Mordred

Newtonian Gravitational constant. Ok mass energy density of a field is the property of a field to resist inertia change or acceleration. The vacuum energy density of a field is the property describing the amount of stress of a field. Ie due to quantum fluctuations More accurately the flux of the field via the energy momentum tensor. The combination of the two will describe the action of a field via the Langrangian (in thus case scalar field) which will correspond to the Maxwell Boltzmann equations. From this one would be able to determine the probabilistic particle number density. ( just to throw the QFT correspondence to statistical mechanics into the mix)

Excellent post +1

Ok ask yourself this question how is vacuum defined ? (This gets back to scalar vs vector quantities) Hint think of the equation [math]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/math] for Lambda w=-1. Then consider all particles with mass also has monentum. So I'm going to throw an equation at you [math]-p_{\Lambda vac}=\rho_{\Lambda vac}=\frac{\Lambda}{8\pi G_n}[/math] The proof behind the last equation uses the stress energy momentum equation of a perfect fluid (isotropic) [math]T_{ab}=(\rho+p)U_aU_b+p g_{ab}[/math] lol I know you don't know GR but think about the last paragraph with the above. (There is a difference between mass energy density and vacuum energy density of a field.)

Pray tell which point and how do you believe squeezed states support that point. Your previous post in the quoted section differs considerably to squeezed states. One point you seem to keep missing is the significants of probability wave functions. Ie you need look into greater detail into the mathematics and less on images etc.

Well there may also be religious reasons for predicting key seasonal events such as summer solstice. During these events religious ceremonies may have been performed within Stonehenge. There is significant indications of being of religious significance in particular a burial site. Others studies show that it was built at different ages and that the surrounding area had hidden details that relate to the structure. Lmao it could even be as simple as "build a structure large enough that even the Gods will take note"

The formula you want is more complex as each particle species of the SM model will add their effective degrees of freedom. For mixed particles of fermions and bosons you will need the Maxwell Boltzmann equations. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/SPC.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiBzsv9i7nnAhWM4J4KHZbWDlcQFjAQegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw0REZ23epSZs3ohjVp_naU9 There is a considerable learning curve to understand statistical mechanics as applied to cosmology the above is a start

Another avenue I would recommend is gather research already done on Stonehenge. This would add to a good scientific approach particularly if you include support as well as competitive theories. For example if there were significant fires in the manner you described that could show up with a soil analysis. Ie carbon layers.

The formation your trying to describe is Helictites. The common accepted theory is capillary forces for the unusual formation. Calcite deposits don't form quickly nor is it a process of scouring. Water dissolves limestone. The resulting claim enriched water then distributes with the calcium.

Lol true enough it's still fun to study different examinations as a lot of lessons can be learned.

Correct the main gist of any valid solution is to show assymetry from the Lorentz transforms

SR has the capability of handling the twin paradox. Of that I have zero doubt however it requires the correct examination to handle assymmetric relations instead of strictly the symmetric Lorentz transforms. Quite frankly every solution involves showing the assymetry. Perfect example is the assymetry due to acceleration. That is one of the primary reason why I mentioned that much earlier in this thread to the OP. Coordinate time can get tricky. One of the reasons tensors uses one forms is that Euclidean vectors are not invariant under coordinate transforms. (Well I should be more precise the compoments of a vector are not invariant, though few readers are familiar wirh vector components) The use of four vectors applies the Lorentz transforms to preserve Lorentz invariance. A good GR Introductory textbook should always dedicate a section to one forms. (One forms take a vector and returns a scalar ) The Minkowskii metric itself uses the inner product of two vectors. Hence it is coordinate dependent (Cartesian) One can define the Minkowskii metric by [math] \mu\cdot\nu=\nu\cdot\mu [/math] which describes symmetric and orthogonal vector relations defined by the inner products under the Kronecker delta. However the function of a metric is to provide the mapping of a vector to its one form. Ie a tensor or rank (m,n) contains the one forms (m) and vectors (n). However now I can quarantee I have gotten too complex for the average reader lol. To put in simpler terms coordinate time has a coordinate basis of a vector.

Coordinate time must be an artifact of the metric as a change in coordinates can alter the results. For example if you define a vector for time under the Minkowskii metric and change to polar coordinates the magnitude and direction of the ct (time interval) is not invariant under coordinate change. Though if you use the applicable four vectors or one forms they are invariant under coordinate change. However coordinate time itself as a vector would follow the same problems as a Euclidean vector under coordinate change in so far as not being invariant. Hence proper time defined by the four vectors ate invariant while coordinate time is not. Recall time is given units of length by defining the interval ct. To add to this an observer in his own reference frame will think time runs normally that is his coordinate time however another observer will see his time differently. Proper time is the only invariant time.

I'm going to reference a particular lesson from Mathius Blau General relativity. See page 26. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf In essence inertial mass can also be referred to as acceleration mass. (Resistance to acceleration) You will want to look at the previous pages as well. A more complex GR treatment is that a gravitational field is defined by the energy momentum tensor in terms of flux.

In my opinion both twins age in accordance to their locality. With [math] m_i=m_g [/math] applying at each locale regardless of other observers. The paradox arises with an invalid assumption of an at rest frame. In essence the difference between the different twin aging rates depends on the relative velocity and subsequently factoring in the acceleration changes to those relative velocities Even under constant velocity if the two twins have a difference in constant velocity regardless of acceleration they will age at different rates. Now let's consider the following thought experiment. Remove all signals from A to B. Twin A has a different constant velocity than B. Those two twins will age differently regardless of signal exchange or acceleration change. In essence through [math] m_i=m_g [/math] the difference between aging rates is identical to placing two clocks at different gravitational potentials. Ie one at sea level and one at the top of Mount Everest. Neither accelerates and you don't require signal exchange until you compare clocks at some later time. To put it another way the paradox only arises on the SR treatment but doesn't arise in the "all reference frames are inertial" under the GR treatment.

To put succinctly every signal every observer receives is in the past regardless of distance to the emitter.

Dandelion theory have you made the connection to Gideon's question concerning dot product of two vectors and the cross product of two vectors of the Lorentz force in terms of the right hand rule ? It is essential you understand this in regards to the formula for the Lorentz force. If you have a wire perpendicular to a current carrying wire then the force on the wire will be a cross product. So the equation you will need will also require an angle between the two. PS this applies to both your threads

No both EM and GW are transverse waves. The main difference is the polarizations of a GW wave are 45 degrees apart but with EM they are 90 degrees apart. However they are still transverse polarizations. By the way that was a good question one seldom asked. The longitudinal component of a GW wave are transverse traceless hence the polarity tensors [math]h_+,h_×[/math] (more accurately were using GR'S permutations tensors ). The traceless components are the longitudinal components.

Well in this case a high school physics formula can explain stars and planets are spherical. [math]F=\frac{GM_1m_2}{r^2}[/math] Take a 3d graph set the central potential force of attraction at coordinate 0,0,0. Draw vector lines at every angle toward that coordinate. Then visualize a cloud of dust, they will all move to 0,0,0. The obvious resulting shape will be spherical.

In the classical applications then yes renormalization isn't needed however quantum gravity does require quantization. Sound waves for example using phonons under QM is renormalizable the phonon is the quantization. Phonons being a quasi particle.

Yes it involves the most efficient arrangement due to gravitational force. For example take some irregular planetoid of low mass. If it's mass increases. That planetoid will gradually become more spherical. Recall the formula for gravitational force and then think of the implications of a centre of mass.

QM requires quantization however relativity doesn't. It is this issue that prevents a successful theory of quantum gravity. More complex is how this applies to renormalization. Some physicist's feel that renormalization may be impossible while others feel the opposite.

All forms of energy has a mass term that doesn't address Studiots question.

The bits comply to quantum information theory but those bits would require quantization of gravity. Which hasnt happened yet. We have not successfully quantized gravity. In essence the theory above would require gravity to operate in discrete units (ie gravitons).

Nothing in that statement suggests E.Verlinde is wrong. I am explaining that every physics theory will apply the above at some point.

Apply the right hand rule to the Lorentz force. That is what Gideon is applying. https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/magnetism-mcat/a/using-the-right-hand-rule