Mordred

GR IS A COORDINATE SYSTEM. LINES HAVE NO MEANING WITHOUT COORDINATES. spacetime is coordinates not lines. Blooming bugger even the references your posting are telling you your wrong.

Place coordinates on those lines. then measure the change in scale (expansion, contraction between coordinates). Or just watch how the circles contract and expand in this video youtube. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DaVFf8UcX1A8&ved=0ahUKEwj3-LySnvjUAhVM94MKHa2wBogQwqsBCCUwAg&usg=AFQjCNFEWWMMa1G4HoTqXxbKJCLB4wRfAA See there is a lot going on there simultaneously.

Because your not listening. At time t1. 1 axis contracts, at precisely the same time the other expands. Done cut and dry. Both axis are not expanding or contracting at the same time. Total volume is preserved. aka conservation laws. The total number of particles within the affected region remain unchanged. The total density is also unchanged. (key note total). Edit more accurately average density.

Forget this nonsense. this is pointless talking to you. If you cannot understand the basics such as posted its useless. Do the experiment. draw a friggen ruler on each axis. Squeeze then measure the change at times t1,r2,t3...

We are not expanding the total volume. We are measuring the effective lengths along each axis. If the total volume changes then yes both will be identical. A GW does not change total volume so no the two axis do not expand or contract identically

Did I state anything about lines? I asked you to place 4 coordinates onto the surface of the balloon. If you compress along the y axis, the total volume of air inside the balloon remains unchanged. Therefore the y axis must expand to conserve the total volume of air. Rudimentary elementary school physics. Now apply that to a GW wave and treat the effected volume under the conservation laws. The effective mass density or energy density the affected region must be preserved.

Draw 4 dots on your balloon. Label the dots x_1 x_2 y_1 and y_2. Squeeze the balloon. Does the distances between x_1- x_2 and y_1 - y_2 change the same way. Of course not welcome to quadrupole wave polarity change demonstration

The fundamental your ignoring is the polarity of a quadrupole wave. If you continue to ignore that you will never understand how the Ligo detector works.

I have addressed it I even posted the mathematics. Take some time and blooming well study the math

No everyone else understands how the detector works. Everyone except you. The arms spacetime nor the lasers stetch in the same time dependant manner on the x and y coordinates.

We have repeatably told you the arms Are not being stretched in the same manner repeating this again and again and again is getting tedious and rather annoying.

No the cosmological principle isn't dead. You will always find counter argument and model papers. The thing to remember the principle applies at a sufficient volume to approximate a homogeneous and isotropic distribution. The volume is usually 100 Mpc, however numerous papers and studies suggest this volume needs to be larger. Some papers recommend 120 to 150 Mpc. It can literally be any volume as long as the Average mass distribution approximates a uniform distribution. Key word on average. Another key note is a lot of your competing models do not want a homogeneous and isotropic universe. So they in turn look for anistropic distributions. All part of the scientific method. The research of these competing models assist in refining what size scale the principle holds true. Now here is the trick, LCDM predicted that as the universe evolves this distribution will become more and more anistropic. It is a natural consequence of the dynamics of matter evolution as large scale structures form. The last paper suggests it holds true in the early universe but not in the universe today. (it will take a lot of studies to support the last paper) to cause any changes though.

Yes under QM the units would be discrete. However no upper limit results from that. All particles must have some energy. You cannot have a field excitation without causing a potential anisotropy with the field. This difference in potentials provide the ability to perform work. (energy). Planck temperature would theoretically be the maximal prior to singularity. Consequence being your symmetry relations are preserved under the changes in sign you mentioned. for others benefict , as I know you already know this. Though come to think of it. I wonder if that would imply the So(1.3) Lorentz group is a double cover? Gonna have to think about that one.

Here is a later time mechanism via the vacuum for particle production. Parker particle "Stimulated creation of quanta during inflation and the observable universe" https://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4240 This was put forward by Parker roughly around the same time as A. Guth. (Though I wish I could find that paper) had a copy saved just gotta dig deep lol).

yeah What Migl is referring to is the relation [latex] m_o=im_*[/latex] The proper mass is the imaginary mass of some positive value as long as v>c the imaginary mass is treated as real. edit a related note GR is valid for superluminal if all observers are also superluminal. This is because in both cases mass becomes infinite when v=c.

Nope if the tachyon accelerates it loses energy. here is an arxiv review paper. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.5428&ved=0ahUKEwiJhJ2EzPXUAhUGzmMKHQsjCWEQFggfMAE&usg=AFQjCNHn7OzLqE8FrqaNS_efpGBABs1hWg The rest mass treatment itself differs. The paper covers the differences.

Good answer there is a counter argument here that applies in your last paragraph but let me dig that up after work.

Good to see someone hit the mark. The HUP is one of the arguments between objective vs virtual reality. Though Its been some time since I last read how the argument went. So I will have to check how they used the HUP in their arguments after work. From memory it was a supportive argument for objective reality but will have to check if a good counter argument is involved since I last looked at this. You might want to actually read the paper on this. It is the main proposed test for virtual reality. I will dig up the paper for everyone after work. As far as I understand it is the only test I have seen proposed to test between the two

I see, well unfortunately many of the members on this forum are interested in the science, not the claims. I find it strange regardless of cause. That you saw your room shift towards you but you felt nothing. So that in and of itself tells me that neither you nor your room vibrated from seismic activity. So what about visual distortions. Well the human eye can only see certain frequencies. P and S waves in the atmosphere would have different frequencies than in the Earths crust etc. Snells law does apply. The Earth shifting can not be visually seen by an observer on Earth. The observer on Earth will shift by the same amount. So would the atmosphere. So we ruled out two of the 3 possibilities without using wiki by simple physics. Leaving visual effects. Yes Earthquakes can affect atmospheric conditions. The atmospheric distortions can theoretically cause visual distortions. However there lies a problem. You mentioned in Britain. Good luck getting an atmospheric distortion in the visual range from Japan to Britain. Far too much interference in between. We won't even bother with spacetime distortions due to Earth moving a foot. That wouldn't cause a disturbance to any spacetime region you could possibly observe. Your room, You and the atmosphere in your room will shift at the same vector as the Earth as it shifts 1 foot. See I didn't have to wiki a single item to call your post into question. Now here is another hard fact, gravity waves ie spacetime time distortions can be generated through Earthquakes. However the order of magnitude would literally be undetectable. To give an example the Earth Sun system can generate GW waves when the Earth changes orbit. However not even our best detectors on Earth could possibly detect such. Wiki does actually give a calculation for this. However it is far less than a strain of [latex]10^{-19}[/latex] This would be due to the range of your location from the epicentre. Studies on using GW waves for Earthquakes place the strain between [latex]10^{-12}-10^{-20}[/latex] within the first 100 km of the epicentre. So if our best detectors cannot detect these distortions what do you think the odds are you saw a visual spacetime distortion. These ranges of GW strains won't even be perceivable by the human eye whose range of wavelengths is between 400 to 700 nm. The strain values are far far below these wavelengths. I gathee from the quoted post your a technician. I'm fairly positive your course taught you the limits of human perception. I certainly know it was covered in my electronics course. My studies on the topic of GW waves is however from my master degree in Cosmology so I have a very good handle on the viable ranges of GW waves. You cannot possibly see them from any possible event in our solar system as a cause. It would be impossible for the human body to even sense them. Let's slap a little physics into this. A detector for GW waves requires a length long enough to capture a 90 degree phase shift of the GW wave. I'm certain your familiar with the quarter wave from antenna basics? The formula happens to be identical. It also is the same formula used on the Foucalt pendulum. Though LIGO uses a few advanced techniques to increase sensitivity at shorter lengths. Ie reflecting the lasers 400 times over a length of 4 km before recombining the split original frequency signal to detect the phase changes upon recombination. Your entire body wouldn't even notice a GW wave. So how would you expect to detect a spacetime distortion from an Earthquake? We can safely discount that possibility

Recall my post about significant difference between a program that follows instructions to the letter. Without deviations ? I can quarantee I don't lol. In all seriousness though the amount of data to simulate a universe is one of the open questions. This question led to a particular property of QCD called lattice spacing. Which is rather tricky to describe. (Rather complex mathematics) but certain aspects of this lattice spacing is one of the key searches to Test if we are a simulation. (Uh oh back to that whole testing argument I proposed earlier). If anyone is interested I can probably dig up the details. Science does look at every possibility. Even ones that seem absurd. However physics is placing constraints on this possibility. Based on guage theories of particle physics. Trust me on this one. Do not trust any pop media coverage on this theory. They all get it wrong. Under philosophical arguments the two main categories is objective reality vs virtual reality. I'm not much on philosophy as I favor the hard science. I pointed these out as the arguments under philosophy and model under physics do exist. (so it might be a good idea to research the arguments and model) with regards to the debate going on in this thread. Yeah I'm positive my mother agrees

What do you mean "used to" lol j/k cool vid. I have to agree some are nuts in that vid

No both matter and antimatter is limitted to the speed limit. Which is also the limit of all information exchange. The only difference between the two is charge. They are opposite. Other than that what applies to matter also applies to antimatter.

Well I for one know I have made so many mistakes in life that the programmer who wrote the algorithm for me must be an idiot lol

Dang I was going to respond after work but I like your response better +1. Looks like you covered all the essentials

Sounds like a good topic for a seperate thread. How would one test if something is real or a simulation ? If our universe was a simulation that would be our reality. So if our universe is a simulation. How could we possibly test gor it? The only answer I can come up with would be based on our understandings of how programs work. Hence the repeatability test. Its the only possible method I can come up with.