Mordred

You might want to look into what's already on the market. G.I. Gen 6 Nanophotonic Refraction Stealth Operator Suit is one example

That link pulls a different YouTube video not that it matters as one should never trust YouTube videos to begin with. Anyways if you factor in the number density of Cosmic radiation from the sun then the clearing of those rays from the magnetic field. Any charged particles from the Sun reaching the Earth's surface is negligible in terms of any potential mass gain compared to the losses mentioned above

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox. Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration. Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

I would find that difficult to believe as well. Particularly since a large quantity of charged particles from solar winds get deflected by our magnetic field. Secondly there are studies that show Earth has a net loss due to atmospheric escape which is greater than infalling material such as from asteroids, dust etc. You can go through the references this wiki link uses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass#:~:text=Earth's mass is variable%2C subject,4 long tons) per year. Do you have a reference ?

Sure if I wanted to argue with ChatGpt. A textbook itself would be a better resource to learn from. There isn't much more to say, we haven't confirmed 100 percent on either issue. When you get right down to it no theory is ever 100 percent. Our best evidence is our best evidence. Till something better comes along that's what we have to work with

The decay rate far exceeds the age of the Universe. How would one fulfill that ? The evidence supports the decay rate but there has never been an observed decay afiak

Thankfully decay rates are essential to determine when a particle drops out of thermal equilibrium. Though it's oft described as "when the expansion rate exceeds the reaction rate" in Cosmology applications.

Your definition of truth based on your misunderstanding of the article. Misunderstanding something isn't the reason you were banned.

Nothing honest in a discussion with a previous banned member using a sockpuppet

Yep sockpuppet reported

It doesn't if you actually understand the paper is examining the different possibilities. Then later on provides the reasons why SR or GR alone is insufficient as neither account for the observer nor the equations of state. This is beginning to sound much like another sockpuppet attempt quite frankly. It doesn't if you actually understand the paper is examining the different possibilities. Then later on provides the reasons why SR or GR alone is insufficient as neither account for the observer nor the equations of state. This is beginning to sound much like another sockpuppet attempt quite frankly. So I'm not going to waste my time if that's the case.

If your referring to the screenshot from. The Lineweaver and Davies article. Once you read the full article and examine the mathematics the article itself will tell you precisely what I described. Never rely on part of any article without examining the full article.

Which screenshot ?

One of my favorite articles regarding GUT (grand unification) which is oft described as a TOE if one can complete the GUT including gravity is by John Beaz. It's an interesting and informative reading I highly recommend it. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf

Yeah that was annoying to say the least. What is tricky about the FLRW metric is that proper time is effectively tied to the scale factor for determination of Cosmic time. The Cosmic time being to the commoving observer. Hence the scale factor connection. Unfortunately it's easy to mistakenly think that the time dilation formulas work with cosmological redshift but the truth is once you get recessive velocity that exceeds c. One should instantly recognize something is wrong. Unfortunately in nearly every argument I have ever had on this topic. The posters pushing their personal theories typically wish to ignore that relevant detail. Let alone any math involving GR which quite frankly the stress energy momentum yemsor components will tell one that there is no gravitational time dilation involved. (The only entry being the energy density at T_{00}.) Unfortunately too often posters rely on verbal descriptives and seek statements from articles to support their beliefs but don't recognize the math shows a different story from the verbal descriptives. Spacetime being another common misconception with the fabric descripitives. Once one studies the mathematics one recognizes there is no spacetime fabric and spacetime is simply a volume where time is given dimensionality of length via the Interval.

Yeah that's the one lol needless to say it's far more convenient to extract the terms and relations needed lol.

You would never be able to account on a single theory cover everything. The most one can reasonably expect under physics is as described above by Joigus, myself and Migl. In essence every fundamental particle interaction encapsulated under the groups of the irrep equation I posted above with the addition of a renormalization for gravity. Even with that irrep equation one doesn't calculate from it. It encapsulates numerous formulas under each group irrep including numerous tensors too many to list.

Graphs added where most useful.

One further recommendation this is more on how to order the paper to the other gauge fields. Start classical then do weak field limit under Minkowskii. This will aid integration into any strong equivalence principle conditions under GR or curvature terms. For progressive steps into the Langrangian formalism do a quick intro. Then apply the minimally coupled scalar langrangian. Then step unto U(1) natural progression Then add fermionic fields including Dirac under SU(2) Then for quarks etc step into SU(3) Set the various couplings such as Yukawa Dirac Higgs in the relevant gauge sections. That should provide a natural progression of complexity simple to more complex Graphs added where most useful.

Yes however I will note most papers involving bubble universes in terms of bubble nucleation ignore don't add any terms for magnetic monopoles. Primarily for the reason of none ever being detected.

On a different angle in line with the parameters involved as per the title lol. You would need all the parameters of the standard model, those parameters directly involve any coupling constants of the different fields in question in direct relation to any momentum terms. Couplings such as Higgs couplings, Dirac and Yukawa couplings as they pertain to groups U(1), SU(2),SU(3). For gravity the SO(3.1) group. In covariant derivative form a representation can be expressed as follows. \[\mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}\] At higher energy levels each field will decouple from the fields involved. This is oft described for example John Baez as running of the coupling constants. At these higher temperatures all particle interactions of the different fields have symmetry to each other and become indistinguishable from each other. Gravity may or may not involve a graviton. Just to make that clear. Also one can include a covarisnt derivative form under current SO(3.1) in the above. Leaving it out is intentional as the other fields involved are all renormalizable.

Yeah they make universes look like soap bubbles which is extremely unrealistic. The math and relevant equations of state for the boundary conditions tell a completely different story. The boundary conditions are determined as a region where the expansion rate can be reasonably described by a specific value of Hubbles constant value using the FLRW metric Just as those bubbles universes are formed by anistropic expansion rates there is no physical surface. For analogy think of a river flowing into an ocean. You have water of a certain salinity separated by water of a different salinity. The boundary is the region where mixing occurs. There is no surface. Now apply that analogy using the equations of state for a scalar field as per inflation. You have one region with a different inflationary expansion as opposed to another region. This leads to differing phase transitions at differing times involving electroweak symmetry breaking and is described by false vacuum to true vacuum phase transitions. If it's easier one can think of it as region of different blackbody temperature as the blackbody temperature of our universe evolves in proportion to the inverse of the scale factor. However that wouldn't provide any detail on what causes the differing inflationary rates

Agreed one other thought is will BaS coordinates for a Minkowsii or De-Sitter/anti-Desitter spacetime preserve the maximal symmetry relations ? The standard polar to Cartesian coordinate transformations do so without loss of maximal symmetry. However that's simply a consideration that may or may not be affected.

Funny I was also thinking of renormalization issues cropping up. The cosmological constant itself hadn't considered as of yet as as been focusing on the gauge langrangians later in the article. Which in itself is tricky as I'm more used to the QFT formalism as opposed to QM.

We also need to look at your mass gap statements in terms of Yang Mills. The mass gap is to predict the least massive possible particle predicted by Yang Mills and I don't believe that's your intention in the article. If it is your intention then some serious additions need to be added in terms of the energy momentum relations etc. Though if you actually do so I understand there is still a million dollar prize available lol