Mordred

The paper is an interesting read however I wish it had detailed the relevant mathematics. I know the mathematics exist that can support the paper but I wish they included it in the paper itself. GR doesn't restrict FTL but can work with future light cones and the resultant time reversal of entropy as described by the paper. However you still have the singularity conditions under both states. In this solution all observers must also be FTL. I recall a news blip back in the late 80's of a paper that presented this solution if I recall originated by Australian physicists. Can't recall too much more than that lol. Anyways the paper is applying the holographic surface as the boundary between two sides of the light cone. However the surface is an apparent horizon ( section included in said article )

The Einstein vacuum is one of the classes of solutions of the Einstein field equation. There are typically 3 primary classes of solutions in textbooks such as Introductory to General Relativity by Lewis Ryder for example. The common solutions to the EFE taught from these textbooks at the Introductory level are typically Einstein vacuum Weak Newton approximation (planet's stars etc ) Schwartzchild metric blackholes.

Volume is a property so is space. You can have a space devoid of all particles both virtual and real and still have space. This state is the Einstein vacuum. Under QM with the HUP zero point energy it's never obtainable but that doesn't change how space is defined. Trying to think of space or spacetime as a thing, substance, fabric , eather etc will always lead down the wrong garden path. The term physical by definition " anything described by physics " makes volume a physical property by that definition. The term thing has no real meaning in physics.

Space being just a volume has units of length. X,Y,Z by defining the invariant of c we can give time a unit of length as well by using the interval ct. This gives 4 coordinates ct,x,y,z. These are properties of spacetime. The above describes the relationship between space and time. The x coordinate and the ct interval vary with length contraction and time dilation. While c remains constant.

I will read it later looks intriguing from a quick read. I will let you know what I think after I get a chance to properly study it. Be with family hehe RL...

As I don't simply want to give the answer. Once you have the matrix entries and type of matrix figured out. Follow the following rules to get the determinant https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/matrix-determinant.html

Get too much supply the price would drop. Don't want to collect too much at once lol.

If they checked it at all they should post the mathematics and results instead of a word salad. I would be curious if the OP is aware of how the Fermi-Dirac Bose-Einstein distributions and Maxwell-Boltzmann plays a part in determining particle number densities from Blackbody temperatures. Somehow I don't feel he doesn't from what I have seen of his posts. Course the OP can always show me wrong by posting the math of his model

Never heard of a scalar field ? Forces are not the only type of field either. If your going to criticize you might want to make sure you get your reply correct. You can even have a tensor or spinor field however the prior two are more commonly known For example you can have a temperature field. As an example of a scalar field. A Majarona or Wehl spinors are two examples of spinor fields. A Majarona field would be one describing a fermionic field. While the other typically bosons. (Though one can define bosons with Majarona spinors via matter/antimatter pairing) GR 's Einstein field theory is an example of a field theory that applies coordinates without choosing Cartesian , polar or cylindrical coordinates as a basis. For that matter the EFE has a vacuum solution which is a scalar field. The weak field approximation which covers Newtonian gravity is a vector field. These both are described under the EFE with a tensor field. Here is a little trivia the Reimann curvature tensor isn't a tensor as the name implies but a tensor field. In string theory we have another mathematical object a string. A collection of strings is a brane. Which is another type of field. As it's good policy not to simply take my word for this. You can google any calculus textbook that covers field theory but in the interim "In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space-time." This is how wiki describes it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics) hrrm spacetime in the above is a coordinate system fancy that.... Feymann had a better definition " A collection of objects " of course in physics speak an object is a mathematical one Back at the OP. You might want to take notes, every particle interaction is described by the fields I just mentioned. With this and the correct formulas one can determine any particle interaction that is the purpose of physics to describe every physical phenomena under a testable and predictive manner. Mathematics is the best tool to make predictions to be tested. If you can't tell us how two particles interact and form two different particles via mathematics or predict the particle number density via a blackbody temperature etc etc your not doing physics. To give an analogy when someone comes along trying to reinvent physics with no math. It's like listening to a five year old that just played Doctor with the toy that beeps when you hit the sides with a tweezer. Tell a surgeon how to perform an operation.

You still haven't figured out that you require mathematics to develop a unified field theory. For starters the term Field describes a multi collection of values under a coordinate basis without necessarily a coordinate choice In other words a mathematical object...

Certainly asteriod can contain rich metals. Gold, platinum, silver etc. Most of the rich metals we have on Earth originated from asteroids. Think of it this way the Earth was formed of the same materials.

Not as long as the universe continues expanding they won't. To be clear expansion isn't accelerating the BB. Thus can get complex but I will keep it brief. If you consider the expansion rate in terms of units of Mpc. Then the rate of expansion is slowing down Ie at CMB time the expansion rate per Mpc is roughly 22,000 times what it is today. Per Mpc it's roughly 70 km/s/Mpc. Now if you simply consider expansion in terms of the separation distance to the cosmological event horizon then expansion is indeed accelerating. The reason thus works is as expansion occurs volume increases so you gain units of Mpc.

Well consider the asteriod that wiped out the dinosaurs was roughly 11 to 15 km... There is no true size as the factors will depend on size, composition and velocity. Then it also depends on what one considers a global disaster. Ie nuclear winter could certainly count. However in this case it is possible to have surviving species. Rough estimates I have seen for an asteriod to totally wipe out all life are usually around 90 miles in diameter. Age of Ultron is kind of hokey certainly it would create a substantial crater possibly a nuclear winter but quite frankly those jets would have added considerable velocity to have a global event at the elevation. Particularly considering the city never left the atmosphere. Where the majority of the velocity is gained in an asteroid.

Another applicable term could be a Hubble bubble. However terminology aside. The only scenario that can account for DE would have to be homogeneous and isotropic. In essence a uniform distinction and influence. Neither another BB nor Hubble bubble could do so and maintain the uniform distribution observational evidence shows.

Sending a pulse into space where the signal varies from that wire would be very similar to an antenna. There is a series of antenna formulas that show the power is not the same as the supplied power. There is power losses due to directivity etc. The closest type of antenna that matches your scenario would be an omnidirectional antenna. Go ahead Google the radiated power of an omnidirectional antenna you will see it has huge power losses. Secondly the waveform will have different directional components than a current carrying wire. The EM field of a current carrying wire is not the same as a radiated EM waveform. The loss of continuous power supply and ground path is but one factor as to why the two are different. The other being differences in the transverse and longitudinal components.

Lol I shudder to think of all the interference patterns of an EM wave inside a box. May as well predict Brownian motion.

First off your assuming an incredibly short pulse is going to stay with the same current and length as the current carrying wire that generates the field. You have disconnected the field source yet apply a formula that is specific to a continuous source. Working off that assumption. Once you disconnect the source you have no path to ground which enables the current flow from the source So how can the pulse possibly have the same current ?

Are you not aware that science applies three types of redshift/ blueshift Doppler shift this is what your showing in your tables. Though only choosing ones that happen to be approaching us. Not ones that are moving away Gravitational redshift. Different cause than Dobbler Cosmological redshift. Redshift due to expansion where as mentioned only affects region's that are not gravitationally bound. You might want to learn mainstream physics before trying to prove existing theories wrong.

I have a problem from 2 till 6. What is the magnetic polarity of a pulse in free air that is not supplied a continuous current ? Here is a couple of other questions. What happens to Wire B after the pulse reaches the opposite side ? How would wire B determine its Lorentz force direction from a pulse as opposed to a continuous current. Assuming it can (see first question)( you are using the Lorentz force equations). Ask yourself as well If you took a propellor inside a plane not outside will the plane fly ?

Well I can tell you it won't work in a box. Just as Strange has been pointing out. This misconception has been pointed out numerous times in this thread in numerous different ways.

Oh my you call that an answer ? May as well say pixies are generating your propulsion with faerie dust from their magic wands. Try answering the question. It's extremely important for you to get what Strange is describing.

! Moderator Note This forum is reserved for mainstream physics. This paper belongs more into our Speculation forum than here. For example your requirements to acquire orbits does not follow the mainstream view nor does your redshift. Please see the Speculation forum guidelines for forum rules. You will need more than tables and charts to support your claims in the paper.

The document primarily discusses different Langrene and the action principle of different fields.. Action is certainly applied in every field theory. It is a huge part of QFT treatments. So yes I have no problem with the article in those regards. Using the determinant of g above isn't particularly useful in determining the cosmological constant. The determinant of g will vary according to the tensor entry values

Agreed the best place is the back of the craft with as near a perfect reflector on three sides . Reflection produces twice the force as absorption. This will also allow reaction to any ionized gases with a more uniform directional force. Edit upon reflection pardon the pun a parabolic reflective dish would be a better option. PS now you will take advantage of other vectors and maximizing the effects from you pulses.

Sure but you claiming that the EM field has no further influence which is obviously wrong. It will continue to act upon other items than just wire B. Part of it will get reflected back to wire A. You cannot choose to ignore other factors. Even if it's external to the craft it will react to the ionized gases present there. Thus exerting counter forces to propulsion.