Mordred

Let me know when you plan on identifying the linear momentum vector I asked about. After all your logic argument requires that there is a linear momentum vector in the system so identify it. This is now the third time I've asked you to identify this component.

Oh I see so which dataset of pendulum anomoly are you using? Can your model predict that measured dataset. Lets see the pendulum will have an slight inclination toward the moon. Of course it will I don't your tide data to know that. Where are you defining the specifics of the Allais effect and your simulation of such? As in the measured variations at those points in your paper being simulated by your data over time. However throughout your paper not once have you described the Allais experiment as done by Allais. Where do you correlate the difference in movements between a Foucalt and a paraconical pendulum? Here. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiA6KLqwNfUAhXI6YMKHVBQBDcQFggmMAI&usg=AFQjCNFgdGggLseSailGDty2lfMAyrV8ig here is a paper on it by Allais.

I think you missed the point. Look at the detail of applied examination of the two papers I posted. Then ask why believe yours is more accurate? How do you show it is more accurate than the two above papers? You are stating you have the solution, the two papers are competing solutions. So compete with them. Show greater accuracy. Secondly if you had these details Swansont would not be asking the questions he/she has been asking. for example Can you replicate the the precise characteristic in figure 1 of the last link? or the measured variation in figure 1 of the first link. What dataset of readings can you simulate? These are some datasets that are applicable. As such you need to either apply or compete against them. Particularly as you have referenced both of them. Lol I would find it lacking that you had in your references a measured pendulum motion dataset but cannot show how your model could predict that particular graph. You don't even reference any hydrodynamic equations as per the first article. Yet your describing dark flow but do not mathematically describe this dark flow.

Great now what formulas did you apply for force and the vector summation rules and why are they not included in the paper ? You have a 3 body problem, you need to show the details behind your posted calculations for your acceleration term. If I am examining a paper. I want to do the calculations myself and be able to confirm your values given for acceleration. For that I would need to see your methodology of how you arrived at those numbers. Those are the details that must be in your paper. Obviously I know the related formulas. As a publisher you cannot assume every reader does. I question those values given so I wish to confirm them. I should have the ability to do so from the provided details in your paper. The methodology I would use, would not reflect the methodology your paper uses. Without knowing your mathematical methodology and values used ie distance and mass etc and the specific formulas you applied we cannot arrive at the same values. I as the examiner/reader cannot confirm the values you provided unless you provide the essential details. (Including those details also allows the reader to judge your knowledge on the subject and give greater trust in your mathematical accuracy). You need to establish that you have correctly applied Keplers laws in the above 3 body problem. Lets make this simple... I am some random reader. Which paper would I place more trust in. Yours are one that includes the formulas on alias and eclipses. Ie example below. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.faidherbe.org/~foucault/fichiers/pdf/theorie_allais_articles_Flandern_Yang.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiProSzgdfUAhXjxYMKHbZVDT0QFgghMAI&usg=AFQjCNExnNGD1cV0h1Zy_1_dLEtJQ8YU4A Do you believe your paper meets the standards set in this random googled searched pdf that took less than 30 seconds? I for one would trust this paper over yours without question. Then I would look to confirm the paper I just posted. To me as the reader your paper is now forgotten. (keep in mind your claiming you solved the problem) So you better meet or exceed the standards of good examination of competing solutions already out there. Here is what I would call a good paper in terms of proper methodology. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cds.cern.ch/record/999051/files/0610197.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwie_NeEjdfUAhWo6oMKHYD-D_g4FBAWCCIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNF35cISQHSYXgFinLycPmV8E-ArNg This last paper is in competition with yours. So you need to be more convincing in detail and proofs to compete against such papers.

Then mathematically show it applies for the required duration as well as the required force on the pendulum that demonstrates the alias effect. Hence the graphs.

I have a question. Do you truly wish to convince the professional community you have solved the alias effect? If your answer is no then ignore this post. If your answer is yes then apply what is stated in this post. 1) Do the math 2) show the math 3) graph the math and compare to the alias measurements. Without those steps your done. When I read a proof of a kinematic dynamic. I don't bother even reading the words or bother with the pictures. I immediately start looking for the formulas and graphs etc. If that paper has none. I literally ignore it as incomplete and not properly examined. Any physicist would do the same. The words have little meaning. The images provided to help explain the idea are just an aid. The math is the meat. Every claimed effect must be mathematically modelled. Then compared to measurements. No paper will get far in the professional community without that predictive ability. Yes it is work, however the Newtonian/Keplar formulas are not that complex. The diligence to proper methodology will be reflected in math. Not images and words.

No problem.

Any observer effect surprisingly shows up in redshift and thermodynamic data. You measure a star then you want to measure a known wavelength baseline. Hydrogen has a well known spectrographic signature. So we can measure this wavelength and look for redshift influences on the lightbeam. The real physics of cosmology is studying the expansion history via its influences on light beams via redshift. This is actually where universe curvature comes into play. If the universe is contracting the lightpath would be curved for example. Cosmologist must consider observer influences at every stage. The models would not work as they do if they didn't. We can compare temperature measurements and spectography under redshift to eliminate observer offsets. Thats the first couple of years training in cosmology. Lol that topic used to drive me crazy come exam times lol. The best quantity to bring the discussion back to science, philosophy and reality to describe reality with the greatest accuracy via physics is the invariant quantities. These are the quantities that all observers can agree on. Under physics its about the closest to being definable as a real measurement as opposed to an observer variant measurement. (side note also convenient to use in symmetry relations under translations). When you get down to it the variations from those invariant quantities provides incredible insights into how our universe evolved over time. It is of paramount use in Cosmology.

That is studied by using the late integrated Sache-Wolfe effect. The FLRW metric equates the dynamics your referring to. The calculator in my signature can graph each event horizon. Under expansion history according to LCDM and based on current data can make a predictive model up to 88 Billion years into the future. Assuming the current values for lambda/matter and radiation continue the same ratio of change or constant for lambda. For example rate of expansion was slowing down from CMB to age roughly 6.8 Gyrs. This is the end of the matter dominant era. The radiation dominant was BB to CMB surface of last scattering. Now we are in the Lambda dominant. Lambda dominant is the accelerating portion to expansion. During matter dominant this isn't true as it was decelerating.

I need to interject here. What you described is the Hubble horizon. Recessional velocity is not a true velocity. It is a consequence of separation distance applied to [latex]V_{rec}=H_o d [/latex] In other words it depends on the distance of the observer. Locally per Mpc the rate of expansion is only 70 km/s/Mpc at the leading edge of the signal. The light beam has no problem overcoming expansion at that leading edge. It can literally overcome the recessive velocity from our local observer point as the light beam lead edge is a different event coordinate. Our measure of recessive velocity cannot apply to that event coordinate. ( lead edge light beam). Hence the observable universe is far greater than the Hubble Horizon.

Thanks Migl no prob. I've always been an avid collector of textbooks. (lol my wife would say hoarder)

Obviously never heard of normalized units. You set one as c then velocity of measurement as a percentage or ratio of 1. What is wrong with doing that instead of dealing with huge numbers under scientific notation? You will end up with precisely the same answer if you do it correct. Simple rules of ratios.

Aporopriate as quantum spin foam relies on the Wheeler-Dewitt equations. What is the textbook title. I'm interested in adding it to my collection

A doubling of volume in a short rate of time.

Over 10^60 efolds which is also a specific formula. That is the minimal number to solve the horizon problem. If I recall Krauss model had inflation at 10^60.

That would be easy to show in mathematics. Far too often those with personal theories do not know the essential step. mathematical model

Krauss applied qunatum field theory in all its glory. Including full mathematical accuracy. He didn't guess without applying mathematics.

Yes I did mean to link two different articles. However I can't recall what the other one was now.

Lets start with "define energy". Energy "the ability to perform work". So negative energy would have less ability to perform work or action. Can you see the problem here ? in order to perform work you would need to add energy (sounds endothermic lol) The only way negative energy makes any sense. Is if it is a positive value that is of negative value compared to a higher value. Or a change in vector sign under vector addition. However a change in vector sign is still positive energy/density. In the above you are using negative energy in terms of negative mass. Great now define mass " Resistance to inertia change " so define negative resistance to inertia change...see the problem? (PS never ceases to amaze me, how often posters trying to develop a speculative model forget the definitions and meaning of the terms they are using). Yes English isn't your first lanquage but these definitions are translated to your lanquage. Using vector sign as a negative value is fine for charge flow. Works great for the electromagnetic field. However gravity is always charge positive. What you describe above amounts to some antigravity dynamic which simply does not exist. Now in Cosmology we have negative pressure/vacuum to some baseline. That being the cosmological constant aka dark energy. However this still has a positive energy density value (the negative is a vector treatment). The problem in the above is that your negative energy and negative mass terms are being used in the sense of antigravity. Which has never been observed or ever detected. ! Moderator Note this thread belongs in our speculation forum as it is a personal model. However as I am partaking in this discussion and its poor form to perform Moderator action on a thread your participating in. (Unless a clear rules violation). I will wait till another member of the Moderator staff moves it.

I should note Lawrence Krauss is not the only Universe from nothing model developer. He certainly popularized the theory but the Universe from nothing idea has been around prior to Krauss. I recall reading older variations.

I always loved Prof Strasslers site. Its great for simple heuristic explanations that I only wish I had the talent to simplify as well as he does.

Spin foam is a different approach to model spacetime. Which invariably can also be used to model the graviton. The approach on Spinfoam arises from looking at the quantum number wavefunctions such as spin etc. When looking at total mass you have the rest mass+ inertia mass. E=mc^2 is just the rest or invariant mass. However inertia also adds to the mass total. Due to be relativistic ie c, and the effective degrees of freedom ie spin 2. The graviton will be heavy. As mentioned before the way to visualize any particle is simply an excitation. Particles do not have corpuscular (solid like) structure. An excitation is a field dynamic. And no what I posted I meant to say, I usually prefer to add supportive material so no one has to take my word on any topic.

An internal wavy sinusiodal line denoting it is its own antiparticle. Length will vary on the spacetime aspects. On representation essentially identical to photon.

Excellent summary of quantum field theory in general. You also accurately described the problem with detection. It is predicted to be the "heaviest boson ". Under SU(2) spin foam in this case this corresponds to your Pauli matrixes. All standard model particles fall under the Gell-Mann matrixes which has 8 generator matrixes.(Google eightfold Wayen) As opposed to the 3 generator matrixes (Pauli). Just an aside on those articles.

Well you definetely have a string of related questions lol. As to the first, all excitations that are definable as a particle must be under confinement. The confinement would be a quanta or greater in amplitude wirhin a coulomb wavelength as your boundary confinement. VP as far as I know hasn't got any meaningful confinement as we cannot measure a VP. Regardless of having a perfect detector or not, this will always be the case as it requires a quanta of action to influence a detector. Spin foam is rather tricky to describe accurately. However think of the term degrees of freedom. Ie every interaction is an additional degree of freedom. Now model each degree of freedom under a seperate geometry. Usually only require 2d ie Hilbert space. Then interconnect each geometry under a 4d geometry (embedded). So quantum foam can represent either just spacetime or the graviton as the effective degrees of freedom should match. However spin foam as it models interactions within spacetime under SU(2) which covers. SO(1.3) Lorentz/Poincare group. In a sense it is a GUT modelling approach via symmetries. Well here is a simplified example lecture. (not the greatest of articles but does describe the above) https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.icra.it/MG/mg12/talks_plenary/Freidel.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjJkv2m4s_UAhWL6YMKHQKzB0YQFghDMAc&usg=AFQjCNE_2UFsPHqvSlnCcQW8ROVi4sYO9w I would have to review gravitational entropy to be of any use there. I hadn't studied that field in ages. I should add to better understand quantum field theory. Propogators are in essence your permutations of the field described as virtual particles. Operators are when the particles are real ie field excitations. Here is an article on Graviton propogators. Ie vector gauge boson (VP). https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.icra.it/MG/mg12/talks_plenary/Freidel.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjJkv2m4s_UAhWL6YMKHQKzB0YQFghDMAc&usg=AFQjCNE_2UFsPHqvSlnCcQW8ROVi4sYO9w The rules for the above takes cobsiderable time to understand. The distinctions between propogators vs operators are part of the S-matrix. Which defines your Feynman diagrams. Operstors are external lines with propogators being the internal squiggly lines. The Graviton as a vector gauge boson would be internal.