Mordred

Note to above. Euler Hydrodynamics is described by the Euler equations. Both can be applied, though some limitations. The Euler method is by far easier with less limitations.

lol side note just read and article involving triaxial stress involvement in DM. Just found it amusing to see the term being applied here at the same time roughly lol. Very few papers will write triaxial stress. Typically they just write stress tensor. Same basic physics apply.

This isn't complete yet, I have been working on it for roughly a week now off and on as RL allows. As this thread is appropriate and I'm positive Studiot won't mind. (Particular I was trying to formulate the vector fields as simply as possible). I figured I would post it here to gather recommendations comments etc and tie in with Studiots engineering field treatments. Quite frankly the mathematical formulations at their rudimentary physics are essentially identical. The deviations arise in application Last few lines are just topics to cover, don't associate curl div, grad to the diverging converging etc. I just placed key words down to cover. One of the challenges above is detailing a zero'th order function (scalar), First order function ( vector) etc and keeping the math low enough for a low grade level high school student as a possible reader while still having enough detail to interest the older crowd like me @Studiot feel like providing a real world example of contour map, with image of course including the gradiant in field treatment. ? I welcome contributions of others in the completion of the above. Obviously credits will be applied for any volunteer efforts. (No interest in publishing, this is for the Forum usage and I might include on my website, see signature.)

It breaks down to how one describes something as outside a model. The only correct answer is "Can the mathematical basis, provide an accurate prediction" So having a model that without any changes to its underlying mathematical formalism. Then applying those same rules, (in this case the Eightfold Wayen, via the conservation laws of the Eightfold baryon octect and meson nonet. Ie charge, spin, parity, mass, energy/momentum, color, isospin, flavor. Think that's all of em but might be missing one or teo) Anyways the mathematical basis behind these conservation laws, provide us with the means to predict what particles are possible. So simply detecting one that the Eightfold Wayen can and did predict isn't new beyond finally being able to measure it. Something outside the standard model would require something ie a new conservation law etc, that the current mathematical basis cannot answer/nor predict. As far as Pentaquarks are involved I for one read the mathematical basis for their prediction long before finally being measured.

In terms of dark matter, vs baryonic on rotation curves. The main focus is the mass/luminosity relation including the relevant redshift effects (gravitstional within local group) gravitational bound system so Hubble isn't accurate in this case, which involves Cosmological redshift.. Though M33 will also involve Doppler. This also correlates to how Zwicky realized DM was required as it involved the mass/luminosity with a large part involving Jeans equation/Euler hydrodynamics. Currently estimates of DM clusters still use this technique though more advanced in treatment. One can apply the above and estimate the affect DM has on temperature. Though not directly via the properties of DM which are largely unknown. For universe particle number estimates one can apply the Bose-Einstien and Fermi Dirac statistics combined with nucleosynthesis and our current knowledge of particle physics. Utilitizing known particle degrees of freedom, spin, charge, etc one can apply these attributes to their contribution to temperature. From this we can apply those contributions to get the number density of any particle via the blackbody temperatures. For example one can calculate the number density of photons and neutrinos etc etc from CMB temperature etc. Not to mention the practical application as applied to stars/galaxies/plasma clouds etc. DM if a distinct particle will also have distinct thermodymanic relations ( unfortunately we can only make assumptions as to what property values to use). However one can still eliminate what is known from the luminosity data.

Ok Pentaquarks and Diquarks were predicted using the SM model long before their discovery. However we don't add particles despite predictions to the SM model until we have identified them in experiments. It isn't patchwork so much as a safety net. Just as none of the supersymmetric particles are added to our model of particles, despite being predicted. No physics nor formulas need changing, to predict Pentaquarks so it is part of the SM model not added to the SM model. The particle itself is simply been confirmed. The model itself requires no changes

Try this thought experiment. "Why do the regions in the voids have a temperature if there is no particles" ? Why would the temperature be so close to the baryonic regions? You read up a bit on Bose-Einstein and Fermi Dirac. So you probably know you can calculate the number density of any particle species once you know that particles cross section via its temperature contributions. So answer this How can we get such close temperatures when the number density of baryonic matter between voids is negligible compared to the number density in the filaments? PS it was your mind fried comment that reminded me about this (keep in mind via the same statistics above and combining spectronomy spectral indexes, we can measure the baryonic contributions and isolate their contributions based upon measurement data) ie photons, neutrinos ( different EoS than next list, ) hydrogen, lithium etc. The last comment on EoS ties into the Baryon accoustic oscillation data correspondence to temp/pressure relations. The internet is full of the hydrostatic Euler and Jeans equations in examination of Dark matter distributions which gets far deeper to apply it to BAO but these are the rudimentary basis behind BAO examinations of Dark matter regions.

lol I can relate to that, PS NFW is a double power law.

Ok so let me ask this question. I asked before if you studied virial theory. Have you looked specifically at the NFW profile as opposed to a disk/bulge distribution? You can literally use any mass value in the Bulge itself and no matter what mass you use. You will get a Keplar curve decline. I may have the advantage here as this was attempted for several decades prior to DM finally being accepted. ( I studied dozens of these attempts. ) good luck finding them now though. ( most gradually disappeared from the internet. MOND literally had to alter the fine structure constant just to make reasonable attempt.( A side note some of the best discussions I had on this topic was on Space.com when it once had a forum.) This was prior to Planck data back when we only had COBE. WMAP was too recent Though this has literally nothing to do with a universe rotation model. Just as expansion doesn't affect a galaxy structure, neither would a rotating universe possibly account for galaxies losing a BH. Even assuming the possibility the amount of rotation that would be required would literally prevent the galaxy from forming in the first place. After all the mass distribution of a galaxy would have a far greater coupling strength on average, than what would be influenced by a universe rotation that is also slow enough to be literally undetectable. A much higher density past however does affect the size and composition of a galaxy including the BH, simply due to availability of matter in the immediate region along with the composition of that matter. Study Jeans instability for infall rates of matter.

Its always been known that baryonic matter was not adding up right. However even with the addition of the baryonic matter its still not nearly enough to cover the amount of dark matter. Baryonic matter being roughly 4 percent compared to 23 percent. A huge difference

No you haven't found strong evidence. You found a potential idea. However torsion based models have literally been beaten to death in professional cosmology. I provided you one of the strongest supporters of Cartan based models. Yet neither MOND nor Cartan based models can address numerous issues in Cosmology. One being the issues being currently raised by Migl, another primary problem is Early large scale structure formation. A third problem being any rotation will not have a spherical galaxy distribution but will instead have an ellipsoid galaxy formation. Regardless of how slow a rotation. As far as BH's and rotation curves go, No amount of mass distribution of a disk profile with a bulge due to a BH will be able to avoid a Kepler decline. It is completely the wrong profile. The NFW profile works due to DM being distributed in an isothermal halo with roughly 10 times the mass of the baryonic content. Sorry but BH's do not evenly affect mass throughout its gravitational influence of range 1/r^2 still applies as per any central potential force. Forget about any idea of a BH being the universe cause of rotation as well. Another idea that has been beaten to death. A BH isn't constant enough in feeding rates or even rotation to maintain a homogeneous and isotropic thermal/mass distribution over the sheer volume of our universe. These models have been tried far more times than I can count. Your no where near the first to try. They all failed, while they all may have solved one or two issues, they could not solve all the related issues. Where as accepting DM does solve the above issues. It will take far more work, than everything you have posted on this forum to even come close to properly address the issues above. ( Probably a lifetime of work literally) as stated these ideas are already beaten to death, so it will take an extremely strong and complete model to counter LCDM with a universe with rotation. I also showed you a constraints paper, your counter argument of simply I do not agree with constraints isn't sufficient to counter that paper. Those constraints are based from CMB data, which although you may not understand those constraints involving the CMB. That simply means you need to figure out why professional Cosmologists feel those constraints do apply.

Lambda has nothing to do with dark matter. Lambda is used for the cosmological constant which dark energy is a possible contributor. Dark energy and dark matter are two completely different entities, with completely different dynamics.

There is no shortcut method to the questions your asking. The only way to learn those models is to understand the mathematics that led to their predictions in the first place. In which case the model is QFT. I already referred you to Quarks and Leptons there is an excellent chapter in there on how the predictions for quarks and gluons came into being including their original mass estimates. The only way to understand the properties of any quantum particle is to understand the probability density functions under QFT. Including its path integrals, there is no easy way. Did you read any of the materials I already provided? some of this information is contained in the Simple introduction to Particle physics articles. Think of interference of wavefunctions, after all every quantum number has a wavefunction probability function.

Agreed, keep forgetting about post limits for newcomers. Thanks for the reminder.

Nor his claims that even ignoring the poor terminology, for dielectric properties simply study superconductivity under Maxwell.

Alright lets see if you know what you are talking about. How can you have a dielectric flow of charges in one direction as described by the first line ? dielectric charge flows both ways depending on which charge polarity you are describing. "1. What’s the difference between the convergent counter-spatial centripetal charge of dielectricity" Do you even understand the terminology you are using. Counter spatial is meaningless in physics. Please provide a professional peer review of the mathematical definition or are you perhaps referring the handedness and helicity. ie more precisely in terms of dipole moments?

Ok I would like you to read this article. Apply the last section to the details in this article. Pay particular attention to how the above relates to the eugenstates and eugenvalues of the linear wave equations with regards to the Schodinger particles in a box. Pay particular attention to coherent states with regards to that box and the phenomena of reflectivity with the potential barrier and tunnelling. There is also excellent coverage of Schodinger time varying and time dependent aspects with regards to Schrodinger. " Quantum mechanics made Simple " lecture notes by Weng Cho CHEW https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/course/QMAll20130923.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiK19D2iOTWAhXoyFQKHQhXCRQQFgg6MAQ&usg=AOvVaw0o4yyrtoIw1Sge245aqO0i PS this article will help any other readers better understand what is going on here as well. Chapter 3 forward as operators are matrixes. Please review matrix algebra for other readers as I know the OP understands it. It will be required to understand my last two posts.

Thats much better, now you have your outer products and the complex conjugates to satisfy the Born rule. Its not entirely accurate to state probability amplitude squared. Its more accurate to describe the Born rule as the amplitude times its own complex conjugate. As we are involving density matrixes. The outer product giving the tensor product of two tensors, which gives us a means to the Kronecker Delta connection. The inner product of two vectors returns a scalar quantity. This was why I wanted greater detail on the outer products. You now have that above. I will look over the above in more detail probably have time tomorrow. You have the tools for the Kronecker delta, but you will need Levi-Cevita connections for curved spacetime. [latex]|\psi_i><\psi_i|=P_m[/latex] you have the projector operator (more complete above )now use this to get your identity. The sum over all projectors of a space is your identity. Once you have the identity you under any basis you have the completeness equation [latex]\sum_i=|v_i><v_i|=\mathbb{I}[/latex] (closure relation) More correctly under QM the resolution of identity [latex]\sum_i=|i><i|=\mathbb{I}[/latex]

No prob, either way the math skills and courses I mentioned above will be useful regardless of career choice. They will help in any physics related studies including engineering applications

much faster thanks once again Capt your doing a great job on responses to problems. Far better than I've seen on other sites from admin staff.

np edit though a human body would burn chemical energy to perform mechanical energy to keep his/her balance. The main form of work to keep balance itself involves mechanical energy. lol depends on how indepth one examines the problem. @Sci-man if you want the most critical areas to focus on in your studies to provide the essential tools to master any Physics related topic or model. Pay extreme extensive attention to the following topics. 1) Any topic involving kinematic motion or displacement 2) Differential geometry ( including trigonometry), Algebra, Calculus. Statistical mechanics. 3) Any topic involving thermodynamics. 4) Any topics involving wave dynamics. 5) Vectors, scalars, spinors and any math rules involving them Those are the major essentials Though others may add to the list. Never stop focussing on the above, they are essential in every model under physics. Pay particular attention to memorizing and adhering to any definitions you are taught and understand those definitions under mathematical treatment. They will always apply regardless of how advanced a model is. They all apply the definitions you are currently learning. Keep your focus on these topics and your understanding of any physics related topic will increase regardless if it is GR, classical, QM, QFT, (all) or string theory.

mechanical energy

gotcha, I noted Swansonts spoiler, but thought of a different scenario where the body itself was the universe. So no potential for loss. Glad I waited

I'm assuming the specific volume is the total volume of the toy universe. Hence needing details to correlate a density to the mass term. Though Studiot stated assume iron. under assumption of specific heat 460.5 joules/kg-k However this is under assumption of specific volume/heat relations. Heat is not temperature (the above is not temperature it is the amount of energy required to raise iron 1 degree) However I am waiting to see if I'm on the methodology Studiot is describing. If I'm right he is indicating that there is a difference between heat and temperature. At least I hope so as it is an incredibly important lesson in physics.

You still need something to correlate a density to equate the temperature even if you are using specific volume. Are we assuming pressureless dust? Ok iron is 7874 kg per m^3 @ 20 degrees. One can simply apply the ideal gas laws from here.