Mordred

In QFT treatment through the principle of least action. You can work through the Eueler Langrene equations that correlate the kinetic energy of the particle to the chosen path probability with the fields potential energy. Feymann has a good starting beginner's lecture. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html&ved=2ahUKEwj7pa__0_bjAhXpiVQKHZgNBJAQFjABegQIDhAG&usg=AOvVaw1AQkf2xpc5d5gpPkpVjEqu The definitions above apply in all physics treatments so set them to memory. Though mass may be replaced by coupling constants in different field treatments. The SM models 18 parameters are all various coupling constants. 10 are Yukawa couplings 2 are the Higgs. I'd have to double check the others

So your formulas cannot handle any redshift beyond Hubble horizon. You set the boundary at the Hubble horizon ignoring any expansion term even though you do not require DE to have expansion thus ignoring all thermodynamic temperature variations which matches the ideal gas laws and instead have the equivalent to a steady state universe which you give an age value to. Your first equation is based on the distance light travels multiplied the age of the universe. No expansion term. In essence your stating redshift is an illusion of false data. Yet you aren't showing how you can account up to redshift 1100...

Your welcome

Is this homework in your other thread you mentioned your a teacher correct?

You have to keep in mind that mass refers to several different types when thinking of conservation of mass/energy. Most mass of a particle is given in its rest mass this is [latex] e=m_o c^2 [/latex] however this form only refers to in modern terminology the invariant mass. When you apply The full equation which includes the momentum term that you posted in your other thread you increase its relativistic mass. In modern terms the variant mass. It is this formula that allows the LHS to smash two protons together to create particles larger than their combined rest mass. Example the Higgs boson. The conservation of mass applies when you use the total mass including the momentum term. The particles created must cannot exceed the total mass/energy of the incoming particles. In fact the total mass in must equal the total mass/energy out.

You can't ignore that distinction. It's an essential aspect of gravity radiation.

That's fine and no one has questioned that aspect since you replied. So what is the issue ?

In your other thread you posted the energy momentum equation. When you think about this question consider the total energy including the momentum term.

Then you might consider explaining your application better with your not tensor. Should we be concerned about your report ? Considering sites far more common also question the site such a wiki itself ? We simply asked questions about their process that in and of itself isn't predatory. Can you back up your claim of doing a galaxy rotation curve or not ? That question has nothing to do with that site.

Gravity waves has a spin 2 quadrupole waveform. Photons has a spin 1 Dipolar waveform. The two do not match. Their waveforms are different. Photons only has two polarity states while gravity waves has four. LIGO would not have been able to detect a GW wave if gravity was prephotons whatever that means. Theory falsified by observational data.

Prove me wrong then show how you get the galaxy rotation curves from that. How thick is the Centre of the Milky way that it doesn't have a y coordinate? Let's for brevity that the Milky way is a symmetric spiral galaxy. (It isn't it's axisymmetric but you don't want to see the formula for that without DM) For symmetric [latex]v_{circ}=\sqrt{\frac{GM (R)}{R}}[/latex] Where M (R) is the enclosed mass. Above is no bulge no dark matter. Gee wiz did I need GR for this ? So tell me how did you use your basis of fundamental metric NOT tensors for this ?????

Oh and where is that math your article didn't contain the derivatives. Your not tensors don't follow any rules simply describing a galaxy in x,y,z,t coordinates and dropping the y coordinate for some hypothetical flat galaxy doesn't make sense.

Well an actual theory involves the required mathematics that provides testability. Word play isn't a theory. It doesn't matter if the theory is correct to count as a theory but it must contain the relevant formulas. Thus far this thread you haven't provided any. So you have at best a hypothesis not a model or theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In physics testability requires math to make predictions for testing. Ie a formula

When you stick to actual theory instead of your own I will. Night

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe See chronology of the universe it's after inflation It's early evening for me and even at work I can still post during my work breaks. I'm currently reviewing a dissertation paper for the university in my area. Helping the instructor in Quantum geometrodynamics.

What is scary is I started to examine the equations on the board. dark ages is after that

OK let's clarify something here. First consider the following definitions. Mass is resistance to inertia change Energy the ability to perform work. Spacetime a geometric model system with 3 spatial dimensions with 1 time dimension. In physics dimension is an independent variable or value that can change without affecting any other mathematical object. So how does mass curve spacetime. Well GR models bodies in free fall that is without any force applied. Time is given units of length and can be called an interval. This is done by setting c which is constant to all observers and adding a unit of time. So the time coordinate is given units of length by ct. [latex] (t,x,y,z)=(ct,x,y,z)=(x^1,x^2x^3x,x^4)[/latex] the last is in four momentum form for convenience as its useful to model a particle trajectory along the x axis. Now what is spacetime curvature. Well space is just volume... (Very important ) it isn't a stretchable bendable fabric... Those are just analogy descriptive. What spacetime truly means by curvature is the worldline paths for light it us the null geodesic. If you shoot two laser beams in flat spacetime those beams stay parallel. If spacetime is curved then the beams converge for positive curvature and spread apart for negative curvature. This is a consequence of how the mass term affects the time it takes for a particle to go from emitter to observer. That whole resistance to inertia. So let's drop two objects toward a planet. You have the usual Centre of mass. As the objects free fall they do not stay parallel. They will converge upon one another as they approach the center of mass. That what is really meant by curvature the free fall paths are curved. Not the volume of space.

We can only indirectly measure the aftereffects. The dark ages when photon mean path was less than [latex] 10^{32} [/latex] of a metre Hubble cannot see into the dark ages. No telescope today can. There is hope for the cosmic neutrino background or gravity wave astronomy. But you will never see inflation via EM signals. Science has a rule all models that are feasible are viable until shown false or incorrect.

Well to date LCDM is the strongest model but then it adapts with research. The FRWL metric isn't in its original form today. There was a period when LCDM had competition from LHDM and LWDM. Hot DM and warm DM (hot DM had relativistic DM) warm DM was non relativistic radiation. The BB model used also considered quintessence, there were over 500 different inflationary models. We are narrowing that list down now it's below 73 viable models. Arxiv has a publication Inflationarus Encyclopedia. It has a listing of current viable. Higgs inflation is the new bench mark model replaced eternal chaotic eternal inflation. My own dissertations are ancient history on quintessence. I don't even have a copy anymore quintessence was overturned. Parker radiation no longer exists in Cosmology applications

That's the trick about Infinities you never do reach an end point. The same occurs in the Lorentz curve. It's a mathematical consequence. So you pull math tricks. Lets apply this to the set of Real numbers when does it end ? Now spacetime is [latex]\mathbb{R}^4 [/latex] no end to four dimensions. Four infinite sets. .. Redshift has the similar math consequence as an inverse curve it. You always approach the normalized y axis but never reach it. Not my model in the LCDM model. My models never get posted or published. I always manage to prove my own models wrong. Grrr

The cosmological horizon was always measured in proper time. There is a formula for that. All cosmological distances are. Infinities do occur in nature of you don't believe me take a 1 cm square and divide by half then each portion by half continue doing so to each portion. Let me know when you can no longer divide a portion by half.... Cosmology never stated that spacetime cannot fluctuate. The quantum harmonic oscillator is an example of that. I've already told you in the Hubble illusion thread there is no time dilation in the cosmological distance measures. It simply commoving coordinates not time dilation. Time dilation doesn't occur in a homogeneous and isotropic (uniform) above 100 Mpc mass distribution. You don't get kicked out on a point system. If you don't wish to participate on this forum simply stop posting. You can always PM a moderator to lock this thread. PS that cosmological calculator posting I did earlier this thread is in proper distances.

The term DE us simply a placeholder. Quantum fluctuations has always been one of the possibilities. However that in turn shows that you accept an accelerating expansion at its rudiments. Yet your paper argues against it. The main ingredient to the cosmological constant is that spacetime is never truly empty. Fluctuations always occur.

Am event is defined by a frame of reference under GR. It specifies all frames are inertial. You know it's funny one of the most common arguments for DE is that spacetime is never truly empty. You disagree with DE but ate now arguing the same argument commonly used for DE. Rather ironic

Your still missing it aren't you. Energy isn't a thing. It doesn't fill space. Light is simply a collection of photons. Mass isn't a thing it is a property that means resistance to inertia change Spacetime doesn't need to be filled like some continuum. It isn't some fabric to be stretched twisted etc etc etc. The term continuum is a sci-fi imagination. There is nothing wrong with having absolute voids between quantum particles. If every coordinate was filled what happens when two particles annihilate ? Energy isn't a substance that radiates away mass as a resistance to inertia that radiates away. You are trying to apply the illusion of some substance like thing you can equate to but solid is an illusion taught to us by our macro world perceptions.

The correct term is Einstein vacuum. Which is a GR solution devoid of all particles including virtual. QM however states it isnt a possible state due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle. See zero point energy. An Einstein vacuum would be zero K. Zero point energy however states zero K is impossible to obtain. However that is a density value over a region of volume. At the quantum level one can only equate observable quantities which require a minimal a quanta of action. Anything below the Planck scale is anyone's guess. A hypothetical perfect detector will never be able to detect below a quanta of action. That is the same reason individual virtual particles are undetectable. It takes an ensemble of VP to cause action.