Mordred

There is no contradiction between local dynamics per Mpc and the accumulated global expansion. The latter is a direct result of the first. Try and exercise a little math. You certainly know how to add. Add 70/km/c/Mpc 4400 times. At this point the recessive velocity will start to reach c. Add another 500 Mpc with its corresponding 70 km/s/Mpc rate and your recessive velocity will be greater than c.

Your welcome

Well if there is (probably is) then I will have to search out those details. Umm still questioning how your defining "perception" in a quantum experiment. However be that as it may. Your mirror will also cause additional diffraction which will cause a problem in slit size required to get the two patterns from mirror in place or mirror removed. This will cause an additional error margin that will need to be accounted for. You also have the 180 degree phase shift as mentioned before. However you may want to read this. "There are no particles, there are only fields". Pay particular attention to how a particle is defined by its wavefunctions. Their is a good coverage of how this applies to the two slit experiment. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616&ved=0ahUKEwjRh-rFrcjTAhUOz2MKHbmHBhIQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNEqAKaDGcbyMG2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ&sig2=wLTgJuTGOd4DGY94v98oEQ There is one particular line I would like to quote. "Quanta that are superpositions of different frequencies can be more spatially bunched and in this sense more localized" This is definitely applicable in this experiment. Key note all quantum numbers have wavefunctions including spin. So the additional interference will have affects on your spin probabilities.

I'm really trying to figure out what your getting at. A mirror causes a 180 degree phase change. There is two types of interferance constructive or destructive. However I could be misreading your posts but it sounds like your complaining about the two slit without even taking the time to understand it. For example quantum perception is meaningless. If your referring to quantum observation this is an interference from the original source. In point of detail it is the interference from each slit that generates the patterns involved. Now assuming your in fact just trying to setup a different type of experiment. You can calculate the interferance pattern from the mirrors as this is a well tested arena. Placement of a single mirror and angle yo beam is important however in the type of interferance you will get. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/203-CH23.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiu4Za3p8jTAhUJz2MKHVhMAc4QFghSMA8&usg=AFQjCNGQJTj2TK9j5JYOwIXeq9SU1c3mIw&sig2=XZE3ZenElLQEW5SJ-yZYIA here is a brief pdf to assist.

You have already collapsed the state of the photon when you interfere with the beam. It would be the equivalent of passing the beam through a slit.

lol

I reaaly don't know what it will take to make you understand. Expansion does not cause inertia change. Recession velocity is NOT A TRUE VELOCITY it does not involve inertia change via f=ma. No force acts upon the galaxies due to expansion so it does not violate the speed limit. Every individual Mpc expands at the same rate 70 km/sec/Mpc. that is the expansion rate at every point in space. It is only when you add up a large number of individual Mpcs that you accumulate to greater than c recessive velocity. Ie via Hubbles law. The Greater the seperation distance the greater the recessive velocity but if you could magically teleport to a far away galaxy its expansion rate at that Mpc will be 70 km/s/Mpc.

lol gotta wake up first lmao

Sorry wasn't thinking clearly when I typed that. Too early in AM hadn't finished my first coffee.

Yes but you can combine fermions to make a boson or bosons can add up to make a fermion

They are still theorized to have a decay rate. Just so incredibly long that we will never observe them decay. Though the electron afiak can't decay further as there is no particle of less mass that it can decay into.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay However there is research into electron decay even then https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312325

An infinite universe can still expand. Expansion does not mean the universe requires an edge.

The answer you should have gotten is light has no rest (invariant mass) but has relativistic (inertial mass). via [latex] e^2=pc^2+(m_oc^2)^2 [/latex] Matter is irrelevant in the case of photons as it is a boson and only fermions count as matter. The total particle count in the universe maintains at roughly 10^90 particles. Your question on which runs out first has little meaning as all particles have decay rates (though some have incredibly long decay rates ie longer than the age of the universe) so particles do regularly change into other particles provided the decay follows numerous conservation rules

Its a relatively exact science if were provided the details we require instead of guessing. Can yoy build something without knowing what parts you have to work with? Can you engineer a bridge without knowing how much stress the metal can take? Give us some specifications on the equipment you have to work with and remove the guess work. Then maybe just maybe we can give you the accurate answers your seeking. How big a fan, how many blades, whst is the blade length,what is the blade pitch? what efficiency is your motor, details are needed if you have any datasheets, part numbers or specifications sheets those are helpful as well

I will take a closer look at your Bizarto vector but the fact remains it has little to do with the Op of this thread. The thread is specifically about "How does a body know how to move." Trying to utilize your formula into this has no bearing I can see on that topic. There is a logical reason why the related formulas I have been posting work. They are all used in describing kinematics. For example why would you express a coordinate point as three directions? Where is the possible advantage of doing so when the coordinate system itself contains all the information on the system state.? For example I could just as easily use a direction and a radius from origin to describe the new coordinate but then I lose the details on the geometry change itself. Ie the change of coordinate scale in the direction of motion. aka length contraction. Does your Bizarro vectors work in 4d? is the other problem. Our coordinate system is ct,x,y,z. It is not 3d. We need the time coordinate to keep track of variable time. How does your Bizzaro vector describe this?

Orthogonal matrix. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_matrix please I know what I am talking about and I know your definition on orthogonal axis. ie at right angles to each other. The problem is GR rotates those axis.They lose orthogonality when you apply length contraction in the direction of motion. Yes I do recognize your trigonometric identities. Its not as useful as you think when the very geometry deviates from Pythagoras norm. Or for example a commoving volume coordinate system ie expansion in the FLRW metric. Tbe point your missing is you need to show the changes in the metric geometry itself as well as the particle path. Yes I am familiar with what you have been attempting from this post. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/101726-formalizing-length-as-an-antivector-algebra-help-requested-once-again/page-1

How about not very useful in understanding the mathematical methods used in GR. That is what I am trying to show you. You wish to use directions instead of length but then the complication comes into play when you deal with coordinate systems and the symmetry group layout. I don't think you fully understand the problem. Take your symmetry groups and examine them. There is a very useful and refined structure that is later incorperated into the S0(3,1) Lorentz group. Go ahead try to define your four momentum and four velocity with the line element [latex]ds^2=(dx^0)^2-(dx^1)^2-(dx^2)^2-(dx^3)^2[/latex] (please note this equation is a direct translation of Pythagorous theory applied to our coordinates) or better yet apply it to the equation of motion of a particle in a gravitational field with geodesic equation [latex]\frac{d^2x^\mu}{ds^2}=\Gamma^\mu_{\lambda\nu}\frac{dx^\lambda}{ds}\frac{dx^\nu}{ds}=0[/latex] there is an elegance in use of tensors and matrixes coupled with group theory [latex] ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}[/latex] [latex]\eta=\begin{pmatrix}-c^2&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex] for example look at the above. the matrix literally follows the equation. and organizes it into a row column basis. Side note this is an orthogonal matrix you can identify it by its diagonal layout. so how does this work with the boosts and rotations. lets first show a boost in the x direction. [latex]\begin{pmatrix}\acute{ct}\\ \acute{x}\\\acute{y}\\\acute{z}\end{pmatrix}[/latex][latex]=\begin{pmatrix}\gamma&-\beta\gamma&0&0\\-\beta\gamma&\gamma&o&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex][latex]\begin{pmatrix}ct\\x\\y\\z\end{pmatrix}[/latex] now a boost in the y direction [latex]\begin{pmatrix}\acute{ct}\\ \acute{x}\\\acute{y}\\\acute{z}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]][latex]=\begin{pmatrix}\gamma&0&-\beta\gamma&0\\0&0&1&0\\-\beta\gamma&0&\gamma&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex][latex]\begin{pmatrix}ct\\x\\y\\z\end{pmatrix}[/latex] in the z direction [latex]\begin{pmatrix}\acute{ct}\\ \acute{x}\\\acute{y}\\\acute{z}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]][latex]=\begin{pmatrix}\gamma&0&0&-\beta\gamma\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\-\beta\gamma&0&0&\gamma\end{pmatrix}[/latex][latex]\begin{pmatrix}ct\\x\\y\\z\end{pmatrix}[/latex] now stop and think about the coordinate ct which gives your length with the appropriate length contraction. remember the inertial frames will not have identical coordinate frames and we need to handle the frame transforms. We use pythagorous theory relations to reflect this in GR. the above three boosts can be conpactly written as [latex]\acute{x}=\Lambda(v) x[/latex] the problem gets further complicated when you get acceleration which generates rapidity. [latex]\epsilon^\phi=\gamma(1+\beta=1+v/c[/latex] which gives Lorentz transforms as [latex]ct-x+\epsilon^{-\phi}(\acute{ct}-\acute{x})[/latex] [latex]ct=x+\epsilon^{-\phi}(\acute{ct}+\acute{x})[/latex] [latex]y=\acute{y}[/latex] [latex]z=\acute{z}[/latex] which is a hyperbolic rotation of your IF frames. [latex]\gamma=cosh\phi=\frac{\epsilon^\phi+\epsilon^{-\phi}}{2}[/latex] [latex]\beta\gamma=sinh\phi=\frac{\epsilon^\phi-\epsilon^{-phi}}{2}[/latex] and therefore [latex]\beta=tanh\phi\frac{\epsilon^\phi-\epsilon^{-\phi}}{\epsilon^\phi-\epsilon^{-\phi}}[/latex] which in matrix form is [latex]\begin{pmatrix}\acute{ct}\\ \acute{x}\\\acute{y}\\\acute{z}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]][latex]=\begin{pmatrix}cosh\phi&-sinh\phi&0&0\\-sinh\phi&cosh\phi&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex][latex]\begin{pmatrix}ct\\x\\y\\z\end{pmatrix}[/latex] Are you starting to see the problem with trying to use just directions instead of distance? 1) the length of your ct coordinate defines your length contraction 2) the tensor organization system is a series of boosts and rotations that are organized according to vector symmetry relations including the inner outer dot products and tensor forms. 3) we are dealing with a coordinate independent system these relations work equally well in any coordinate system. Not just Euclidean flat but also with curvature 4) acceleration is handled as a rotation while velocity is your boosts (Lorentz transforms are under constant velocity coupled with relativity of simultaneaty) 5) GR is a coordinate metric the tensors allow us to be independent upon a particular set of coordinates [latex]G_{\mu\nu}[/latex] one can easily translate all of the above to polar, Cartesian or cylindrical coordinates the above relations will work in all three. Hows that for proper mathematical methodology?

Forget move movement implies inertia. The volume change doesn't impart inertia. The galaxies will never gain a speed greater than c. Do you understand what kinematic motion means?

Very good your getting it now, Spacetime is best treated as a vector field when you have an attraction or charge. However one can use scalar fields as well. The difficulty many have in picking up GR is the need for vector calculus. For example when you deviate from Euclidean flat geometry we can use techniques you may already be familiar with. Divergence, gradient and curl. This is used also in electrodynamics so you may already have some familiarity with it. Rather than try to give a course into this I will supply a useful article http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~tomwu/course/eel6482/notes/Edition3_ch01.pdf The matlab sections are useful if you happen to program if not just ignore those parts its the mathematical methods that are important. Other highly important study is Greenes, Stokes and Gauss theorem as they are involved in the above. http://www.math.brown.edu/~deigen/labs35/lab9.pdf

Now that argument makes no sense

Can you prove your paradoxes are in fact paradoxes and not just misconceptions due to your lack of knowledge on the subject? I can certainly show the errors in your video and we have been covering some of those details since I watched that mess of a video. Bignose has posted numerous times a comprehensive list of tests on Relativity despite your disbelief time dilation is real and has been sucessfully measured numerous times. In far more ways than that article mentions. One example is muons could never reach the Earths surface without time dilation. Its mean lifetime is too short. We test relativity every day in particle accelerators. Specifically the mass/energy relations. How else do you think we can create particles with greater mass than the combined rest mass of the two protons used in the collision? We have placed atomic clocks at various locations that are callibrated to each other and been able to accurately measure time dilation. What tests have you done?

Why not study instead of making foolish statements such as this. The twin paradox came after Einstein. It arose when others incorrectly applied his theories

Actually looking at the books in your video I take that back. Read better books on the subject. The Mathius Blau article I linked shows the solution.

The twin paradox isn't a paradox it is a result of not properly doing the math. Your GR textbooks in your video should have the proper solution for it.

I didn't say least resistance I stated least action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action