Mordred

Keep in mind using rest mass is still acceptable as it's often easier to type than invariant mass so feel free to use the old terminology. Just be aware that it refers to the invariant mass

Modern SR and GR now use the same definitions. It was the original definition rest mass that was later changed.

Now I am more inclined to think that The volcanic activity could be the most likely factor there is an alternative theory that our sun might had between 2 to 5 percent more mass in the past but solar winds removed the excess. I remember hearing about it a few years ago but took a bit to find a relevant link https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/14565-earth-climate-young-sun-paradox.html Anyways googling Young sun paradox will pull up some hits one of the more recent suggested solutions is due to higher solar flare activity https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/31990/NatGeo_VAirapetian.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1%26isAllowed%3Dy&ved=2ahUKEwjWuuDbmNfkAhXK6Z4KHd8MBEMQFjAEegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2oatKbD466MJR4nUI4sD8o

Then how do you explain the elevation changes of several of the mountain region's or the impressions that match those of a leftover lake or those that match tributaries as per remnants of rivers ? A continental glacier leaves a completely different pattern after it melts or evaporates https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountains_on_Mars_by_height Here is the list of canyons or Valles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valles_on_Mars Here as well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakes_on_Mars Many of these have reference papers I suggest you start there

Good question, it is questions like this that caused modern physics to drop the usage of rest mass. The modern term is the invariant mass. Yes though relativistic mass is replaced by variant mass in modern terminology. Both rest mass and relativistic mass originated in SR treatments where one inertial frame was considered at rest. Under GR all frames are inertial and no frame is truly at rest. Hence the modern terminology. To determine the invariant mass of a particle requires extensive experimentation in scattering experiments and particle decays. The CM frame and lab frame is extensively used in these experiments. Here is an extremely basic oversimplified overview https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~korytov/phz6355/note_A02_kinematics.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi_z5eiyNbkAhUK7J4KHUIRCEEQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2j-HD8wdh5QRVOdCMVV1-I

Lol too many sandstorms

Geologically speaking the traces left by water and ice significantly differ in structure perhaps a study of the geological traces is appropriate. Ie the types and structure of erosion gouges.

Lol no it's not a surprise, but I hate assumptions. I lost track of the number of times I assumed something should be obvious to an OP then surprised when they didn't know the basics.

I felt it was more appropriate to not assume he was aware of the pulley ratio to number of ropes on load side rule of thumb.

I left that for the OP to determine,

+1 Oops accidentally down voted I will correct that on other posts. At least it allowed me to remove the negative reaction. However I had to apply the +1 to other posts.

well the result is energy isn't being transferred so power density isn't applicable.

The cosmological constant doesn't follow conservation of energy at any time. Total energy in essence is being created as the volume increases. (Though don't think of energy as a substance) it's always the ability to perform work ie a property.

It's more accurate to not think of evolution as being caused by some factor. Rather the adaptations that best suit an environment is the more successful. There are also unsuccessful adaptations that do not suit an environment those get weeded out by survival of the fittest. The problem is thinking innovation can cause evolution, or the advantages an evolutionary change as being a cause regardless of what that advantage is. In essence evolution is the result of successful adaptations or mutations. No advantage gained by bipedalism causes the evolutionary change the advantages are the result of the successful changes.

Ok good now let's get onto surface power density. One of the requirements is potential difference. You don't have any potential difference between one coordinate and another. Every coordinate has the same value. So let's look at power density and it's definition. Power density is the amount of power (time rate of energy transfer) per unit volume. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_density If every location has the same energy density ie potential energy then your not transferring energy from one location to another What is a unique feature of the cosmological constant when it comes to energy conservation ? Total energy isn't conserved. As the volume increases the total energy of Lambda is increasing. It isn't being transferred

When your applying Planck units you are quantizing spacetime into discrete units. The Planck length never changes it is always the same value. So as the volume increases the number of Planck length units must also increase without increasing the Planck length itself. These terms get misleading as space is just volume but in essence space is being created everywhere that is not gravitationally bound. A better descriptive is the use of geometric expansion specifically commoving coordinates

Bingo +1

This is something the OP never seems to accept. Here is a pertinent question. Does evolution ever require a cause ? or does evolution simply result from miniscule changes that aid in survival advantages

[math]\dot{a}[/math] is velocity of the scale factor [math]\ddot{a}[/math] is acceleration of scale factor An interesting equation using time derivatives [math]\dot{H}=\frac{\ddot{a}}{\dot{a}}[/math] shows that even though the Hubble parameter is decelerating ie slowing down the scale factor is accelerating. On the repulsive gravity (lol a very inaccurate descriptive but some literature uses the term) I personally think it's misleading as one might think anti gravity which is wrong. You can have a force term due to the negative vacuum term w=-1 but you cannot treat it from a centre or an average direction. Every location of spacetime the vector will be in every direction. Ie space expanding. Under that condition the usage of the term Planck force could apply for each discrete quantization of spacetime. The result will be the number of Planck length units will be increasing as space expands.

Well the good news is you can find classical treatments for the equations of state. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/A5682/notes4.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjljPSGl9LkAhVOqp4KHbb8DtwQFjAQegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0xjZcR1b8OcNFbrriXGEr2 Here is one that keeps it in a Newtonian fashion By the way I rewarded you some reputation points as your diligent in following proper physics in your modelling and constantly striving to learn as you go. It's a rare pleasure finding a thread in speculations forum where the OP is interested in learning how to properly model as well as expanding his skill set in physics. Your skills have improved immensely since you first joined this forum well done

Well as French is your native language if you google equations of state cosmology pdf. (Include the pdf) in your language you should be able to pull up some decent articles. If it includes the ideal gas laws your on the right track.

Maybe you should study the endurance running hypothesis based on fossilized records of human evolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis

Actually the last post isn't nonsense you were just missing the detail of the pressure relations involved in the descriptive of the cosmological constant acting as a repulsive gravity effect. I simply supplied the details of how that is the case

Glad you found your answers here, I don't blame you for not completely trusting physicsstack exchange.

A more accurate expression is via the vacuum pressure term. In this gravity is treated as positive pressure while lambda is treated as negative pressure via the equations of state. The relation is [math]p=-p [/math] Now what we term as gravity is in actuality spacetime curvature. [math]w=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V (\phi)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2+V (\phi)}[/math] This correlates the field potential energy to the energy density of a scalar field. Zero spacetime curvature with the stress tensor [math]T_{\mu\nu}=0[/math] has no spacetime potential difference. So the potential energy term in the last expression is [math]V\phi=0 [/math] this gives w=1 via [math]w=\frac{p}{\rho}[/math] The cosmological constant however has an equation of state w=-1. The overdose above is the velocity time derivative. If you have two overdots that is the acceleration time derivative. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) This article will provide the key thermodynamic relations https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ir.isas.ac.jp/~cpp/teaching/cosmology/documents/cosmology01-05.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi0pdiqk9LkAhWxJjQIHRrZCW4QFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw37DQF5eUpSBEoC_QefsvGg