Mordred

Well for starters there is a mass/luminosity relation this typically involves processes such as Compton scatterings etc. When I get a chance I will provide further detail on that. It's doubtful it will affect the Hubble contention as a large part of the contention is due to local calibration issues which involves supernova and different types of cepheids rather than the galaxy itself. We don't use luminosity of the galaxy for luminosity to distance relations as there is too many unknowns involved for determining the emitter luminosity frequencies.

As physical processes involve kinematic motion hence the SM model langrangian which applies path integrals via principle of Least action. You would have an incredibly difficult time equating anything relating of mind to those physical processes under physics. Yes I would consider that off topic

When it leads to measurable physical effects then yes example being DM. We have high confidence that DM exists but the only evidence is indirect. Often times indirect physical evidence later leads to discovery. For example measurable physical particle processes that we cannot account for often lead to discovery of a new particle or particle interaction as further research becomes available. DM if you think about it fits in this category.

Without calculations it's all hand waving start with calculating the energy requirements for 3 particle accelerators plus your energy requirements for containment which would likely require magnetic confinement. I provided a clue in the related formulas for self ignition. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/research/cfsa/people/pastmembers/peeters/teaching/lecture2.pdf There are reasons why fusion on Earth requires a far higher temperature than the core of our sun. In order for a particle accelerator to function requires a tremendous amount of electricity it does after all apply the EM field via Maxwell equations in particular Lorentz force. If I recall the yearly budget of the LHC is something on the order of Terra watts of electricity yearly but It's been awhile since I read that so my memory may be fuzzy on that number. It also isn't simply a matter of temperature but also pressure. The suns gravity aids in that. However on Earth we must supply that energy through magnetic confinement. However using accelerators and magnetic confinement isn't a bad idea (ignoring tachyons and DM). The Lawson criteria is one the preliminary steps and can be further applied with different particles such as muons. There is calculation for muons in regards the accelerators available on the web. (Specifically applying the Lawson criteria).The only way to test for practicality is to crunch numbers not simply hand wave ideas. That will help narrow out the more useful particle to use. In terms of potential net gain. Here is a more detailed article. You will note hopefully the Coulomb collisions with regards to the particles cross section plays a fundamental roll in determining which particle is more suitable for ignition temperature. https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/283626/files/VanOost_Jaspers_IN-2.pdf Edit assuming DM is a weakly interactive particle and we know doesn't interact with the EM field you wouldn't be able to use magnetic confinement or an accelarator to speed up a DM particle.

Also sounds like a work of fiction. Let's start with the energy requirements of all the equipment you proposed. How would you possibly meet the Lawson criteria for self sustaining ignition to get any net gain of energy ? Even assuming dark matter is some as of yet unknown particle or the mere existence of tachyons. Which the latter has zero evidence for its existence. PS welcome to the forum.

Sorry misread that earlier thanks for the catch +1

Quality can be measured via Grey tones as well as percentage of absorption, reflection/Refraction. Good example being the blackest black record holder paint.

Simple way to think of it is any measurable quantity is a physical quantity. Example color is measurable so it's a physical property. Here is a short list of physical properties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property

One detail to consider it's physicality is oft considered as being measurable. Particularly under QFT treatments and serves as a distinction between operator action and propogator action in terms of Feymann integrals. Ie internal wavy lines represent what is commonly called virtual particles which individually are not measurable. Might help with defining physicality.

Typically and assuming the old boundary condition still holds but the boundary used to be considered as 100 times the mean average density of the void regions which can be calculated via the critical density formula as our universe is extremely close to critical density. No this paper will not replace the need for DM though may reduce the local to galaxy quantity needed to match rotation curves.

! Moderator Note Op requested move via PM

Are you talking about Apopropanolol I'd so this should be moved to one of the medical forums and not the astronomy forum. Once you confirm I can move the thread for you

The point I'm making is that in order to get the best accuracy one cannot necessarily stick with any favorite or preferred theory. So its best to be able to use whichever theory outside of any preference that works best with a given system. Nor is it realistic to use the same equation to describe all possible interactions that can occur. A good example is the standard model Langrangian which is a little over a page Long. Your far better off using the portions applicable and reduce the equation to simply the relevant portions of the system being described.

Well as stated it's not a conjecture I've chosen to follow closely so wouldn't really know if Boltzmann brains exist or not. Given the probability errors on that link. I hadn't read anything stating such conclusively. Truth be told I never found any practicality behind studying the conjecture. So never wasted much time on it. Usually when I do it's to assist some poster understand the physics involved as numerous papers have the FLRW metric as well as SM processes such as EW symmetry breaking and inflation.

I think one of the trickier examples of statistics given enough time is the Boltzmann Brain conjecture where given enough time the Universe itself could develop a brain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain It's not a conjecture I particularly follow but it's one example of how statistical systems given enough time can be applied to some highly speculative outcomes.

Well here is another challenge to add to the proverbial headache. Let's say your comparing two or more methodologies to describe a class or category of systems. Ie galaxies /plasma clouds/ hydrodynamic systems etc. Lets say theory B makes better predictions to certain subcategories (example one class of galaxy) than theory A but theory A makes better predictions than theory B in other subclasses. How does one objectively determine which is better theory A or theory B for an all inclusive theory ? For higher accuracy the theory best suited for the specific system should be the one used. This is one of the fundamental challenges in science it's the choosing of the best fit for a specific system. Far too often one wants to use one theory on all subsystems in a given study however if one wants higher accuracy this isn't always possible. So in this case higher accuracy is achievable by using multiple competing theories in the same study.

Let's try a simpler example then you have some system. When you describe the velocity terms (first order ) you have some error margin but it's acceptable. (It's never 100 percent) now on that same system you want to add accelerations which involve force terms (second order) your accuracy will naturally decrease. As you increase to third order (stress/shear) the problem progressively gets more and more inaccurate. All the above it's literally unavoidable its a natural consequence all you can do is minimize the error margins. This is also one of the dangers with having too many degrees of freedom in the same integrals. So accuracy is best achieved by avoiding trying to do too much in the same equation.

Here is a useful example in regards to the scientific method. Using math (I won't bother with the specific formulas) when estimating DM distribution based on the viral theorem for gaussian distribution. The first order equations are used. The second order equations led to higher inaccuracy so the second order equations are not being used. This was checked by observational evidence. So even with the same methodology higher order equations can often lead to higher error margins (which is very typical )

None of the above is useful for GR besides the geometry itself. When applying the Lorentz transformations the x coordinate is by convention chosen for the particle momentum. Any orientations are handled via symmetry relations involving rotational and spatial translations. So one can arbitrarily apply GR to any orientation of any object relative to any other orientation. You also mentioned absolute space above. Forget that there is no absolute reference frame or space. How objects behave in the the presence of spacetime curvature has nothing to do with the composition of the mass terms so relating that to magma makes little sense. The composition merely contributes to establishing the mass distribution which in turn leads to the spacetime curvature terms. For oblate spheroids a choice of orientation won't matter as the mass terms is asymmetric and the mass distribution will also be non uniform. This is already handled under the EFE.

It might help to consider that any complex problem can always become understood once you break that complex problem down into manageable smaller problems. So to ask how the scientific method deals with worldviews isn't something that's easy to define. In one regards all theories and models are typically interconnected with other theories. You can readily learn those connections by studying the mathematical proofs of a given equation. Secondly it's typical for a given theory to deal with specific states/systems/mixtures etc rather than any worldview. This is true regardless of field of science the vast majority of theories deal with specific systems etc rather than a worldviews or all inclusive into one theory. However they are always interconnected with other relevant theories. In terms of objectivity cross examinations are an essential tool used to improve objectivity. At all scientific levels as cross examinations is common to even metaphysical theories. Naturally the scientific method cannot afford to ignore Any counter evidence. So any good theory deals also with any counter evidence as it presents itself. So a robust theory will typically improve as new research including counter research presents itself. If a theory cannot counter a piece of evidence then there is something inherently wrong with the theory.

Another good example of scientific objectivity is to look at good quality research papers. A good quality paper not only presents it's own theory but also includes any counter theories or competing theories and performs an examination of each with regards to accuracy with experimental evidence. You also will find numerous papers by other authors simply comparing different models to establish which model is the best fit This is one of the many steps in the pursuit of objective examination.

have you ever stopped to consider a science forum is the wrong place to post anything in regards to spy service etc. This site is to discuss science it has nothing to do with how governments are run. Nothing you have presented involves any scientific discussion. Your advertising in the wrong forum and the wrong manner. If you have been doing the same thing on other forums then its no wonder your account is getting banned in them.

there is no absolute frame of reference that in itself is not supported by mainstream physics hence one of the reasons why this is in speculation and not mainstream physics. An absolute frame doesn't even exist in any quantum treatment with regards to decays and aging. Those formulas you claimed do not matter in fact show the above quotation as false.

Yes I stated as such but you seem to be trying to include those factors in terms of the twin paradox. As I mentioned before the primary purpose of the twin paradox is to distinguish between the first order velocity terms and the second order acceleration terms resulting in the solution of the paradox which was never a paradox to begin with but amounts to improper examination by ignoring the second order terms. If you recall you kept bringing up factors such as Higgs ZPE etc. Hence I'm showing that while related has nothing to do with solving the paradox.

I wouldn't go quite so far as to state the article conclusively shows the Lorentz invariance violations of LQC as being inaccurate it certainly supplies strong constraints on any Lorentz invariance violations. Which does include LQC. I would think there will be subsequent rebuttals in defense of quantum gravity models with inherent LIV being published so for myself I will wait and see the rebuttals which I fully expect. though this certainly isn't the first attempt to find evidence of spin foam using cepheids. All other attempts have also failed AFIAK. In one of the earlier examinations it was argued that the spin-foam lattices were too miniscule to have an measurable effects in signal propagation. This was in regards to one of the earlier tests resulting from a supernova event.