Mordred

Oh really what about our own solar system itself? There were two seperate tests initially involved to first test GR. Far more nowadays. Hades star via gravitational lensing, Mercury orbit.

Yes and I provided some everyday empirical evidence which you ignored or discounted. Prove me wrong Explain moun decay as to how muons can reach Earths surface, explain the atomic clock tests, explain Doppler shift, explain Grsvitational lensing, explain,... I could literally find far far more tests performed etc for relativity.

Please reread the link on the forum rules, this thread won't last long with that response.

Umm try under field treatment. You don't need actual numbers yet. You model the range of viable numbers under a coordinate (as per graph function). Start with Galilean relativity (Everyday Euclid under a geometry transformation). After all your building the model, if you have any hope of being listened to by any professional. You will need to prove your knowledge mathematically.

No you don't understand apparently. This forum has specific rules to allow a Speculation thread to continue. One of those things is mathematical rigor in particular under any Physics based model. So this isn't something to be avoided. There is literally millions of tests of relativity everyday. All forms of Doppler shift is equivalent to time dilation. This includes radar guns, though its isn't necessary to model under GR its still a signal delay. Every particle accelerator collision tests the invariant and variant mass nature. They even measured time dilation in 100' of seperate experiments. Trust me you need to do far far better if you ever expect anyone to take you seriously.

There is nothing to examine professionally speaking. You have next to nothing actually modeled. I don't bother with wishy washy I think its this way. prove it under math. You posted numerous videos on hydro magnetic dynamics with regards to weather. You should have some math skills if you even understood any of the equations they use. Under GR they don't actually change much start there. LOL after all Maxwell and Lorentz equations indicated the need for relativity in the first place. For example second order flux tubes. If you could model that then relativity should be a cinch to figure out.

No the entire model is not incorrect. Take it from one that understands how relativity works under GR/String and QFT treatments. At the moment you haven't presented anything close to a model as of yet. That requires a mathematical rigor I have yet to see in this thread. Your beliefs and feelings are meaningless unless you can prove your model under the math. First and foremost. If you honestly understood GR you would understand there is literally nothing unusual about it. However very few people actually ever do study it in proper detail before passing false judgements. No calculations that is a requirement of physics. Simple fact. the point of physics is being able to plot any dynamic and make predictions based on those plots. Your not talking physics unless your doing the math as well. Why would you find something as simple as a propagation delay of a signal so unusual ? That is literally what time delay is under field treatments.

Well if you did have the mathematical skills, you would know a white hole is not a scalar zero field. A Scalar field spin zero has no inherent direction nor preferred location. While the Higg's field is homogeneous and isotropic. (no preferred direction nor location=centre)

Yes under the mathematics itself. those images are always misleading to what a 4d model would look like. (good luck actually graphing one) the best you can do is approximate hyperslice representations.

So visual aid time.... Take a graph x, y. draw a line where x equal 1. Y is the set of all real numbers. Now if you skew y axis as per the descriptive above. The straight line forms a hyperbolic curve. At 45 degrees v=c.(timelike) (time has units of length) This forms the surface of the lightcone representation. The direction of motion being in the positive x direction. That surface is the null geodesic under graph. There is a couple of handy derivitave's to know how we give acceleration and velocity dimension of time. (as length in Natural units via ct) [math]\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=0[/math] (if constant non zero acceleration [math]\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=a[/math] and [math] \frac{dx}{dt}=v[/math] acceleration and velocity respectively. Lorentz transforms works under constant velocity. Acceleration generates a rotation under symmetry group

No there is no time dilation involved in the above so there is no need to model as a spacetime metric. It is when you need to consider how time dilation causes an interval deviation from the vector addition under Galilean (Euclidean) relativity do you require SR/GR. Think of it this way. All forms of relativity involve vectors and vector addition. It is through the use of vectors that we define the term ( interval). More formally Galilean relativity is symmetric on all vectors. This includes unit vectors used to describe the geometry axis. ( all axis are orthogonal) x,y,z. When length contraction/time dilation occurs under Lorentz this geometry no longer holds true and becomes skew assymmetric. The amount of skew being described by the Lorentz gamma or beta functions. By accounting for the skew we can restore the orthogonal reference frame (at rest) so that we restore the Pythagorous relations under Euclid geometry. This is described as a transformation. (to transform one frame into another) Orthogonal (all reference frames are 90 degrees from another.) The 90 degrees provides a perpendicular symmetry at the same time (unit vectors = 1 geometric unit ) are also at unity 1 therefore also symmetric. This is your three 2d hyperplanes. (xyz) with unit vectors (ijk) in sequence. To give time a unit of both energy and interval) vector quantity we define the interval as (ct) .(Under specifically Natural units)[math] c=G=\hbar =1) [/math] Changes to ct are modelled via contraction of the x coordinate axis. How this is graphed is by skewing the y axis on both the plus or minus quadrants towards the positive value x quadrant. (will form a V towards higher value x coordinates. This is the Lorentz frame skew assymetry graphed. The maximum skew angle being 45 degrees. Above that your velocity exceeeds c.

No a fully flat geometry is Galiliean relativity or Euclidean space.

No worries there.

Yep looks much better.

correct. Though its more accurate to state that the conservation laws of the Eightfold way are satisfied including those involved in the baryon octic/nonet

As all constituent particles that comprise the proton/antiproton annihilate. This includes all conserved quantities, such as spin, color/ charge/ energy/momentum are annihilated so it becomes a full annihilation. This allows any particles to be formed afterward provided energy/mass does not exceed the total energy of the two. This includes the monentum of the created particles. (That is the sentence sum of conserved quantities equals zero indicates in above link).

A proton/antiproton annihilation is rather complex. The 3 quark/antiquark constituents only account for 1 % the total mass. Upon annihilation of the two particles all mass of both are released. They can form any number of other particles provided those particles has less than the total energy of the previous two. In point of detail the 3 quarks is simply the inbalance of the proton. There is literally thousands of quarks/gluons that comprise the proton Mostly this will be pions and kaons however the number can theoretically be as high as 13 pions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation

The instrinsic spin of a particle has no actual motion involved. It literally involves the symmetry/ antisymmetry relations specifically to the types of equations needed to describe a wavefunction. The spin doesn't add to KE, in point of detail it adds to the rest mass term itself of the particle. All principle number quantum wavefunctions do so. They all form the invariant identity of the particle. Spin is intrinsic to the phase space used to model it.

Good answer, couldn't have said it better myself. Unfortunately the only easy non math way to describe a cross section is to recall particles are field excitations, whose wavefunctions will give a probability function that will correspond the probability of scattering. This is also related to the particles mean liftetime. Under QFT it is part of the Feyman path integrals. Rutherford scattering under QM https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_scattering The way QM and QFT will mathematically describe this will be different as the two use different operators and QFT will use Klien Gordon as opposed to Schrodinger but that takes a considerable time to describe the distictions. Its easiest to understand under QM first. (QM will teach the required fundamentals) A very easy way to identify a QM vs a QFT treatment if your self studying outside a textbook or formalized training. QM operators are position and momentum (priori is the particle) QFT operators are creation and annihilation ( priori is the field not the particle)

Well this is one topic I know nothing about. WB.

Glad to know not to waste anymore of my time on you have fun and be well. My biggest mistake was thinking you actually wanted to learn. Ah well at least I know there are plenty of others that has gained from my assistance.

It only applies to physics if the physics is understood in the first place. One of my degrees has the title Philosophies of cosmology.

thank you for your answer be well its clear by that you have no interest in understanding the actual science. Why didn't you post this in the Philosophy forum instead of a science forum? We do after all have a philosophy forum on this site. You will notice I rarely visit it

Ah but I am not tellling you how to think I am trying to increase your knowledge set so you can properly understand what it is your talking about Otherwise you will keep making mistakes. I told you before I couldn't care less what you think or believe. I teach the physics simple as that. So tell me straight up do you want to understand the physics or not ? if not I can help others who do want to learn

read this post again and tell me what I should think about how you wrote it after all the assistance I tried to provide you. You basically discounted all effort I put into helping you understand the experiment as meaningless. Which is false you need to understand the experiment to draw any logical conclusions on it. This was right after you discounted the fact that on my first post this thread I asked your permision to discuss what a correlation function is in the first place. The problem here is your trying to use metaphysics to answer physics type problems without taking the time to understand the physics this is useless and utterly pointless. I don't mind metaphysics but only when the person understands the physics he is discussing. You tend to come off as " I don't understand it then look for some support of poorly understood quotes to back yourself up" and physicists that do understand the problem are in error. That may not be your intent but that has been how many of your posts have been interpreted and not just by myself Do you want to know how I read that paper by Maudlin? it is a debate of whether a correlation function can be used to predict the results of another dataset. Which is shown as being possible to in fact garnish some modicum of prediction via the correlation function. Now back to the physics, what is a filter? does it not remove unwanted frequencies? ie it only allows a specified frequency through it?