Mordred

Maybe it will help if you realize that it is net force not individual forces Try this form [latex]F_{net}=\frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t}[/latex] [latex]\Delta p=m\Delta v=m(a\Delta t)=F_{net}\Delta t[/latex]

First off you don't have antigravity in those equations nor entangled pairs. The formulas you have will be useful but your not there yet. QM position and momentum operators aren't particularly suited for modelling spacetime. Hint QFT and GR both apply the four momentum... Second hint QM applies primarily Schrodinger, for spacetime metrics you will need Kaluzu Klein

That's not how you add tensor components to begin with. Those indices are simply for the entry that would reside there. Secondly use of higher dimensions is common. It's defined in mathematics as any independent variable/ set Nothing mythical about it. Nor would those tensors be used for Kaluza Klein. Wrong size tensor those are only 4D tensors.

Probably because I don't words. Words don't allow one to perform the calculations that cosmology is required to be able to perform. Nor any physics in truth. They simply allow us to describe the relations the calculations show.

If you really think about it I was pushing you to improve your article. You have very little in the way of formulas and calculations. I know your familiar with the FRW metric. The FRW metric does not require DM nor DE to work. The attempts you made with your basis for a fundamental metric lacked an extremely essential element. The most important detail of all. Seperation between two events. Ie the ds^2 line element. If I cannot take your paper and perform the calculations at home to confirm your accuracy by comparing it to other datasets. Then what good does it do ? You make numerous claims within the paper but don't show how your theory makes better predictions than LCDM. Galaxy rotation curves is one example. Within your paper you stated the calculations were too difficult. However a little personal research would have shown the formulas are essentially based on Virial theorem. With application of Kepler's laws and she'll theorem. (Essentially Newtonian physics) You also deal with BH's but didn't show how your theory would adapt the Schwartzchild metric. Nor did you show the adaptations to the Newtonian approximations under GR. You haven't presented a new formula to accomodate your theory to handle the three main types of redshift. So ask yourself how do you think to change the minds of physicists that would want those details. I am just one physicist among thousands and those lacks are a major reason that I find the article seriously lacking. It doesn't contain sufficient weight to make a good impression that you truly know your stuff. PS at no point was I angry though it may have seen that way. (Sometimes one has to take the role of villain, so you can see what type of responses you may get from others). I was hitting you with common challenges you will face with the claims within your paper. That's something you will need to master in how to address. (The other is being able to do research to better support your article) I agree I can be fustrating. Lol why did you think I warned you I can be a tough critic ? No apologies needed. We both took shots at each other. (Oft the nature of a heated debate lol)

I don't think you get my point. You can mathematically describe a DeBroglie wavelength. So physics can describe that. If physics can describe the wave length it wouldn't be a singularity.

There ya go now just practice

Try typing in the commands something tells me your copying it. Must be in plain and not rich text. Just do a simple fractional first. Yes you got command to work above

[latex]\frac{1}{2}[/latex]

No you don't, however anti gravity is a different devil. When you get down to it gravity is nothing more than spacetime curvature. So how can you cause spacetime to generate anti gravity ?

Night

Well you got one thing right particles is an old term we keep simply as laymen understand that term. particles are field excitations. Not everyone has the same time of day.

Uh huh and billions of dollars at three seperate LHC's is just lying. It's all a conspiracy.

See my last post and see why I teach. (I also help teach at my local university)

Ah that's why I am studying electroweak symmetry breaking to see if the Higgs field can account for DE.

You don't want the education. So why should I bother

I follow mainstream for good reasons. Nothing you can possibly say will ever change that.

Sigh boring

Not with that attitude.

You will never be able to generate antigravity. All forms of matter has positive mass/energy. This results in positive curvature.

Well I don't feel like responding to the above not worth my bother in truth. A peer review article does not make it main stream.

If there is a DeBroglie wavelength it would not be in a singularity condition.

Every state or super position of states are described by wave function. The two won't have the same wave function but both states are described by them

It's commonly used to define a state. The state can be determined or in superposition.

A superposition state is a probability state. Take a simple example. The electron can either be spin up or spin down. Until you measure said spin it remains in superposition. Once you measure that state the superposition wavefunction collapses to the wavefunctions of an electron. Neither states allow any particle to violate c. This constant is the limit of any and all information exchange including entangled states. Entangled states are prepared states once prepared you can calculate a correlation function . So if you measure an entangled electron pair via the probability function you instantly know the other state. No spooky action or communication is needed. You only require an accurate correlation function (probability function). Think of two balls one red one blue. Ship one ball to any location. If one location has a red ball you instantly know the color of the other ball.