum laws to you. You cannot create particles without first having sufficient energy from the original particles.

 

How many processes can you name in the universe today has sufficient energy of 173 GeV ? Nuclear reactors don't even reach this energy scale, neither does fusion on stars.

In the Early universe definitely.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

there is two main categories of evidence. Direct evidence and indirect evidence. Both DM and DE, fall into the latter category for different reasons. They may not have direct evidence, but both have TONS of indirect evidence.

 

2 tons of indirect evidence doesn't equal one direct evidence. So we should specify the kind of evidence regarding DM and DE; I think.

 

 

 

Believe me professional scientists required CONSIDERABLE evidence to finally br accepted.

I believe you; but believe me it doesn't seem so.

 

 

 

The velocity of the outer stars is precisely the problem.

 

They have the same velocity as a lot of stars before them toward the center of the galaxy. That's my point.

 

 

 

Don't you think Scientists haven't tried that? Of course they did. It didn't solve the problem. Neither did modifying the graviational constant. Aka MOND. Modified Newtonian gravity.

 

They didn't have to try anything; just make a relation with the appearance of fundamental particles that imprinted their topology on space-time "fabric". Expansion of the universe did the rest after the particles decayed.

 

 

 

goto YouTube watch a cloud chamber video, you can watch the trails of particles appear then dissapear.

 

Seeing that won't explain that it's not "magic"; my friend. I'm not saying it doesn't exist,

 

 

 

that is not what "off shell" means

Maybe not but being two-dimensional particles makes them "not quite a real particle".

 

 

 

How many times do I have to mention the conservation of energy momentum laws to you. You cannot create particles without first having sufficient energy from the original particles.

 

You're the one who told me:

 

"We can't accelerate qluons in any LHC for one".

@ Strange

 

 

 

The presence of extra mass that we cannot see explains that.

 

No it doesn't

 

 

 

The rotation curve is a reference to speed.

Regardless of tne radius?

 

 

 

So you are suggesting an alternative source of space-time curvature that isn't mass? What is it then?

 

Topology (or geodesic whatever).

 

 

 

virtual particles are termed off shell (mass-shell in this case) because they don't satisfy the Einstein energy-momentum relationship; real exchange particles do satisfy this relation and are termed on shell

 

Thanks for the definition. (But you should have mentioned the mass involvement. A two-dimensional paticle can't have mass).

Edited July 19, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Strange]

2 tons of indirect evidence doesn't equal one direct evidence. So we should specify the kind of evidence regarding DM and DE; I think.

 

People are very clear about the (kind of) evidence for dark matter.

 

This is, of course, nothing particularly novel. We have been on the same situation many times in the past: aware of "something" causing an effect but not knowing what that thing is. Neptune and neutrinos are probably the canonical examples. Not surprisingly, the time taken to do the direct detection is increasing over time - we have already found the "low hanging fruit": if dark matter was easy to detect we would already know what it was.

 

They have the same velocity as a lot of stars before them toward the center of the galaxy. That's my point.

 

And the easiest explanation for that is the existence of extra mass that we cannot see. Nicely, the distribution of that extra mass required matches what is expected of matter that only interacts gravitationally. And the amount of that extra mass is consistent with the various other indirect measurements.

 

They didn't have to try anything; just make a relation with the appearance of fundamental particles that imprinted their topology on space-time "fabric". Expansion of the universe did the rest.

 

Can you show us the maths for your model and how it produces the observed rotation velocities?

 

Seeing that won't explain that it's not "magic"; my friend. I'm not saying it doesn't exist,

 

And your evidence for that claim is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

 

No it doesn't

 

Show us where the maths is wrong, please.

 

Regardless of tne radius?

 

Huh? Of course not. It is the unexpected relationship between radius and velocity that is one of the many lines of evidence for dark matter.

 

Topology (or geodesic whatever).

 

Can you show us the maths for your model and how it produces the observed rotation velocities?

 

Thanks for the definition. (But you should have mentioned the mass involvement. A two-dimensional paticle can't have mass.

 

Where does it say it they are two dimensional?

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

Where does it say it they are two dimensional?

I wrote it a little bit higher.

 

 

 

Can you show us the maths for your model and how it produces the observed rotation velocities?

Forget the velocity; dark matter doesn't solve the problem of the corridor where stars have all the same speed. What is left is only the deviation of light where it shouldn't deviate. I'm saying that a simple impression in the fabric of the universe would deviate light.

 

 

 

Huh? Of course not. It is the unexpected relationship between radius and velocity that is one of the many lines of evidence for dark matter.

 

You don't get it do you? Your dark matter explains the velocity of the farthest stars; I agree with that; what it doesn't explain is the velocity of all those stars preceding the farthest ones that have the same velocity. So dark matter doesn't solve anything.

 

 

 

And your evidence for that claim is?

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

 

 

People are very clear about the (kind of) evidence for dark matter.

 

Are they? Did you know that dark matter has to be "cold" and has to be "dissipationless" and no particles can answer to those obligations. Which is not the case of my suggestion since it's just an imprint in the fabric of the universe. It's as cold as the space-time and do not dissipate.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Strange]

I wrote it a little bit higher.

 

If it is your idea, then we can safely ignore it.

 

Forget the velocity; dark matter doesn't solve the problem of the corridor where stars have all the same speed.

 

Forget the velocity but look at the speed? What are you talking about?

 

Anyway, please present a mathematical proof that extra mass can not produce the observed speeds. Otherwise we can dismiss this as another empty claim.

 

What is left is only the deviation of light where it shouldn't deviate. I'm saying that a simple impression in the fabric of the universe would deviate light.

 

Please provide some objective evidence that this "simple impression in the fabric of the universe" exists. Please tell us what the cause of it is. And please provide a mathematical proof that this can produce the observed speeds.

 

You don't get it do you? Your dark matter explains the velocity of the farthest stars; I agree with that; what it doesn't explain is the velocity of all those stars preceding the farthest ones that have the same velocity. So dark matter doesn't solve anything.

 

The whole point is that dark matter explains the velocities of all the stars (and dust) through the galaxy. If you disagree, please stop shouting and provide a mathematical proof that dark matter cannot reproduce the observed velocities.

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

You claim certain well-established quantum effects don't exist. Please provide some support for this claim. Calling it "magic" does not count as scientific evidence.

 

Did you know that dark matter has to be "cold" and has to be "dissipationless" and no particles can answer to those obligations.

 

Of course. No particles that are known to exist currently meet those requirements (otherwise we would know what dark matter was). (Neutrinos satisfy the second requirement but have too little mass for the former.) A number of hypothetical particles meet the requirements. Which is why there are a number of research projects to look for direct evidence of those particles.

 

Which is not the case of my suggestion since it's just an imprint in the fabric of the universe. It's as cold as the space-time and do not dissipate.

 

Please provide some objective evidence that this "imprint in the fabric of the universe" exists. Please tell us what the cause of it is. And please provide a mathematical proof that this can produce the observed speeds.

 

Your unsupported claims are getting really old.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Strange

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

If it is your idea, then we can safely ignore it.

With this kind of attitude, I would ignore your posts.

 

 

 

Forget the velocity but look at the speed? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about gravity that decreases with the square of the distance which you say justify the speed of those stars.

 

 

 

Please provide some objective evidence that this "simple impression in the fabric of the universe" exists.

 

The proof? Light is deviated where there's not matter to deform space-time. That's the same proof you have for dark matter.

 

 

 

If you disagree, please stop shouting

I never shout and I wasn't shouting. Don't start that kind of exchange please. You should know that shouting is when you use capital letters.

 

 

 

You claim certain well-established quantum effects don't exist. Please provide some support for this claim. Calling it "magic" does not count as scientific evidence.

So is making appear a force ou of nowhere. Tell me where the strong nuclear comes from and then the magic spell will disappear.

 

 

 

No particles that are known to exist currently meet those requirements

So you're ready to "imagine" an unknown particle "out of the blues" again. That's what I call "magic".

 

 

 

Please provide some objective evidence that this "imprint in the fabric of the universe" exists. Please tell us what the cause of it is.

The gluon, instead of mediating the magical strong nuclear force as a topology (geodesic) that sends energy to a definite "center" point inside its "action field" of 10^-35 meter which is the size of a nucleus. When the gluon decays, its topology stays imprinted in space-time "fabric". Expansion express itself on that 10^-35 meter so that volume encircle all space-time where matter is located. Because decaying of quark particles always happened inside that volume of space-time. You now have the cause, the reason and the effect.

 

 

 

And please provide a mathematical proof that this can produce the observed speeds.

I already told you that it doesn't affect any speed; and gravitation neither as a matter of fact. Gravitation is a consequence of a deformation of the geometry of space-time. It doesn't do anything; it only has /effects".The speed of those stars are their "proper" speed; and they are "stuck" inside a deformation from where they can't escape because they don't have the "escape velocity" necessary (this is a fact). So this shows that our way of calculating the mass energy of a galaxy is not right. The stars orbiting around a center of galaxy doesn't add mass energy to the galaxy. As for an example, just think at what makes a star collapse into a neutron star. It's certainlay not the planets orbiting around it.

 

 

 

Your unsupported claims are getting really old.

Well then I'll oblige you and never talk to you about it anymore.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

Here we go again. You really need to stop and actually study and perform the math. You keep stating things as being wrong when you make countless errors in why you believe them to be wrong. The fact is you cannot perform the majority of the mathematics involved in Cosmology and astronomy applications.

 

So how can you possibly argue with professionals. Instead you base your understanding on your own fallacies and personal logic.

 

Now as to the motion of stars have you ever heard of Keplarian decline?

Probably not if you believe stars should orbit the galaxy at the outer edge as fast as stars in the galactic halo. The velocity of stars farther away from the center of mass (bulge should decline as the influence of gravity declines at a rate of 1/r^2.

 

The velocity to radius relation of a solar system follows the following formula. This is based on the patent star being the Center of gravity. Such as our solar system.

 

[latex]v = \sqrt{\frac{G M}{R}}[/latex]

 

However this doesn't quite work for a galaxy. Instead we have to look at the distribution of mass as a function of radius.

 

[latex]v = \sqrt{\frac{G M r}{R}}[/latex].

 

The mass distribution on spiral galaxies is

 

[latex]M_{R} = \int_0^R \rho_{r} 2 \pi r h * dr[/latex]

 

Now based on this stars moving faster than the escape velocity at a certain distance from the galactic bulge should literally leave the galaxy.

 

That doesn't happen. Even using GR the result should be the same. So don't bother arguing about space time distortions stating different.

 

If a body is in a stable orbit its velocity equals its escape velocity.

 

This is true in Both Newtons laws and GR.

 

Based on the escape velocity to stable orbit relationship and the FACT that the influencal strength of gravity decreases as a function of radius from the source. Stable orbit stars should be slower the farther you get from the the galactic bulge.

 

The second formula accounts for added contributors to mass as you increase the radius. However based solely on baryonic matter distributions the Rotation curve should still follow Keplarian decline.

 

However if you account for dark matter distribution by including the Navarro Frenk White profile and baryonic matter.

 

Then and only then does the second formula show the correct measured rotation curve.

The third formula wouldn't work as it's specific to a specific shape of mass distribution. That being a disk distribution.

 

You would need the derivitave for an isothermal sphere. ) halo distribution.

 

This is the Navarro Frenk white distribution.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro-Frenk-White_profile

 

The isothermal sphere formula is

 

[latex] \rho_r=\frac{\sigma_v^2}{2\pi Gr^2}[/latex]

 

[latex]\sigma_v^2[/latex] is the velocity dispersion.

The proof? Light is deviated where there's not matter to deform space-time. That's the same proof you have for dark matter.

 

Didn't we cover this? I recall a certain discussion on redshift and the Sache Wolfe effect.

 

 

So is making appear a force ou of nowhere. Tell me where the strong nuclear comes from and then the magic spell will disappear.

 

I already explained this to you

So you're ready to "imagine" an unknown particle "out of the blues" again. That's what I call "magic".

 

I don't understand you at all. In previous posts you specifically mentioned Hawking radiation, also the inflaton.

Are you not aware that Hawking radiation is a virtual particle specifically virtual photons.

Why would you accept that but not virtual gluon? Its precisely the same process just a different quage boson.

 

All gauge bosons can be real or virtual. The difference is in the energy wave functions. All particles have point like and wavelike characteristics. I did mention this before. QM studies these wave functions in extreme detail. Google wave-particle duality and the two slit experiment.

 

Here are other examples.

 

Bernstein radiation,

Casimiir effect,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect

 

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Unruh_effect

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html

(Awarded a Nobel prize) guess he must be wrong.

Hawking radiation. (Also awarded a Nobel prize.)

In regards to Gluons you might want to look up asymptotic freedom. (Also applies to gauge photons QED.)

 

"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_freedom

 

 

" understood qualitatively as coming from the action of the field on virtual particles carrying the relevant charge. The Landau pole behavior of quantum electrodynamics"

 

QCD gluons is covered on the same page.

 

(3 different people were awarded the Nobel prize for their separate research and contributions.)

 

Are they wrong too?

 

 

 

The gluon, instead of mediating the magical strong nuclear force as a topology (geodesic) that sends energy to a definite "center" point inside its "action field" of 10^-35 meter which is the size of a nucleus. When the gluon decays, its topology stays imprinted in space-time "fabric". Expansion express itself on that 10^-35 meter so that volume encircle all space-time where matter is located. Because decaying of quark particles always happened inside that volume of space-time. You now have the cause, the reason and the effect.

 

A gluon cannot cause any measurable space time distortion its mass is far too small. I also went through considerable time and effort showing you that spacetime is not A mysterious MATERIAL. Yes I'm shouting. In sheer frustration that you aren't grasping the energy density to pressure relations to the spacetime metric defined by the EFE.

 

Now here is a neat discovery. According to the asymptotic freedom link above. The strong force between two quarks Increases and not decreases as the distance between them increases.

 

Doesn't work with your theory above.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Mordred

[Strange]

I'm talking about gravity that decreases with the square of the distance which you say justify the speed of those stars.

 

Please show some evidence that gravity does not follow a square law.

 

If you want to use the speeds of stars in galaxies as evidence for this, please show this mathematically.

 

 

So you're ready to "imagine" an unknown particle "out of the blues" again. That's what I call "magic".

 

This is not magic; this is the normal process for physics. This is how all particles were discovered. Dirac proposed the positron on purely theoretical grounds; later it was detected. The neutrino was hypothesized because its effects were seen; later it was detected. Higgs described the Higgs boson decades before it was detected. And so so and on. There is no magic here.

 

The gluon, instead of mediating the magical strong nuclear force as a topology (geodesic) that sends energy to a definite "center" point inside its "action field" of 10^-35 meter which is the size of a nucleus. When the gluon decays, its topology stays imprinted in space-time "fabric". Expansion express itself on that 10^-35 meter so that volume encircle all space-time where matter is located. Because decaying of quark particles always happened inside that volume of space-time. You now have the cause, the reason and the effect.

 

So you are just changing the cause of the extra curvature of space-time from dark matter to something else you have invented (which has identical effects)?

 

I already told you that it doesn't affect any speed; and gravitation neither as a matter of fact.

 

So the orbits of moons, planets and satellites are not caused by gravity?

 

Gravitation is a consequence of a deformation of the geometry of space-time. It doesn't do anything; it only has /effects".

 

And one of those "effects" is the speed of orbiting bodies.

 

The speed of those stars are their "proper" speed; and they are "stuck" inside a deformation from where they can't escape because they don't have the "escape velocity" necessary (this is a fact). So this shows that our way of calculating the mass energy of a galaxy is not right.

 

Again: please either show (in mathematical detail) where those calculations are wrong.

 

Please also show your calculations of the stars velocity.

 

The stars orbiting around a center of galaxy doesn't add mass energy to the galaxy.

 

How can the mass of the stars not add to the total mass of the galaxy?

 

Well then I'll oblige you and never talk to you about it anymore.

 

It would be helpful if you showed the calculations that support your claims.

[Andre Lefebvre]

Sorry Mordred; I didn't see your last post before this morning.

 

 

 

Now as to the motion of stars have you ever heard of Keplarian decline?
Probably not if you believe stars should orbit the galaxy at the outer edge as fast as stars in the galactic halo.

 

This is not what I believe; it's what is observed. And I agree with you, it shouldn't be so.

 

 

 

The velocity of stars farther away from the center of mass (bulge should decline as the influence of gravity declines at a rate of 1/r^2.

 

That's exactly what I mean.

 

 

 

However this doesn't quite work for a galaxy. Instead we have to look at the distribution of mass as a function of radius.

 

So are you saying that you'll distribute as much dark matter needed "as fonction" of radius, to justify the speed of each stars? That's quite a scientific solution.

 

 

 

That doesn't happen. Even using GR the result should be the same. So don't bother arguing about space time distortions stating different.

If a body is in a stable orbit its velocity equals its escape velocity

 

So those stars don't have enough velocity to escape (But you're talking here of escaping an "orbit" not the whole deformation). That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

 

 

The second formula accounts for added contributors to mass as you increase the radius.

 

So you add whatever imagined mass needed to justify the anomaly. I don't see that as "scientific". Normally instead of adding "unknown and unobservable imagined "stuff", the first question should be : Are we wrong in our way of determining the mass energy of a galaxy?

What is there to consider?

 

1) How do we determine that mass energy? resp: The luminosity of the galaxy.

 

2) Is there a black hole at the center of the galaxy? resp: Yes.

 

3) How can we know how much luminosity is imprisoned inside the event horizon of the black hole of a galaxy? Resp: No way to know.

Except the orbiting speed of the farthest stars of a galaxy.

 

4) Are planets orbiting around a star responsible for this star collapsing in a neutron star? Resp: No way.

 

So why add the stars orbiting in a galaxy to get the mass of a galaxy? Resp: I don't know, but it's not logical.

 

 

 

I don't understand you at all. In previous posts you specifically mentioned Hawking radiation, also the inflaton.
Are you not aware that Hawking radiation is a virtual particle specifically virtual photons.
Why would you accept that but not virtual gluon?

Who said I accepted Hawking's inflaton? I only repeated what is said; in fact I said that it was the neutrino that was replacing it at the Big bang. Don't forget that I never accept what can't be observed.

Who said I didn't accept virtual gluons. I said they were the source of baryonic matter.

 

 

 

All gauge bosons can be real or virtual.

 

I think that virtual bosons are massless and real bosons have mass. The virtual ones are two-dimensional particles; the real ones have volume. That should make a difference in the energy wave function.

 

 

 

A gluon cannot cause any measurable space time distortion its mass is far too small.

 

The distortion we're talking about is the deviation of light; and it's caused by the geodesic (topology) of space; not by mass (have a look at an Einstein ring and check the size of the centered mass in regard to space between it and the ring). So if you have a geodesic (topology) of space imprinted in the "fabric" of space-time, you don't need mass to deviate light. And gluon don't have mass but they're liable to "mediate" a topology instead of a "force" coming out of nowhere.

 

 

 

(3 different people were awarded the Nobel prize for their separate research and contributions.)

Are they wrong too?

 

They're certainly not wrong in regard of the premises they start with. These are intelligent people.

 

 

 

The strong force between two quarks Increases and not decreases as the distance between them increases.

 

And what do you think would be the result of "pulling" an object against the topology of surrounding space-time? Aren't you oblige to add energy to an object in order to exceed escape velocity (which in your mind means "increase the pull against the "hold"), or even to lift off the ground?

Edited July 22, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Strange]

So are you saying that you'll distribute as much dark matter needed "as fonction" of radius, to justify the speed of each stars? That's quite a scientific solution.

 

Building models to fit the data IS how science works. Note that there have been many other attempts to model this; e.g. by tweaking the equations of gravity. Currently, modelling dark matter as matter produces the best fit to observation (which is what science tries to do).

 

The nice thing is that the same amount and distribution of matter also fits other, independent data.

 

So you add whatever imagined mass needed to justify the anomaly. I don't see that as "scientific".

 

All that means is that you don't have a clue how science works. This is a completely normal way of proceeding.

 

Of course, if someone comes up with a better model, then that will be adopted in favour of the old one. If you had a model, then we could see if it is better or not.

 

Normally instead of adding "unknown and unobservable imagined "stuff", the first question should be : Are we wrong in our way of determining the mass energy of a galaxy?

 

Gosh. I wonder why no one thought of that... Of course they did. Extensive searches have been carried to find normal matter that we just can't see. This has actually revealed more matter (such as cold molecular hydrogen) that we weren't aware of before. People have also tried modelling to see if rocks, iron dust, small black holes, etc could produce these effects. These have, so far, all been ruled out.

 

What is there to consider?

4) Are planets orbiting around a star responsible for this star collapsing in a neutron star? Resp: No way.

 

So why add the stars orbiting in a galaxy to get the mass of a galaxy? Resp: I don't know, but it's not logical.

 

In the first case, the planets add to the mass of the whole system. In the second case, the stars add to the mass of the whole galaxy.

 

The planets (obviously) don't add to the mass of the central star. Similarly, the outer stars don't add to the mass of the central bulge (nor to the speeds of the inner stars).

[Andre Lefebvre]

Why are you wearing a red necktie, a large belt and brown shoes?

-Because my feet hurt.

---------------------------------------------------

1) How do we determine that mass energy? resp: The luminosity of the galaxy.

2) Is there a black hole at the center of the galaxy? resp: Yes.

3) How can we know how much luminosity is imprisoned inside the event horizon of the black hole of a galaxy? Resp: No way to know.

Except the orbiting speed of the farthest stars of a galaxy.

Does the black hole in the center of the galaxy has an "effect" on the space-time deformation "containing the galaxy? Resp: I guess so; but I'm an imbecile that doesn't have a clue how science works.

 

But I have a clue how Coca-Cola made accept unobservable Santa Claus though: reindeers, Christmas presents at the bottom of the Christmas tree etc. All explanations and signatures that prooved his existence.

 

Are the stars orbiting around the center of galaxy responsible the deformation of space-time containing the galaxy? Resp: No way; because their center of gravity are not "merged" with the center of gravity of the galaxy. And the deformation of that galaxy's space-time starts from its center of gravity.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Strange]

Does the black hole in the center of the galaxy has an "effect" on the space-time deformation "containing the galaxy?

 

It does, but it is pretty small. It is only about 1 millionth the mass of the galaxy.

 

Are the stars orbiting around the center of galaxy responsible the deformation of space-time containing the galaxy?

 

Of course they do.

[Andre Lefebvre]

That's what happens when someone thinks that it's the quantity of matter that deforms space-time.

 

In fact you could eliminate all baryonic matter from the universe and it wouldn't change space-time a bit. Matter doesn't have any effect of importance on space-time. Only topology does.

 

But then you have to let go Newton a little bit to understand that. Furthermore even if at the center of gravity, the pressure equalises itself at “zero”, it doesn't mean that the pressure is zero. It could be one million g everywhere around the center of gravity and be equalised at zero. So the center of gravity is where the whole deformation of space-time is determined by the mass energy at that center.

Naturally the quantity of matter inside a galaxy depends on all matter that is imprisoned inside its deformation. But everything that orbits around the center of galaxy doesn’t have any effect on the size of the galaxy’s deformation.

 

You have to use your head before using equations to understand that.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

You need to prove that with equations. This is the part you keep avoiding.

In galaxy rotation curves I posted the simpler metrics for you.

The Poisson form is more detailed, but the same relations hold.

 

You continously miss the detail, both GR and Newton uses mass. In GR it's referred to as mass density.

 

If you try to use just the amount of energy/mass density in just the center of the galaxy, to describe your deformation. You will end up with Keplarian decline.

 

 

In fact you could eliminate all baryonic matter from the universe and it wouldn't change space-time a bit. Matter doesn't have any effect of importance on space-time. Only topology does.

 

.

You really need to study the materials I posted. Topology change only occurs in the presence of mass/energy density. Once you remove mass/density there is no remaining deformation.

 

I keep telling you space time is not a permeable material. It is not a fabric.

Pressure requires particles with large momentum. Remove those particles you don't have pressure.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Mordred

[Strange]

That's what happens when someone thinks that it's the quantity of matter that deforms space-time.

 

It is well understood what deforms space time: mass, energy, pressure, momentum, etc.

 

In fact you could eliminate all baryonic matter from the universe and it wouldn't change space-time a bit. Matter doesn't have any effect of importance on space-time.

 

Despite your unsupported claims, GR continues to work very well. So I wonder which is more likely to be right...

 

But then you have to let go Newton a little bit to understand that.

 

Nonsense. Newton said nothing about space-time. What you have to do to accept your assertiosn is abandon GR. I doubt anyone is going to consider doing that in the absence of an alternative model. And as you don't have one ...

 

You have to use your head before using equations to understand that.

 

Is that your excuse for refusing to support your assertions?

[Mordred]

How does one correlate the behavior of a collionless gas to either spherical coordinates Derived from the collionless Boltzmann equations.

 

Is done via the Jeans equations.

 

 

[latex]\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial(\nu\bar{v_i})}{\partial x_i} = 0[/latex]

 

[latex]\nu\frac{\partial\bar{v_j}}{\partial t}+\nu\bar{v_i}\frac{\partial\bar{v_j}}{\partial x_i} = -\nu\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial x_j}-\frac{\partial(\nu\sigma^2_{ij})}{\partial x_i}[/latex]

 

[latex]\nu\frac{\partial\bar{v_j}}{\partial t}+\nu\bar{v_i}\frac{\partial\bar{v_j}}{\partial x_i} = -\nu\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial x_j}-\frac{\partial(\nu\sigma^2_{ij})}{\partial x_i}[/latex]

 

[latex]x_{i,j}, v_{i,j}[/latex] is position and velocity. The line overscript denotes average

[latex]\sigma_{ij}[/latex] is the 4 momentum velocity dispersion.

[latex]\nu[/latex] is the spatial density

[latex]\Phi[/latex] is the potential.

Now without going into too extensive detail. The above tells us how all particle species (including stars) behave as a collisionless ideal gas.

 

Deriving the above leads to the spherical form relating energy density to potential and velocity dispersion in how it evolves as a function of radius on galaxies.

 

[latex]\frac{\sigma^2\partial\rho}{\rho\partial r}=\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial R}=-\frac {GMr}{R^2}[/latex]

 

 

Jeans equations takes extensive study, but it does an excellent job correlating many particle systems including GR and the ideal gas laws.

The forms I have shown you earlier are far simpler to show galaxy rotation curves.

 

We never rely on one theory and assume it's correct. Any model or theory is crossed checked against numerous equations and known relations in efforts to prove that theory or model.

 

Most people miss this detail, they look at the simplistic forms and figure they can fix it. They don't know how interconnected those simple forms are to the more complex forms and how each is derived.

 

Physicists take considerable time and effort in trying to simplify highly complex multi particle systems. Those that don't study the math never understand this fact.

 

TBH Much of the time I spend answering posts is an effort to explain complex relations as simple as possible.

(Jeans equations leads to virial theorem and galaxy rotation power laws). Albiet complex steps too long to post

Edited July 22, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

You need to prove that with equations. This is the part you keep avoiding.

 

I'm not avoiding them; I don't have them. And nobody else has them either.

 

 

You continously miss the detail, both GR and Newton uses mass. In GR it's referred to as mass density.

 

There's one detail I don't miss: mass energy is not a quantity of matter.

 

In GR you have "rest mass", "inertial mass", passive gravitational mass and active gravitational mass. And you want to tell me that you know what mass is? I'm saying there's only one kind of mass; it's mass energy. Mass energy captured inside a particle and potential mass energy related to the speed of the particle. Matter is a "by-product".

 

An ideal gas in a box is not an isolated system but the box containing it plus the gas is an isolated system. So you can't compare this last isolated system to the universe because the universe isn't inside a box that produces pressure. Expansion doesn't have any opposition in reality; except in Newton's notion where quantity of matter attracts themselves which can slow down expansion. This is a ridiculous notion. Each quantity of matter is trapped inside an isolated space-time deformation; the last one that appeared with quarks Up and Down. The previous particles imprinted their own topology (toward a center of gravity) in space-time’s “fabric” which stayed imprinted after their decay. All those topology were "imprinted" successively into one another just as the decay happened for sucessive mass particles. Those fundamental particles don't exist anymore except four of them: quark Up, Down, electrons and neutrinos. Nothing else exists presently in actual space-time. That's why you need colliders to "make" them.

 

Now if you say that space-time has no "fabric", this doesn't work, I agree. But then you have to tell me what is deformed by mass energy; and where is the topology information that says to massive particles how to behave in a geodesic.

 

Right now, physicists are coming back to the notion of "ether"; I hope they stop to the "fabric" notion that doesn't act at all like "ether" used to. But if they keep on with the notion of "mass attraction"; the "ether" will be thicker than it use to be.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

The term matter only applies to fermionic particles. How many times do I need to repeat the same thing ?

 

Neither GR nor Newton is defined by matter. They are BOTH defined using mass.

 

The part you DON'T understand is all measurements of energy mass is OBSERVER dependant. If you paid attention you would realize that.

That's where your different types of mass comes from.

The different names are define by the type of observer.

Why do you think Invarient mass is the more accurate description for REST mass? Invarient mass is a measure of mass that is the same to ALL observers. Inertial or relativistic mass depends on the observer.

You also ignored the fact that particles with inertia can cause Pressure as they interact with other particles. You DONT need a box or container.

 

 

I've been trying to teach you what space time curvature really means. However I have to constantly argue with you and your misconceptions.

 

Space time curvature is a differential geometric descriptive. That descriptive describes the relations of coordinate changes involved in how gravity influences the particles that reside in the volume of space.

 

You don't require an ether.

Ok let's look at the Lorentz transform itself in some detail.

 

( This will take some time to post)

 

Lorentz transformation.

 

First two postulates.

 

1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical

2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames.

 

Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction.

 

Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1.

A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above

in space time ds between two events is

[latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex]

 

Invoking speed of light postulate 2.

 

[latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex]

 

Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex]

 

Time dilation

dt=proper time ds=line element

 

since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant.

 

an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt.

 

[latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex]

 

so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation

 

[latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex]

 

So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex]

 

Now consider the above and consider the equivalence principle

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

 

This should help with your last post.

Remember this post there is your space time curvature and time dilation in Euclidean form. Minkowskii metric.

You don't have enough skill yet to understand the GR metric tensor forms. So this was done with SR

As far as universe geometry, it's really energy-density to pressure relations. This conforms to either the Einstein field equations, as well as the FLRW metric.

A key detail to study is the ideal gas laws and the equations of state of each particle species.

 

[latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex]

 

Here are the equations of state relations.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

Here is a simplified article I wrote to help describe geometry.

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

page 2

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

Here is a couple of non pop media papers on the subject.

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/0409426An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues

 

In the Einstein field equations the energy density/pressure relations are described via the energy-momentum stress energy tensor.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

these articles will help understand particle physics in cosmology.

 

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

 

Here is a good book on GR, though heavy on math.

 

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

Here is the stress energy/momentum tensor in Minkowskii metric. (Special relativity)

 

 

[latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

 

As far as black holes are concerned here is an excellent article.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phys.uu.nl%2F~thooft%2Flectures%2Fblackholes%2FBH_lecturenotes.pdf&rct=j&q=black%20holes%20pdf&ei=QkOQVf6BFIWrNtSRgaAN&usg=AFQjCNERag-FH9DCbw66GsxObohS8wEq9A&sig2=3_JOCHB5wqHkhJ__D5-ATQ

 

This article does a good job describing the metrics with a review of SR,GR section.

Remember this post with supporting training style articles ?

 

The last equation is specifically how space time is modelled. This equation shows the relationship between the stress energy tensor to pressure and mass/energy density.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

That's where your different types of mass comes from.

The different names are define by the type of observer.

 

Those are not MY different types of mass; they are physic's.

 

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8610/whats-the-difference-between-the-five-masses-inertial-mass-gravitational-mass

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

 

 

The equations that describe the behavior of elementary

particles become fundamentally simpler and more

symmetric when the mass of the particles is zero. So eliminating

mass enables us to bring more symmetry into the mathematical

description of Nature. (frank wilczek)

http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_originofmass.pdf

Which means that mass as no importance in the description of the universe.

Yes Mordred I remember and I'm not finish going through them.

 

Thanks again.

[Mordred]

Space is simply geometric volume filled with the standard model particles.

Space time is any metric of space that includes time as a vector.

 

You cannot have volume of space time and general space time as the term space time is geometric volume of space with the time component as a vector.

Also it isn't light dispersion causing the blue or red zones. It's an extremely minute difference in temperature. Not light dispersion.

 

Using the Bose Einstein statistics for the Bosons in this case the number of photons that temperature difference will be extremely close in the calculated number of photons. In point of detail the number of photons will calculate the same. The only difference is a slightly lower wavelength for the colder region.

Which is not the same as dispersion.

What the red regions show is a slightly higher density than the colder regions. Not the other way around.

 

Higher density of particles per volume = higher temperature not colder.

 

[latex]pV=NrT[/latex]

 

The temperature contributions of each particle species in combination and separately is calculated via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics which includes Boltzmann.

Here is a quick coverage of some of what you will need.

 

First off we need to define how a force is mediated. This is done through the related bosons.

 

-Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field.

-W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force.

-Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force.

-Higgs boson mediates mass for guage bosons and W and Z bosons(not all particles)

graviton mediates gravity????

 

essentially what this means is the transfer the force from one particle to another. This is important.

 

Now we need to consider the ideal gas laws in thermodynamics or specifically thermal equilibrium. Particle reactions in thermal equilibrium are essentially unstable, its a factor of temperature, density and volume, which are all related by the equation

[latex]PV=nRT[/latex] The relation forms used with bosons however is Bose-Einstein statistics or distribution

 

now to explain this is further detail. Bosons become indistinquishable from one another where N is the number of particles and V is the volume and n_q is the quantum concentration, for which the interparticle distance is equal to the thermal de Broglie wavelength

 

[latex]q=\frac{N}{V}+\ge+n_q[/latex]

 

the number of particles of the Bose_Eintein statistics is

 

[latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex]

 

for fermions you use the fermi-dirac statistics

[latex]\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon _i-\mu) / k T} 1}[/latex]

 

the De-Broglie wavelength is

 

[latex]\frac{V}{N\Lambda^3} \le 1 \[/latex]

 

You can google each for better information I posted those relations to show how the ideal gas laws are done in regards to fermions and bosons. as opposed to the first formula.

 

Now when the particle species except gravity are in thermal equilbrium the types of bosons become indistinquishable from one another, hence the forces are indistinqishable as well. They would all have the same temperature and wavelength. Also any reactions that do occur such as as I said are unstable any reaction will quickly have the reverse reaction. In regards to the forces this also apply to the fundamental interactions. You can see the chart and wiki coverage here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

 

 

Now your going to also need to show how your model also leads to the acceleration equation.

[latex]H^2 = \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{8 \pi G}{3}\rho - \frac{kc^2}{a^2}\dot{H} + H^2 = \frac{\ddot{a}}{a} = - \frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^2}\right)[/latex]

The second derivitive of a

 

[latex]- \left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^2}\right)[/latex]

 

Shows the relationship of how energy density and pressure determines the rate of expansion.

 

 

Each particle species has energy density to pressure influences that collectively combine to form the acceleration equation. The radiation dominant, matter dominant and lambda dominant have different variations.

 

 

Recall this discussion on the ideal gas laws and how it correlates to the FLRW metric acceleration equation. This uses GR via the Einstein field equations.

 

Those are not MY different types of mass; they are physic's.

 

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8610/whats-the-difference-between-the-five-masses-inertial-mass-gravitational-mass

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

 

http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_originofmass.pdf

 

Which means that mass as no importance in the description of the universe.

 

Yes Mordred I remember and I'm not finish going through them.

 

Thanks again.

If you want to redefine physics you will need the math to prove your model or it is useless. The excuse their is no math for my model won't cut it.

 

Trust me on that, I made that mistake once. I wasted 5 years trying to solve the cosmological constant. Once I learned the math I kicked myself in the .... for being so stupid.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

If you want to redefine physics you will need the math to prove your model or it is useless. The excuse their is no math for my model won't cut it.

 

Good! I'm not interested in redefining physics, I'm only interested to understand the universe.

 

 

 

Trust me on that, I made that mistake once. I wasted 5 years trying to solve the cosmological constant. Once I learned the math I kicked myself in the .... for being so stupid.

 

I trust you Mordred; but if you remember, you didn't think yourself stupid at the time.

 

In https://en.m.wikiped...lence_principle it talks about active, passive and inertial mass.

 

In http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 it talks about Quintessence (in the conclusion 2.4.4 Ithink) which is not far from the "Ether" notion.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

In all honesty even though it's math intense. The links you need to fully understand, which I've already provided are.

 

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.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

 

 

Your math tools are covered here

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395part 2

 

Good! I'm not interested in redefining physics, I'm only interested to understand the universe.

 

 

I trust you Mordred; but if you remember, you didn't think yourself stupid at the time.

 

In https://en.m.wikiped...lence_principle it talks about active, passive and inertial mass.

 

In http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 it talks about Quintessence (in the conclusion 2.4.4 Ithink) which is not far from the "Ether" notion.

Quintessence is dead AFAIK.

 

What do you find wrong with active and passive gravity.

 

Active gravitational mass measures the gravitational force exerted by an object.

Passive gravitational mass measures the gravitational force experienced by an object in a known gravitational field.

 

They aren't saying it's two different causes of gravity. Just defining the involved vector direction. What interaction is being defined. This is important as all objects fall at the same rate, but have different weights. The weight of an object is defined by the passive.

 

how they fall by the active.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100916164034AAgZwWv

 

Here is a simple explanation. Surprisingly well done for that site.

 

You'll note those terms have pretty much dropped out of usage. So I wouldn't even worry about them. The only time you may encounter those terms is Newtonian specific teaching.

More for history of how later theories develop

It's certainly not used in Cosmology applications nor GR.

( weight is pretty meaningless in Cosmology) you will never see an equation for weight in Cosmology systems

Edited July 23, 2015 by Mordred