Mordred

not quite because from the top image those entries are not single valued. Some of those entries are also matrixes. Those are statements to give an aid to understanding how to derive to apply those entries. So while handy it is also misleading if your not familar with what the entry terms represent. for example [math]\sigma[/math] are matrixes That image is just a representation or visual aid to help see the vorticity and flux relations. There is further formulas that apply to each entry above. Now if you want to square the tensor you need to do the tensor product of two tensors. There is a specific procedure to follow in order to do this. For that you will need to apply in essence matrix multiplication rules. That will generate a new tensor. Multipying tensors and matrixes is a rather lengthy procedure to learn with numerous rules applied to different types of tensors. In the case above orthogonal tensors.

roflmao

SR handles acceleration via a type of rotation called Rapidity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity I see someone has updated this link lol. They may have gotten a bit complex for the average reader. Lets simplify this and apply the more generally applied indices instead of the unit vectors i,j,k http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

I will when he applies the correct understanding of the equations I already posted far earlier in this thread. I already showed him how to model a static central potential gravitational system. All he has to do is apply 1 single further term to get to rotation. an side not I actually did that twice. Once under classical and once under QFT. lol but then again so did Dubbelosix but required a simple additional term where this all got started lmao. I would have to double check that I can't recall if Dubbelosix had reached Levi-Cevita by then on the other forum...

Any model can be modified it occurs all the time. If you had any clue at all you would know that. WITH THE PROPER math tools. GR itself is a primary example it constantly develops under new research. Same with the FRW metric to include DM and the cosmological constant. These were added later on when they were discovered as being required. The entirety of particle physics developed long after Einsteins time when only 2 particles were known. The proton and electron. The Neutron wasn't discovered till roughly 1935. Would you like an excerpt on how the atom was described on my 1921 physics textbook? Maybe you would like a copy of the great debate written in Einstein's time when they thought other galaxies were simply nebulae? I can provide you that pdf file.

No this is about saving him time and effort using the wrong math rules plain and simple. You who knows nothing about the topic should stop wasting our time lecturing those that can. Your doing nothing more than causing problems to Vmedvil gaining the required skill set to properly model any dynamic. Quit wasting our time because you refuse to understand the proper tools for the job. If you can't do the job yourself don't lecture others in how to do it plain and simple....

I can easily and accurately model both. Can you? Those are basic lessons in a standard GR textbook. (ie first year undergraduate studies)

A variable represents a number this is basic math. We are not reinventing the rules of math because it doesn't work for you. Use the correct math rules. They do already exist....... feel free to take the time to learn them...

Do you have any clue as to how many partial derivatives that are involved in [math]T^{\mu\nu}[/math] 255 of them. A 4 by 4 tensor organizes dozens of equations under 1 expression. Yet your trying to apply it like an algebraic variable which is strictly a scalar (magnitude only) quantity.[math]\frac{8\pi G}{3}[/math] is a relation that only applies to a central potential system yet you mixed it with the EFE equations which includes Euclidean coordinates. [math]T^{00}[/math] for example is a zeroth order order quantity describing a massless particle ie a photon via [math]\rho c^2[/math] that is just a single entry in that tensor i,jk are vectors not algebraic variables. They include both magnitude and direction. Shall I continue? ie no algebraic variable will EVER include indices...ie [math]\mu\nu[/math] or indices [math]i,j,k[/math]

You can't use algebra directly to a tensor Why dovyou think calculus exists? You don't substitute tensors like you do a common everyday variable as per algebra. 90% of those terms above are not algebraic variables. They do not follow the same blooming rules

no 100 percent absolutely wrong. I can't even pick a starting point on the number of errors in that. You have mixed coordinates, mixed zeroth order to second order derivatives, mixed units, mixed tensors, mixed complex conjugates, mixed vectors with scalar quantities shall I continue....?

well considering how many tensors and different units of measure involved in that lengthy equation above involves I don't see how that is possible. Should also add all the complex conjugate states.

Sorry but your far too inconsistent on your statements concerning things like entanglement, String theory, De-Sitter/Anti-Desitter etc. In particular statements like microverses and FTL communication etc. Anyways Enough with you, I'm more interested in helping Vmedvil as he is the one trying to get the math right. Vmedvil I recommend you pick up a good coverage of ADS/CFT correspondance for what you are attempting. You want an example of String theory and higher dimensions with the Schwartzchild metric that will provide a good starting point. Here not the greatest but has some applicable details on D branes. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/jared-kaplan/files/2016/05/AdSCFTCourseNotesCurrentPublic.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiGuoThiODXAhWpxFQKHZiNBc0QFgguMAM&usg=AOvVaw1W68K5piuiuav3E-B3Y8qG It will also help address the cosmological constant via the ADS (anti-Desitter under the same regime). You should find tons of info on De-Sitter/Anti De-Sitter as every metric in cosmology uses it at some point. Its been around as long as Allen Guths False vacuum inflation lol. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1206&ved=0ahUKEwjd2qvti-DXAhUT0WMKHbehCnMQFggkMAE&usg=AOvVaw1-3IcaytZiqR6ulwqQ19H3 This is more applicable to String theory and ADS/CFT however

lol considering you don't know any of the mathematics or even understand the physics correctly. I certainly won't accept any conclusion from you on the assists I have provided Vmedvil. I have literally provided several of the correct tools to properly develop his model so it has a chance of getting somewhere. In particular after watching his struggle to integrate the numerous equations by stating to examine the "Action" that correspond to those equations so that he has a better starting point to develop his derivitaves. So please stop trying to lecture me when you don't know the first thing about physics. QUIT TRYING TO PUSH YOUR MISCONCEPTIONS UPON OTHERS. I have repeatedly had to point out where your advise has been literrally wrong. So now the LHS. I have to check a few details, not sure if "Fields" on arxiv will help or confuse but its over 1000 pages on the topic so should have something to help here

Yes Super I know about those testsai read that article when It first came out. Doesn't change anything I stated.

This has absolutely nothing to do with observer affects that is not what polarity means. Granted we always have observer effects but phase angles is not dependant upon observers per se. Have you any electromagnetic signal knowledge? Ie have you never heard the term polarity phase angles? Secondly there is no such thing as FTL communication it does not exist between entangled particles as they do not communicate nor interfere with one another once they are spatially seperated. No quantum cellular automata is something else entirely lol sigh about the only similarity is the word quantum. Cellular automata is specifically a quantum information theory that incorporates logic gates. Simply put automata (classical arose from computations on a tape) in quantum computing it is much the same but instead of one computation it is all computations simultaneously on a quantum computer Turing machine. If your going to throw buzzwords around at least take the time to make sure you know what they mean please.

The scale factor time derivitaves are simple ratios. The scale factor today is 1 you compare the radius at the time you wish to examine and compare it to the radius today. If for example the radius then is 1/2 the radius today. Then [math] \ddot{a}(t)=0.5[/math] it is as simple as that. If you have 3 dots then you compare to two dots. If two dots compare to 1 dot. They are just ways to keep track of the sequence of time comparisons

I hate to break this to you, but there is no communication between two entangled particles. This unfortunately is also a very common misconception. The term superposition originated from statistical mechanics same with the term correlation function. If there is a correlation function the two particles are entangled. Well naturally particle entanglement occurs quite often in nature. It actually applies to the conservation laws involved in particle pair production. However we don't know which particle is which until measured. Once you measure one the other must be the opposite. You can actually do a home demonstation of this. Take a red and green ball place one in a bag the other a different bag. Hand those bags to two other individuals. Neither of those individuals knows which of the two balls they have so its a 50% chance it could be either red or blue. Once one bag is opened the opposite ball is automatically known. Same thing applies to entangled particles. A does not need to affect B for them to be correlated. Unfortunately this got lost in papers on Bells experiment which involves the ratio of polarity alignment with the detectors. Ie in the same polarity as detector a or detector b. Dr.Chinese website has an excellent paper on this. http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm I used to chat with him on another forum at one time but haven't seen him post in ages. He taught me a ton on entanglement back when I wasn't too keen on the topic. Just a side note give me any two datasets doesn't matter what they are. 1 could be population while the other the number of apples growing on a tree. With those two datasets one can readily calculate a correlation function. Or from from the same formula see if there is a correlation.

Sometimes its an unfortunate necessity when one person is too far in denial of accepting any attempt to understand how the standard theories currently works. That statement also addresses the bolded part. You can't teach the standard model to someone that isn't willing to accept the teachings. One of the reasons for understanding Gaussian noise and fractal signal processing is that not all datasets include nicely formed curves. When you take a collection of datapoints you end up with a series of seemingly random dots on an x,y graph. This is an example of Gaussian noise. So one has to find a way to curve fit those seemingly random dots in order to do a Fourier transformation and arrive at an equation. Or in another example the waveform isn't a nice and tidy sinusoidal signal but looks like a lot of various overlapping random signals that finding an equation to describe that waveform is seemingly impossible. This is where fractal geometry can be useful. Situations where the signal has numerous variations in either amplitude or wavelengths being another. Try reading a signal in a superposition state of multiple overlapping signals that is constructively and destructively interfering with itself and isolate the overlapping individual signals.

You know I try the simplist explanations possible with you but you fail to understand a single word of it in the glory you figure your idea will solve. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.309.929%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ved=0ahUKEwiXwsv-td7XAhXojFQKHf88A88QFggiMAE&usg=AOvVaw34fzNnWF9rcgxD1zCw81j4 Do yourself a favor google the term fractal signal processing. That is how fractals are applied in QFT and Cosmology applications. then follow that up and google the term Gaussian signal processing.

Maybe when you understand how that equation has been applied you might understand. As it doesn't address any issue you just posted. Nothing about fractal geometry will address the BB singularity. Nor does it address your complaint on the universe not being steady state. For example where does that equation support microverses ? Is that a conception you got from seeing the smaller and smaller identical images ? so you figure this supports microverses? Ie Tiny universes residing within our universe at below the Planck scale? You will be disappointed to learn that equation is being applied to a particular type of sinusoidal waveform. One that has an extremley small period that gradually extends to larger periods between cycles along the x axis. Specifically a signal with an extremely short wavelength whose wavelength increases over time. Which can be applied to redshift.

You claimed fractal geometry as a replacement but I showed it as being incorperated into SO(10) lie groups

No physics is the lanquage of mathematics. You are not talking physics without involving the math. It is you that is under the misconception. The purpose of physics is to make predictions of interactions. You cannot do that without the mathematics. You aren't even discussing physics without the math

There is no danger as every model employs the various mathematical mehods. This includes fractal geometry in terms of developing symmetry relations. It wont replace any model but instead gets implemented into other models. Study enough papers and you will see these metrics being employed in numerous applications and incorperated into other models. Not replacing them but integrated into them. Primary example the Baker-Cambell Haussdorff is useful in QFT and is often included in QFT textbooks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff_formula

Probably because in order to understand any mathematical model requires understanding of the math. Fractal geometry is a mathematical topic. The importance is the math not the images. The math is what generated those images not the other way around.