Mordred

Why would photons be less dense than fermions when you can stack an infinite number of photons in the same space but no two fermions of the same state can occupy the same space? aka Pauli exclusion Principle.

Actually they are not sarcastic at all, A good physicist could calculate when a given material will buckle under pressure despite the design. (more accurately a good engineer which applies the physics.)

Correct he didn't handle what became termed relativistic mass which is nowadays formally called the variant mass where the rest mass is the invariant mass. Science didn't stop with him however, we now know mass involves all inter particle interactions. There is multiple sources of mass for a given particle depending on the particles interactions with the four forces. This involves the appropriate coupling constants. The Higg's field is not a force field as per se but still contributes to mass for certain particles. All of this is defined under QFT which involves the relativistic treatments using the Klein_Gordon equation. QM uses Schrodinger which is not relativistic. The definitions of mass and energy are still the same though just the influences to those terms are of an increased understanding.

You will never be able to learn the proper math if you don't use the proper physics terminology in the first place. For example the descriptive above won't work with Newtons laws of inertia as energy has a specific meaning. Newtons laws also has a specific meaning for mass. mass is resistance to inertia change. It is the ability of an object to resist acceleration. this is the literal meaning behind f-ma. This is true regardless of what peer reviewed professional physics theory is involved including GR, QFT, and string theory.

W Well a Resident expert doesn't make me an expert in every aspect of physics lol, the methodologies I learned for those pairs are geared to cosmology applications of the Bose_Einstein statistics through the canonical partition function which ties in the chemical potential of each with the degrees of freedom. However no one can memorize every formula under physics. Its enough to know where to get the appropriate formulas and how to apply them correctly for each question. For example I certainly don't have the Grand canonical partition function memorized.

No unless you can perform any of the calculations we requested no one will ever use your model. Its useless to do so unless it can make predictions. For example I can predict how our universe evolves in expansion rates over time. I can also calculate the number density of particles from a blackbody temperature using the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics. I can also calculate the range of a force. Every question I posed to you I can answer using mainstream physics. Can you claim the same with your model? I am asking for specific calculations not contained in your videos answer the questions for the specific calculations I requested . Your videos are useless to calculate the range of a force for example or lepton degeneracy etc or even the Chandreskar limit.

Of course you have to be able to observe something in order to measure it, but you also need to make predictive calculations to confirm a theory matches observations. I have yet to see any calculations that relate to making any predictability of any of your claims.

Did you forget the request for the precise calculations ? All I read in the above is more misconceptions particularly on DM. I don't care how well you verbally describe things or not. The purpose of physics is to calculate how A affects B not how you describe it. If you cannot for example calculate the Chandreskar limit of a star to when it collapses to a BH then your model is useless in physics.

great then show how an electron has to polarity states spin up and spin down under calculation. Show why it has antisymmetric relations involving the Pauli exclusion principle as opposed to a symmetric boson of integer spin. Lets start with those simple properties. You mentioned blackholes predict the proper time and coordinate time for an infalling particle ? You can use any mass value for the BH you choose to do so. Any calculations to define when a given density becomes unstable ? what ever that is suppose to mean when density is simply its mass per unit volume ? [latex]\rho=\frac{m}{v}[/latex]

All righty then you claim to have worked on this for years calculate the expansion rates due to density variations of matter, Lambda and radiation over they history of the universe. Can you show these calculations and using those calculations define the age of the universe. You claim to be able to answer every question so lets see the proof. Your entire shutter speed and camera analogies makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

oK try this calculate the range of the four forces and their coupling constants. this ties into the mean lifetime which depends on energy and the velocity of said particle. (also involves the allowable decays) ie if there is no particle the original can decay to via various conservation laws of the eightfold wayen its mean lifetime will reflect that) This is what is involved in a GUT which a ToE completes to include gravity which is the missing piece to unify and renormalize. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf we can already unify the other 3 forces gravity is the problematic one. lets try this wiki descriptive of a ToE. "A Theory of Everything would unify all the fundamental interactions of nature: gravitation, strong interaction, weak interaction, and electromagnetism. Because the weak interaction can transform elementary particles from one kind into another, the ToE should also yield a deep understanding of the various different kinds of possible particles. The usual assumed path of theories is given in the following graph, where each unification step leads one level up" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything like I stated previously very few speculators even know what a ToE entails.....

Why would you need to do that if you understand the relations between energy and matter with the proper terminology ? ie energy represents the ability of some arbitrary particle to perform work...

ggNo use proper terminology energy has a specific meaning under physics. It is utterly nonsense to describe energy as everything in existence or as its own substance.

No thanks I got about as far as 1 minute into the first video and lost the willingness to go further. Your equations are very simple to post here as per the rules we should not need to goto a youtube video to see the equations involved in your theory. First and foremost mistake. Energy doesn't exist on its own it is a property of a system or state that determines its ability to perform work. A universe isn't defined as only the energy components. Keeping our minds open should also involve following proper physics terminology.... PS I have no idea why every speculator that comes to these forums always think they have invented a ToE yet non of them even know what a ToE involves ...... ie the gauge groups that describe all inter-particle interactions ie under standard model though gravity is still problematic [latex]SO(3)\otimesSO(2)\otimes(U(1)[/latex] of thee standard model for starters. What you have is nothing towards a ToE...you cannot predict any particle reactions with what you have

Not bad fairly accurate. I would keep the mention of the field equations and Schwartzchild. Hawking radiation and the photon sphere are other dynamic involved with a BH they don't define a BH.

Here is the paper https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.231801

I have read the link and I don't see enough to qualify as sufficient for our Speculations forum. There is very little to work with other than misconceptions

You still refuse to acknowledge the difference between effective mass in a semi conductor and the rest mass of a free electron. Perhaps this simplified lesson on semiconductors will help. http://www1.gantep.edu.tr/~bgonul/dersnotlari/sc/CHAPTER_2.pdf This is NOTHING LIKE THE WAY YOU HANDLE NEGATIVE MASS in your model. This is a hydrodynamic effective mass of an electron in a BEC medium which is compared to k which is the propogation constant of a plane wave of the superconductor medium being examined. specifically it is the interactions with the valence bands via equation describing the e-k curve [latex] m^*=\frac{\hbar^2}{d^E/dk^2}[/latex] see thee formula in the link itself. This is nothing Earth shattering that requires the body of physics to rewrite all our LAWS OF KINEMATICS such as your model proposes. This is a specific type of mass treatment associated with the properties of a medium. It is not the mass of free particles. IT is NOT the REST MASS of any electron. This effective mass is identical to the Rubidium experiment. BOTH articles are describing EFFECTIVE MASS which involves medium interactions..... NOT INVARIANT/REST MASS of a particle. Instead of posting the POP media coverage of some test. Lets look at its actual article. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.04055.pdf Here is your negative effective mass article you keep posting as evidence for your model. Did you not see the part describing k as being the Ramen wave vector ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy notice that polarities are highly involved. as shown on equations 1a and 1b of the article you keep quoting. ie it is describing vibrational modes in a semiconductor as the electron propagates past other electron configurations. THIS is NOT negative rest mass. IT is the EFFECTIVE MASS used in solid state physics..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics) Now lets get back to how your model handles mass and not how other models handles it which you apparently never took the time to distinguish the differences.

We also need to define the observer in regards to how we view these patches..

hoo boy talk about ill defined terminology lol. Are we applying Einstein locality to small patch ? lol this would be involved in how to answer this question "Surely you can have stetchy frames in non-remannian geometry or the Pocincare disk ?"

LOL sloppy terminology can oft be in avoidable when trying to explain things as heuristic as possible lol. Good point on the curved spacetime examples provided.

I too am waiting for your answer to Studiot's post

I posted that equation so that you can explain how the cosmological constant is always constant under your negative mass model while dark matter is not constant yet according to your model the two are one and the same. Nothing in your mathematics cover this critical detail. The cosmological constant cannot be a particle of either positive nor negative mass as it does not decrease in density as the universe expands. It stays constant always according to all observational evidence. Explain this. Along with the unanswered questions Studiot has asked, there is another unanswered question I posted previously which is left unanswered. How do you get negative mass from something with a positive energy density such as the cosmological constant. Its energy density is roughly [latex]7*10^{-10} [/latex] joules[latex]/m^3[/latex] How do you explain that and still apply e-mc^2 to the energy to mass relation. This does not explain the mass to luminosity relationship that led Zwicky to realize the missing mass problem. When Zwicky applied the mass to luminosity formulas to galaxies, he found that those galaxies had higher luminosity than the baryonic matter content. This led him to realize there is a missing mass problem in the first place. If DM resides outside the galaxies that Zwicky examined this would not be the case. Now I am going to get Brutal with you. This image is garbage Both mass and energy are scalar quantities, this is quantities defined by magnitude only. There is no directional components such as you have in this image which does not work with e=mc^2. It does not work because you have added direction of motion to a field potential. However force is a vector so that in itself is fine but not when it comes to the energy mass relation. So if your mimimal and maximal points are field potentials how does lines of direction possibly apply ? This image makes absolutely no sense when describing particles (at rest) for the invariant rest mass term. You have directional components involved. Quite frankly this image also conflicts with how potential and kinetic energy is handled. Even with your personal handling of the kinetic energy term. (for the same reasons, kinetic energy and potential energy are both scalar quantities) yet your applying vector components and calling the reverse direction negative mass. Yet on both sides of that rolling hill above the zero baseline you have a positive field potential.....yet call one side negative while the other side positive this doesn't make sense at all. Your model lost all crediblility with me as soon as I saw this image and how you applied it. In essence you have switched the roll of the force and mass terms. Via switching the vector quantities of force with the scalar quantities of mass. (particularly when you applied it to f=ma which goes against the treatments under the laws of inertia once you switched the rolls of the scalar and vector quantities. The laws of inertia will not work properly with those rolls are switched once you apply those laws under a coordinate treatment. ( which I do not see yet) Then attempted to build a model around it but are ignoring key OTHER relations that argue against that practice. Much like you read entire articles that argue against your model but you see one or two lines that might support it so you instantly assume it works with your model. When the rest of the article doesn't. For example you have referred to the rubidium tests previously but completely ignored the following mentions in the wiki link you posted. Note they specifically mention "effective mass" this is mass that is effective to a NON ZERO energy baseline of a higher than zero energy density average of the material being tested. The global field condition is a positive energy density in this test. edit strange I can't fix the section I got on my own wording in that quote box,,,, anything after the 25 and 26 reference numbers in that box is my own additives for some reason I can't fix this.....

As this is relevant and also a good time to introduce a quick lesson on Baryon Acoustic oscillations. During inflation while photons readily encounter free electrons the waves are effectively washed out. However during the surface of last scattering when the free mean path increases , The photon to electrons interactions is described by Thomson scattering, With two distinctive modes representing the scalar quantities while the other polarization mode being a tensorial product. {GW waves) this group handles the curls of the field while the former the gradient field values. Here is a quick summary of Thomson scattering itself. http://www.ira.inaf.it/~ddallaca/P-Rad_4.pdf The E modes are the gradient quantities, such as density and temperature, while the B modes being the curl polarizations. Anyways the two polarization modes will correspond to the Stokes parameters Q and U respectively in much the same mannerism by analogy to the electric E modes and the magnetic B modes. The polarizations we are measuring however are temperature anisotropies of the surface of last scattering. This measures in essence the incoming and outgoing scattering events between the photons and electrons. This multipole temperature field is quadrupole in nature. [latex] \mathcal{l}=0[/latex] is monopole (scalar} [latex] \mathcal{l}=l[/latex] is the dipole anisotropies, and [latex] \mathcal{l}=2[/latex] for quadrupole. The third polarization mode being the T (temp) mode. Anyways the math is fairly intensive so I won't go into it unless requested. However for DM we can use the mass to luminosity relation and how this involves temperature to look for GW waves in the CMB in the dark sector. Side note it was this ratio that led Zwicky to the missing mass problem in the first place.

Your welcome for the GW waves this is detectable by looking for the B modes as opposed to the e modes of the Baryon acoustic osscillations. Here is a Wayne Hu summary, I've alwsys liked his works and his article on early universe particle physics is excellent. On my website see link on signature. http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/summary.html