Mordred

I agree with your husband Venus the Morning star.

Might be a good idea to include the site link, many sites are rather poor or misleading. At one-time some cosmologist did look into the white hole possibility yet those models started to lose interest when the WMAP data was published. Poplowskii once went this route with using spin and torsion under Einstein Cartan tbeory.

All right this is getting painful. why nott look at at constructive and destructive interference patterns under QFT via the creation and annihilation operators. Instead of reinventing physics? Hete is an older post, might help

Well considering he redefines energy itself I would say he contradicts every physics model I can think of lol. Including any involving kinematics lmao I would even include Newtons laws on the list...

Think of dimensions as an independant variable. A variable that can change without changing any other such as x y and z or under 4d time in dimensionality of length via ct.

I still don't understand why he uses gamma for time dilation but specifies in his paper he doesn't include length contraction lol. Far too many oddball ideas in the paper to deal with them all at once. Can't see how that can work lmao. Not on a coordinate basis.

ppI have read your paper, enough to know how wrong it is. However don't believe me it matters not to me. Here is the mathematical proof for Doppler shifts, this is the level I asked for you to perform the other day. http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO1PDF/V12N1HAM.pdf its not the greatest paper the textbooks tend to have better but it will suffice Though this one is a typical classroom lesson plan https://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys2130/phys2130_sp12/lecture_pdfs/class08_Lorentz_transformation velocity addition.pdf I prefer the one done by Islam in Msthematical methods of Cosmology but I don't feel like doing a bunch of latex tonight Though if I recall Master Geodesics paper has a good write up let me check Have you done that Plot I asked for on infinite energy yet????

Well my master degree in Cosmology and Bachelors in particle physics states differently try again. You even have another poster telling you your incorrect with a PH.D

I reead your paper as written the physics section is garbage lmao. Everyone is telling you your errors while you keep parroting not in my model, yey you don't mathematically define any of the required physics to support your model for testability. doppler shift is only one form of redshift what about gravitational redshift or the relativistic Doppler or Cosmological redshift. The causes may be different but the effect is identical. Are you going to throw out those too because they will not work with your supposed lack of model. What about the electromagnetic coupling constant that the photons mediate? Does your non standard energy and mass terms work with tbose? Is your model of any use whatsoever with its incompatibilities wirh standard physics? Can you even calculate the amount of work done by a sysyem with your non standard energy ? Statimg that the frequency of light is observer dependent and stating its energy is not when the energy of a photon depends on its frequency is absolutely foolish. Try actually studying what is involved in in the formulas you posted from standard models first and foremost. ie the following relations [latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/latex] Quantum information theory is an excellent model it pays close attention to actual physics and its definitions. Its incredibly diverse in its applications. Its readily usable particularly with QFT. Your model however does not. Go ahead try to prove me wrong in my assessment of your paper...

Haven't you figured out, we heard this statement the first time. Simply repeating tgis statement does not make your model work. Nor does it mean energy is not frame dependent. Nor does it mean there is an absolute frame. The onus is your responsibility to qualitatively prove GR and SR is wrong about those two criteria. The proof on our behalf exists in far too many tests to even list them all. GR has an incredibly high sigma confidence level that its nearly impossible to consider as being inaccurate on the two points above. You also ignored my statement that the relativity based equations you posted DO NOT SUPPORT your model. So they do not work with ypur descriptives. Did you never hear of a mathematical proof before conducting actual tests? Prove your formulas will do what you described then do actual tests on their validity. For example. HOW DOES YOUR MODEL NOT TREAT ENERGY AS FRAME DEPENDANT AND YOUR FORMULAS USE DOPPLERBSHIFT ????????? DOPPLER shift itself is a frame dependant application...... Do you even understand your own formulas yeesh. It is an am influence on a signal measurement due to the motion of the emitter compared to the receivers frame of reference..... So if energy isn't frame dependent then why the blooming bugger did you include a doppler formula ? A frequency change is a change in energy to an observer if this were not true there would never have been a need for the Doppler formula in the first place... There your paper has just been proven wrong as your premise is incorrect.

A lot of this paper is out of date with modern advanced QM... For example modern QM has a position and momentum operator and from the Schrodinger equation a time evolution operator. You should also detail out the Dirac notation and the Pauli matrixes. Also you should also include the Bra ket notation... Here is a paper on the Operator methods on QM. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bds10/aqp/handout_operator.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwipx5uyg_vaAhUW9mMKHSUtBmoQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2H99IE30D4TUt1Y_d8QKKE I will add more suggestions later on as I have to get ready for work. I would also suggest adding the translation operator https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://pages.uoregon.edu/soper/QuantumMechanics/momentum.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwipx5uyg_vaAhUW9mMKHSUtBmoQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2epF3dvdYKHQ8CNdG65tju Might be an idea to study what is current in modern QM as the mathematical methods have greatly developed over the past 20 years.

We know what you have stated we don't accept those statements as valid without further proofs.

It should be obvious what I am stating take the equations you have and do a plot showing that the equations you have can produce greater than c velocity without requiring infinite energy for a particle with ANY invariant mass. If the equations you have cannot do so then you do not have a model....

I dont care what you think your model states unless you can prove it under mathematics. The formulas you have in your article will not suffice to back up what your model states. Physics pays attention to the mathematics not incorrect interpretations of those formulas. Secondly why pray tell did you not use the relativistic Doppler formula ?

Ok so here is a challenge then. Run the equivalent equation you have in your article with the neutrino mass and tell me you won't get infinite energy lmao. If your proposing otherwise you cannor use the lorentz equation as you have in your article. In other words you cannot use an equation directly from SR then state your model describes something other than what is described by relativity. Secondly tbe accepted view by the professional physics community is precisely what rslativity describes. Nothing moves greater than c no particle with invariant mass can move at c. That is the accepted view. If you believe otherwise then provide the matbematical proof that it is possible. No SR formula nor GR formula will provide that.

When the mass density decreases in the voids between large scale structures sp does the strength of gravity in those locales. Recall gravity falls off in strength at 1/r^2. A matter only universe is called the Einstein Desitter universe. The wiki link is extremely poor for this particular toy model https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93de_Sitter_universe&ved=2ahUKEwimzKjByfjaAhXMzVMKHZMTBCUQFjACegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0_ZbKqQmM_j5zuKIkZYw6s (on phone atm) but the essential detail is that due to matter distribution into LSS, the average mass density reduces as matter starts to pool up into galaxies etc. So the average density decreases thus so does the average global gravitational potential.

No reread the paper. what do you think they mean by the fractional speed means to the constant c ? The fractional difference between the neutrino speed and the speed of light is determined to be [latex] (v/c−1)=(1.0±1.1)×10^{−6}[/latex] Here is a wiki explanation that also mentions that paper... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed Please note if a particle has invariant (rest mass out of date terminology lol) it must travel less than c otherwise it would require infinite energy. The relevant formula to test that youself is on that page. Am I to understand that you never studied SR enough to understand that massive particles cannot travel at c for precisely the reasons given above and shown in the formula on that link? It is tested via the LHC that particles gain mass if they have invariant (rest mass) and to reach c would require infinite energy. They gain variant mass (old terminology relativistic mass) How else do you think accelerating two protons and smashing them together can generate particles with greater invariant mass than the combined mass of the two protons ? When you get right down to it the formulas of SR and GR are tested millions of times daily....

Neutrinos do not travel at c, they were found to have slight mass and thus travel at slightly less than c. The CERN statement otherwise a few years ago was found to be a systematic error. Neutrinos gain slight mass via the Higgs field. Mass being resistance to inertia change... Here is a recognized peer review test on the upper bounds for neutrini speed compared to c https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.04328

Doesn't matter what your model asserts it matters what it can qualitatively prove. Prove energy is anything other than the ability to perform work.... Under GR all frames are inertial there is no absolute frame. Those two claims require further evidence and proofs. You will never get past a peer review without them.

First off energy is not a physical substance. It is the ability to perform work. This is a basic defintion that still applies today. If you approach a professional scientific community the peer review will request evidence to the contrary. Secondly all particles are field excitations. They do not have any corpuscular (solid) portions. They exhibit pointlike and wavelike characteristics but this does not mean they are little balls or bullets. Your zero energy clock or absolute time will also stop you dead in your tracks. Using just the SR rudimentary time dilation formula is also doing you no favors.

Data the the majority of the professional scientific community accept as evidence lol. Good luck

Yeah I've given up on seeing a proper post in terminology by the OP. Hence I don't bother trying lol

Another well answered post +1

+1

Take a toy universe consisting of only matter. Matter always has space between particles. Now start a uniform distribution for simplicity start with roughly the density of a plasma cloud. Now I don't know if your familiar with Shell theory if not please ask. As matter collapses from this cloud to form galaxies etc. The average density will decrease away from the galaxy while at the precise same time increase in the galaxy locale. The volume of the universe filled with nothing other than fermionic matter will expand because the average density on the global distribution has decreased. Yet the total mass itself or total energy remains constant. (The LCDM model total particle count is roughly [latex] 10^{90} [/latex] particles since the BB till now. The number of each particle species may vary but the number in total stays roughly constant. Now we have an expanding toy universe that does not require radiation nor DE. This obviously is not our universe itself but we model each contributor seperately to understand how each contributes to expansion and contraction. The temperature, pressure and density of an expanding volume always decreases in accordance to the ideal gas laws. The FLRW metric utilizes these laws to model our universe. Now every textbook will teach that our universe follows an adiabatic and isentropic fluid. ( no net inflow or outflow of energy/entropy). This makes sense as the universe is everything there is....So there is no possibility of an outflow of entropy or energy. This is true for both a finite or infinite universe. Temperature is the average kinetic energy. So if the temperature decreases the average kinetic energy of each locale will decrease but the total energy of the entire volume will remain constant. So yes its partly how you described field weakening. If you stated the average energy or mass density decreases then you would be correct for an expanding volume modelled under field treatment. However if you simply state the field weakens you would be incorrect. The first example demostrates this as certain locales will increase while other locales decrease. The total field strength defined by its total energy would however stay constant. Now redshift. It will help to understand that energy of a signal or the strength of a signal is related to its frequency. So photons lose energy due to redshift but the energy must go somewhere. With gravitational redshift its considered to goto the gravitational potential. With cosmological redshift it goes into the spacetime regions along the photon path. So the field strength total energy remains unaffected its distribution of energy merely changes. Particles being field excitations. The photon being a localized excitation will lose energy but that energy is redistributed to the field. So total energy is still unchanged. In essence you trade off tbe kinetic energy of the particle to the potential energy of the field and vice versa. However total energy of the system remains unchanged. In an expanding universe it is the average energy density that decreases due to larger volume not the field potential/strength of the total field. The field potential may be greater or lesser at some locales just as In The case of the matter field in the first example.