Mordred

What is absolute truth, ignoring evidence at one scale ? That's not truth, nor is it a path to what you call absolute truth, whatever that may mean. How we describe reality relies upon the evidence we gather at every size scale. Not just the macro or quantum but both. What we describe as truth or reality is an interpretation to the best of our understanding nothing more. Further research may lead to an entirely new interpretation. Absolute truth would require omniscience (all knowing) can we possibly claim such knowledge ? or ever be able to do so? I think not. Nor is it reasonable to ever claim such knowledge. Any claims of absolute truth in itself is a lie...

look closer at the quantum level the moon may no longer be round. Don't let the limits of human senses fool you. What we percieve as reality is based upon our interpretation of signals. So how can we know for sure our senses is telling us the truth? We don't For example what we percieve as solid or matter isn't what the research and science shows. The individual particles (fermions) that make up matter has no corpuscular make up. Literally being described as a field excitation with no solidity structure. Example the electron has no internal structure.

The ripples are in different directions. Hence the required length to frequency ratio and shape of the arms. Picture a ball squeeze it, the sides not being squeezed expand. Then next cycle this reverses. This action induces strain. Did you read the wiki section on "effects of passing?" In essence you are measuring changes in the detector arms lengths. [latex]\delta L(t)=\delta L_x-\delta L_y=h L(t)[/latex] where h is the measured strain.

The length of the detector arms must be of sufficient length to encompass a quarter gravitational wave. In order to understand this you must first be aware of the nature of a quadrupole wave. Ligo can only detect a small range of gravitational waves just as an antennea can be tuned to pick up certain frequencies by increasing or decreasing the antenna length. In the GW wave you have simultaneous x and y changes. As the x axis contracts the y axis expands and vise versa. This is specifically why the L shape is required. The deviations of the x and y axis of the GW wave induces strain which is what is being measured. You have to look at the type of strain spin 2 quadrupole waves induces. The animation on this page shows the simultaneous movements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave Using a L shape detector allows you to measure both the x and y axis changes.

Inertia is included in GR via the stress energy momentum term [latex]T_{\mu\nu}[/latex] of the Einstein field equation. It is also included in the energy momentum equation. [latex]E^2=(pc^2) +( m_oc^2)^2[/latex] also the principle of equivalence tells us that inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical [latex]m_i=m_g[/latex] the last is part of the Einstein elevator lesson in basic SR. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle

Speculations is a good scientific approach but it is only useful if one doesn't ignore data that may contradict a speculative theory. I myself often speculate and develop models. Its something I have done for years. A good model is one that examines the competing models to their own. This is often where speculations fail, far too many ignore any models, evidence and data that their personal speculations cannot account for or competes with their preconceptions. With physics in particular a vital stage is the mathematics. A good model can make predictions that can be used to test the model. This is a vital stage. Lacking the basic physics knowledge and not knowing how the models work with the mathematics won't get anywhere. You mentioned Newton are you aware he is attributed the honor of being one of the forefathers of Calculus? The other being Gottfried Leibniz. I mentioned my own speculative models, I never need to post them as I learned how to test them myself with the mathematics. Which is why I never posted any of my own speculations. I am familiar enough with the existing theories and mathematics that I can research and test my own models without outside help. I would call that a handy advantage. Wouldn't you? Unfortunately it takes years of study to gain that key advantage. PS this is what the speculation forum tries to enforce. Proper methodology when developing a speculative model. Though I lost count how many times, I wish I wasn't so effective of proving my own models wrong lol. Though as mentioned before that's just me lol. As far as the Poll goes this forum gives a lot of leniance in the hopes the OP and others learn from the discussion.

Your mind is a perfect example of a singularity. The known laws of physics no longer applies.

In order to teach you general relativity we need to start with the basics you might understand. Whats 2+2=

there is nothing wrong with speculation on the graviton. There is literally an entire field theory (quantum geometrodynamics) that tries to narrow out the possible properties of the graviton.

"I see you suffer from higher than normal recessive genes"

Well science is never a religion, we always look for alternatives. With eather based theories though the evidence against an eather is extremely strong. Whether or not the graviton is involved for example is still up for debate. We haven't any strong evidence that its not. Still doesn't change the detail space is just the volume/ geometry though. Too often you see people try to consider it as more than that. If the graviton is found it must be a boson not a fermion. The gravitational wave evidence which we have finally observed strongly supports spin 2.

Its not even a particularly good paper as it literally uses a preferred frame. Not too uncommon for eather based theories.

A 5th force isn't defined in this article as they are looking for evidence of such existing and from the research placing a boundary on the likelyhood of such. (constraints).

Please don't try to answer someone elses thread with an inaccurate response. Space is not a form of matter. It is strictly volume where the standard model of particles reside in. This includes the Higgs field. Euclidean space (ie the volume were all used to dealing with.) has the line element. [latex]ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] there is no time dilation/length contraction under the above. It is strictly volume (space). There is no flow in the above and the above follows Galilean relativity. When you add the time component and assign each moment in time a position (coordinate) you get the line element [latex]ds^2=-dt+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] notice our coordinates are now (ct,x,y,z) We still have no flow as the above coordinates are Static. . The above coordinates define space in the first case and spacetime in the second case. If I want to add a flow I need to make several decisions. Does both observers and there corresponding inertial frames flow in the same direction.? Does the IF frame only flow for one observer? Which direction (vector) is this flow? So now you have to break the equations above to the seperate primed and unprimed observers and add an additional vector component showing this flow. In the FLRW the commoving coordinate system adds a complex vector called the scale factor as the geometry of space for both observers change over time. So we add a(t) to reflect this detail. As were dealing with a sphere we need polar coordinates. so our first equation now becomes [latex]ds^2 = dr^2 +r^2[d\theta^2 + {sin^2} d\phi^2][/latex] When you combine the time component and commoving coordinates (expansion/contraction) with the scale factor the above equation becomes. [latex]d{s^2}=-c^2dt^2+a(t)^2[dr^2+S,kr^2d\Omega^2][/latex] We have now added a scale factor and a curvature term k. [latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sinr/R &k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sinr/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex] to put it simply space by itself is defined by the first equation. It is static coordinates. The Minkowskii metric is static as well. (So is the Schwartzchild metric). If you add a flow these coordinates that define space or spacetime will require some vector showing the flow over time. If you do not see such a vector in the line element [latex]ds^2[/latex] then your space or spacetime global metric is static. The FLRW metric showing expansion/contraction is one example. However the vector in this case is expansion/contraction not flow. Recall those questions lets say we have both observers flowing in the same direction x over time. We will need a third reference (event) point lets assign this [latex]ds_{outside}^2[/latex] for outside the flow.Critical point: We need to also preserve the Euclidean space for the original two observers. the first equation becomes [latex]ds_{outside}^2=d\vec{x_{outside}}^2(t_{elapsed})\pm(ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)[/latex] now we have a flowing space. Your Euclidean geometry (space) is preserved as it flows in the x direction. So two observers within that space agree on the same geometry.(translational symmetry). This is the power of understanding the math of the articles you are posting and not relying on misleading verbal descriptives. I can merely look at the line element of any model and give you all the dynamics involved. Once I identify all the variables in said equation. Without even reading the said article.

You really can't look at just key buzzwords but not study the actual math to understand what is really going on. There is a real easy way to tell and after work. I will domonstrate.

Its good your using the virial theorem and yes it does also apply to elliptoid orbits. The virial theorem naturally obeys the conservation of angular momentum.

That would be a lengthy conversation better off in a separate thread. (I recommend the title, Understanding the universe from Nothing model). As we would have to detail numerous related topics to avoid misleading heuristic analogies. The topic itself can too easily hijack a thread lol

Lets be clear here, that is just one of the possible models. Surprising enough it is a feasible model, though it takes a considerable understanding to see how. However it is just one of numerous possibilities even under QM. Yes solving BB would obviously be nice, solving lepto and Baryogenesis would be nice as well.

Good catch I missed that lol

Assuming a graviton exists and there is still the possibility (nor is it wrong to feel it may exist). It would be a spin 2 boson. In effect would mediate the gravitational force in the particle to particle interactions in the same manner as other bosons. Beyond that I can only conjecture as the spin is about the only property the majority of the papers I've read on predicting its properties agree on. edit must also be massless, due to the gravity interactions being at c. A means of getting all the gory mathematical details is to look at the quantum geometrodynamics field of study. It is a branch of QFT that deals specifically with the gravity. It also tries to incorperate the graviton with spacetime curvature.

! Moderator Note I believe you have warned before on posting your personal theories in mainstream physics. Not to mention in effect thread hijacking. Though this is an extremely old thread. Please reread the modnote of your previous offense. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106230-can-a-black-hole-with-a-high-spin-rate-drag-space-around/?fromsearch=1

Does vibration cause the atoms to flow in a material ? In flow of charge the charge is mediated by photons. The photon in essence transfers the charge from one electron to another via orientation change. By photons I am specifically referring to the vector gauge virtual photon. Which can exhibit one or more quantum properties. The proton, electrons and photon are charge carriers. For example in a circuit you have two simultaneous charge flows. Positive to negative and vise versa. You you have a flow of positive charge and a flow of negative charge. Which equates to the magnetic moment (spin) orientation density at a particular location. Ie a higher percentage will have a given orientation. Lol little side note if positive charge meant flow of protons then the individual elements would temporarily change which is obviously flat out wrong. Here is a fairly decent classical coverage. http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/guidedtour/Tour.htm#_Toc27302307 Another clue that it is charge that flows and not the protons and electrons is the medium. No two particles of different mass can flow through a medium at identical rates. Hence a single particle must be mediating the charge. ( the rate of charge flow tells us this particle must be massless) hence the photon vector guage boson.

Nice example, two major lessons of GR can be taught from this. Three including how embedded geometries work.

The very definition of freefall means no force acting upon it. It is a mathematical treatment. The detail to recognize is that under GR the geodesics (path of freefall motion) removes the need of a force which is problematic anyways under Newton gravity as the mass term factors out. ie different objects of different mass will fall at the same rate. So how does one apply f=ma in this scenario when the mass term makes no difference.? This is what GR recognizes. Instead we map the freefall paths according to the path of least action which forms the basis behind the geodesic equations. The path of least resistance correlates the particles kinetic energy to the potential energy due to gravity in this particular case. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html Agreed fairly apt descriptive. One of the greatest confusions is heuristic explanations. Particularly with embedded geometries. What is an embedded geometry. Well lets give a simple example. Lets say we have a global spacetime geometry in 4D. ( where every coordinate is a freefall vector). Then we want to describe a lightbeam under this but under greater detail. We don't need all 4 dimensions to describe the wavelength of the lightbeam. (we only require 2 dimensions to describe the amplitude changes.) So we can embed this 2d (Hilbert space) to each coordinate of our 4d space. The same trick happens in strictly GR. The Rheimannian 3 space describes a specific set of symmetry relations that can be found at various locations under our 4D spacetime metric. This is a handy technique especially when you start involving a particular type of vector called "complex vectors"

Or thinking of space as some form of material will also get you into trouble. What curves spacetime ( not space) spacetime being a metric system with time treated as a coordinate is the energy/momentum stress tensor. A key note "heuristic explanations" of complex relations will get you into trouble every time unless you take the time to understand the math behind those heuristic explanations. It is a specific set of relations that curve. The specific set of relations being freefall motion itself.