Mordred

And what precisely does this have to do with geocetrism ? All you've done is reference details on the principle of relativity. Ie [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}[/latex] Mathematically show me geocentism under the above. The reference of the right way means specifically that no observer is privileged and that the transformations specific to SR are symmetric under a change in sign. It does not state geocetrism is valid.

Yeah I want to worship a diety who amuses himself by playing pranks on his subjects lol. That reminds me of someone's argument against evolution. "God put those bones there to fool mankind"

Not correct Einstein wrote SR before he developed GR.

There isn't any real grey about the body of evidence against geocentism. Its pretty black and white with an incredibly high level of precision. There is no geocentrism involving the Earth. Except the Earth moon ie the moon is the only non manmade object orbitting the Earth.

Yes Actually I can but I don't need to. The proof is that direct observational evidence I referred to. You don't even require advanced math to do simple trigonometry of satellite data.

Why would you have a geocentric view of the universe when the Cosmological principle supported by evidence states their is no centre. SR only applies to localized gravity, yes GR is involved but universe dynamics is determined by average mass distribution. Trust me I understand SR far better than you do. As it is obvious it is you that doesn't understand SR. Have you ever studied Newton limit under GR? Nothing in SR states it supports geocentism on any scale. Solar, Galaxy or universe. So please don't quote models you obviously do not understand with false statements.

No I am not confusing direct observational evidence good try Scotty. But direct observational evidence is not based on GR but rather supports it. The all the numerous satellites that we have launched. Such as Voyager. Not only can we not see our movement we can also use triangulation to plot our precise speed. As well as the velocity and path of our sun.Geocentism doesn't alter the center of gravity. That is determined under GR which counters Geocentism. Again good luck proving otherwise. Under GR the effective center of gravity between the Earth and sun doesn't even lie within either the Sun or the Earth. So before you start quoting models as support make sure you understand those models.

I love how geocentric believers completely ignore the detail. We can literally see objects rotating around their parent star. We can literally see the Earth revolving around the sun via satellites For some reason direct visual evidence just isn't good enough, they would rather cling to an ancient model that has been shown wrong for centuries.

Under the transformations of GR/SR. Just to be clear on tachyonic particles. The very same mathematical predictions that show the possibility of tachyons under SR. Also make the existence of tachyons extremely unlikely.

This has been modelled if you know where to look. Though that modelling makes FTL particles even less likely to exist. Start with the math involved in Tachyons. Though we have never found tachyons they were hypothesized to exist but as of yet we have zero supportive evidence. In point of detail to make the math work under SR the tachyon must take on a non interacting spinless negative energy state. Even then you have to deal with causality violations. I would start there, though just using the math of tachyons won't simply be enough as that very model makes the existence of tachyons less likely. So you will need to deal with the problems associated with tachyons.

cross posted while I was stuck on some latex commands. Before anyone asks. Action is correlated to spin foam under loop quantum gravity. To include gravity we step into quantum geometrodynamics. Also quantum field theory in terms of action vs fields under the PE term. (hint we only worry about action when there is interactions) a particle that does not interact with say the electromagnetic field will not include the elctromagnetic portion. Now the reason I posted the above is to help you understand the Dirac portion specifically. As this pertains to your OP. This will correlate your electromagnetic spin. Also antimatter. This will help further understand helicity. Particularly under spin 1/2 for electromagnetism http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://physics.gu.se/~tfkhj/TOPO/DiracEquation.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiHyaTxqO7QAhUGxWMKHbfCBg4QFggjMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGyPRPUp_GI0GrlzOGFdDKWws3Bdg key note from the above article The latter portion of antimatter being positive energy antiparticle moving forward on time is the correct interpretation found by producing antimatter.

There is a neat way to handle the motion of every particle under GR via the Poisson relations under SO(1.3), This is via action. (this will take a bit) Your all familiar with Newtons Mechanics [latex]\overrightarrow{f}=m\overrightarrow{a}=m\ddot{\overrightarrow{r}}[/latex] Instead of looking at initial position and velocity, look at the initial position and final position and connect the with two paths. (Doesn't necessarily need to be straight lines) Assign those points [latex]\overrightarrow{r}(t_1),\overrightarrow{r}(t_2)[/latex] The path taken can be determined by action. Were just simplifying and using radius as a coordinate action =[latex]S=\int^{t_2}_{t_1}[/latex][latex](KE-PE)dt[/latex] You can find the details on the last equation at Feyman lectures. http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html relativistic motion for an electromagnetic field for Newton potential ie a particle moving in a weak uniform gravitational field [latex]\mathcal{L}=-m_o c\sqrt{1-1-v^2/c^2}-q(\phi-v*A[/latex] For a particle moving in a vertical path in a gravity field then [latex]PE=1/2m\dot{x}^2[/latex] the kinetic term for a particle [latex]ke=1/2m\dot{x}[/latex] gives with the above situation\ [latex]\mathcal{L}=1/2\dot{x}^2+1/2m\dot{z}^2-mgz[/latex] However that is in weak gravity fields. Without going through all the solutions there is a sort of a master equation very close in some regards to a GUT for motion lol. action =relativity-Maxwell+Dirac+Higgs+Yukawa coupling [latex]\mathcal{L} \sim \mathbb{R} - 1/4F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} [/latex][latex]+i \overline{\psi}\gamma_\mu\psi+\mid D_\mu h\mid-V\mid h\mid+h\overline{\psi}\psi[/latex] [latex]\mathbb{R}[/latex] will depend on your geometry under GR .SO(3) in terms of action equations. (Poisson group) Kind of a handy equation but keep in mind action formulas can readily be adapted to pretty much any conditions. Ie Schwartzchild, quantum etc These is just generic formulas

make the paper fashioned off ghecko feet. Lol they do it on robots. Best part yet the paper will be thicker and stronger. Let electrostatic charge do your work as the glue P: Hrrm wonder how christmas lights will affect the electrostatic bond? On second thought maybe Christmas wrapping would be extremely annoying if your paper had the self cling characteristics of Glad cling wrap P:

Roflmao tempting, temping.

Now that doesn't make any sense. Entropy arrow of time is strictly one directional (forward). These randomized assertians are starting to sound like a sales pitch from a used car dealership than actual science

I'm afraid this is where your going to need to start stepping into the math. As now your essentially evoking anti-time which relativity shows cannot exist. Antimatter is identical to matter just opposite charge. It doesn't have anti time or antigravity properties. (We can now create antimatter ) Also we can measure antimatter bombarding the Earth from the Sun.

Define universe then. You certainly don't require dual universe for two particles to have a conserved shared state. Nor does one require a multiverse to describe extra dimensions (independant degrees of freedom) where a field only interacts with its associative particle. As per String theory,ADS/cft correspondance, Desitter/Anti-Desitter for examples are not referring to extra universes. The extra dimensions are essentially mathematical. That corresponds to a particles quantum numbers ie spin and how spin etc are effective degrees of freedom.

nope, try again.

How can you have hidden observers lol. Isn't that the same thing as a hidden variable that generates enough interferance to cause superposition collapse? So in fact based on what constitutes an observer (interferance) Bell does take that into consideration as it is testing for that very thing.

We do have a Chemistry forum here at Scienceforums. Lots of people with decent chemistry knowledge that should easily be able to help a 12 year old

For the riddle my answer stands.

lol my wife couldn't properly wrap a Christmas present if she tried. She always gets me to do it for her. As I always do a better job at it.

Simple go back and prevent yourself from entering the time continuum in the first place. Voila you never interfered Of course all this is impossible but within the riddle the above works.

I hate to break this to you. However this has nothing to do with superposition collapse in the two slit experiment. This is a completely different entity altogether. Ie conciosness involving neural activity. Might I recommend paying less attention to buzz words and focus on the what an experiment actually tests for?

Could you clarify your "Hidden" statements in the OP. I hope your aware QM and Bell's inequality disproved local hidden variables. However as you haven't mentioned entanglement I'm not sure your suggesting hidden variables in regards to quantum superposition.