Mordred

An easy rule to remember. In an events own frame, his length and time is always undilated and the longest. Each observer observes other frames as dilated/contracted.

No math grr. The principle of relativity and block "presentism" are contradictory. Due to time symmetry, there is no need for a preferred frame such as Lorentz ether. (Sorry needed two sentences)

I don't believe it is a good policy for a forum to discuss methods to bypass x ray security systems. If your looking to protect some item from damage due to x-rays all you need to do is show the security officer the item itself and explain your concern on x ray damage. There is no need to hide legitimate items that x rays can be harmful to. I have regularly had to do so myself. Particularity sensitive time exposure films or other sensitive items. Attempts at hiding will cause more problems than simply being honest about your concerns on damage. Key note any attempt of hiding from customs can be considered an attempt to smuggle said item. Even if the item is legitimate. The attempt itself is illegal and can land you in jail. this is an illegal act in and of itself. ! Moderator Note A little friendly reminder of the policy you agreed to. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules section 3. Keep posts legal. References to the personal commitment of an illegal activity are forbidden, with the following qualifications: References to drug use are not permissible unless the references are scientific or otherwise useful as part of a discussion. References involving felonies are not acceptable and will be removed. Discussion of methods to circumvent restrictions made at any level, including school Internet filtering or parental controls, is prohibited. Descriptions of the construction or synthesis of illegal or hazardous devices or chemicals are subject to removal at the discretion of the staff. Remember that many SFN readers do not have the scientific background to know the appropriate precautions and safety procedures; all posts should contain a warning of the potential hazards and safety considerations of any dangerous procedure

Thanks Studiot, there is one key property that would be difficult but not impossible to explain. I suspect the OP isn't explaining his ideas correctly though that is difficult to determine without the mathematical details. Though incorrect terminology is a strong indicator... Dark matter has mass but the graviton is a massless particle. There is a peer reviewed article that applies a possible correction but you need to redefine GR. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.8191&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwir0Z3z0P7PAhVGwWMKHSyjDdMQFggjMAQ&usg=AFQjCNFQDRY7wmfp_pE-tSf5F4-wxy37gw This isn't the only attempt, others have tried different models to accomplish the same goal. A key note, just because an article is peer reviewed. It doesn't mean it is correct. Only that it is a viable possibility. It also doesn't make it a mainstream model. That possibility requires further rigorous testing.

perhaps you had better study quantum geometrodynamics if you want to use gravitons. I can tell you properly using gravitons will not do the things your suggesting. Though the math is in and of itself complex. Honestly you should sit down with a good GR textbook. However not many people can afford textbooks. So here is several decent articles. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on Relativity by Mathius blau. http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ The last is an open source textbook on SR. The math will give you a proper starting point to correctly develop a model your describing. None of the math you've posted shows what you are describing. For one thing gravitons would mediate the force aspects of gravity but will not add any force of its own. This is a guage vector boson. Another gauge boson being the photon for the electromagnetic. The photon mediates the charge but does not have a charge. Ok lets do this Graviton modelling 101. First the purpose of the graviton is to couple the stress tensor [latex] T_{\mu\nu}[/latex] to the gravitational field denoted [latex]h^{\mu\nu}[/latex] graviton having spin 2 statistics. k is the coupling constant of the graviton The Langrene is [latex]L_{int}=-\frac{1}{2}k T_{\mu\nu}h^{\mu\nu}[/latex] with field tensor [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+kh_{\mu\nu}[/latex] to correspond to Newton potential [latex]k^2=32\pi G[/latex] Spin 2 requires the following [latex]+2: h_{\mu v}=\epsilon_{\mu}^{+}\epsilon_v^{+}[/latex] [latex]-2: h_{\mu v}=\epsilon_{\mu}^{-}\epsilon_v^{-}[/latex] where [latex]\eta \epsilon_\mu \epsilon_v=0[/latex] and [latex]k^\mu \epsilon_\mu=0 [/latex] There now you have the basics behind the graviton under GR. The above equations is the standard treatments of the Graviton as a spin 2 gauge vector boson. For the spin 2 a good study is the harmonic oscillator (deDonder gauge) By the way gravitons are not sucked out of a planet. Both one 1 and 2 are false gravitons aren't sucked out of the mass term. Blackholes, stars, planets etc do not lose rest mass due its interaction with other massive bodies. 2 because the inverse square law is a natural consequence of a force over a volume. "Essence of Astrophysics" has an excellent section on that. Secondly the dynamics your describing will still have the wrong mass distribution to account for galaxy rotation curves. (at least as you have described it above)

no prob, unfortunately the two particle physics articles is literally the simplist I can find outside of textbooks. A good textbook is "Quarks and Leptons" though Griffith's Introduction to Particle Physics is also good. see section 6.4.1 of part 2 Simple particle physics liink, particular equations 6.4.16 to 6.4.19. Read up till 6.4.4 You will note those particular equations denote the principle of equivalence. You can easily find solutions on how f=ma correlates to the full version of e=mc^2. (energy/momentum formula) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation I'd have to check but those last two articles most likely show that. If not I can easily show the solution.

Wrong. Maybe you should actually learn what a GUT means instead of spouting utter nonsense. GUT theories http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES Or better yet actually understand whats involved in particle physics. Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2 part 2 covers relativity

You can measure the momentum of a particle its wavelength determines its energy. A particle is identified by properties that all particles of the same type share. Things like spin, charge, flavor,color,parity, isopspin etc. Any particle can have different values of its energy, so its not identifiable to a specific value per particle type Einstein never claimed the formula e=mc^2 was a unification formula, thats your misconception

Thats a ridiculous statement. energy is merely one of many properties that a particle has. It isn't even considered a property of a particle as it cannot be used to identify one particle from another

Your absolutely right, but then you have no idea what a unification formula is... Where is your strong force, weak force, electromagnetism? How do you account for 196 degrees of freedom from the standard model particles? Where is your symmetry group tensors? How do you define SO(10)×SO(5)×SO(3)×SO (2)×U (1) groups? where is your 4 momentum 3 velocity correlations? derive it from f=ma to e=mc^2 Or simply look at the post you quoted under Newton potential.. What did you think that term means?

roflmao show your work. Try looking at the remaining units on the rhs and lhs of the equation bud. Do you even know how the formula [latex] e=mc^2[/latex] was derived? You might find the gravitational constant is already incorperated

has nothing to do with using wiki lol. Your equation is garbage. For the reasons already mentioned. Try actually studying a subject before trying to reinvent it. Or better yet post precisely how you derived your equation. As previously requested. For example your not even using the full e=mc^2 formula as you have no momentum term. You don't just randomly add in terms to existing formulas without going through the correct derivitave's that are used to generate that formula. If you can't show your work in how you derived that equation then its a useless formula.

I'm positive showing what calculations you used would contribute to a better discussion. lol we can already invalidate the greater than c calcs.

that's because volume is not a measurable property of a particle. Here is a list I might miss one or two lol. Mass Charge Spin color flavor isospin Decays Products Lifetime Scattering Cross-section Resonance Resonance width and lifetime. Energy and momentum cannot be used to define a particle but are measurable.

Thanks Sensei I forgot to include relativistic doppler

Well a photon is essentially an excitation of a field with both wave and pointlike properties. Defining the volume of the pointlike characteristics is meaningless. However its wavelength is definable. It has numerous relations. These relations will help. [latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/latex] You can see the energy to frequency relations above. For Doppler shift your formula is [latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex] For gravitational redshift its [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex] In cosmological redshift it is [latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex] A good start point to learn this is start with Weins Displacement law for the blackbody temperature aspects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law All three cases above redshift is a result of wavelength. The first set of relations above will show the energy influence. Weins Displacement law will help connect this to blackbody temperature. Another useful study point is luminosity to temperature relations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity

Essentially correct but lets express it properly due to volume change or increased length change. This volume change affects the wavelength of the light path (redshift/blueshift).

The energy doesn't go anywhere. How we measure energy is also observer dependant. What this means in the frame of reference of the emitter its frequency/energy remains the same. Yet in the observer frame we must account for redshift. It is an observer quantity. In much the same way length and time is. Onto the light aspects. First a quick intro into how we model photons influence on expansion. However more importantly is the temperature/pressure and density aspects.

Lots of practice lol, some of my more complex posts took several hours to get all the latex the way I wanted it. To add to this, as our Observable universe portion started out at roughly a Planck length. Coupled with the cosmological principle. It only makes sense to state the BB happened everywhere. After all our universe surrounds us if you look far enough back in time. In every direction you look you would see the BB. Assuming we could look this far back, which we can't due to CMB and the previous dark ages. (period when the average mean free path of a photon was approximately 10^-32 metres.)

No, one space will not overlap another region as each region expands equally. (assuming not gravitationally bound). Each region will remain their own seperate locality. Much like the surface of the balloon. As far as new volume, other than thermodynamic applications it has no meaning other than new volume. For an analogy the additional volume as you blow up the balloon only affects the average density/temperature and pressure of the air. However the additional volume is essentially indistinguishable from a previous region. (side note if you quote our posts, you can see how Imatfaal and I are doing the latex structure)

How about simple size scales. An entire galaxy is roughly a few parsecs across. A BH is far smaller than a galaxy. Numerous galaxies form large scale structures, These correlate to roughly 100 Mpc. The Hubble horizon itself is roughly 4400 Mpc away from us and the universe is roughly 3 times that volume. So I ask you how can you possibly think A BH can possibly have any measurable influence at these scales? You don't have to be a mathematician to see blackholes are less than a grain of sand at these cosmological scales. They only have localized influence regardless of their mass. This is because the strength of gravity falls off in strength as a function of radius. A blackholes gravity doesn't even move a dust particle past a lightyear let alone affect an entire galaxy. For example take [latex]f=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/latex] With the mass of Sagittarius A 4.3*10^6 kg. At one light year (9.5*10^15) metres. The gravitational force on a single kg is roughly 3.43*10^-37 Newtons. This would be less than a Newton of force even if the second object was identical mass the Sagittarius A... We haven't even gotten close to a single parsec. Which is 3.018*10^18 metres. Let alone being able to have measurable influence at a diameter of 31 to 55 kpcs (diameter of Milky way) One simple formula shows that a BH is insignificant on a global scale. Certainly cannot possibly account for dark energy. Its amazing people that try to explain galaxy rotation curves and dark energy never stop to calculate just how INSIGNIFICANT a BH's gravity is at extreme distances... If you were to remove all other objects. Just leaving Sagittarius A and our Sun. There would not be enough gravity to maintain an orbit. Our sun would escape. Precisely, very trivial arithmetic. See formula above...

shorter list is what we married men are right about.

Sounds like a request. I will post a detailed explanation after work later today. Lol busy day. Anyways there is a handy formula. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] What this formula describes is 1) the rate of expansion today to the rate of expansion previously. 2) the evolution of density of matter, radiation and Lambda.(cosmological constant) There was three main eras. Radiation dominant, matter dominant and Lambda dominant. Prior to CMB was the radiation dominant (including inhlation). Then as the universe expanded the rate of expansion was matter dominant (a matter dominant universe still expands) The reason is as matter forms into large scale structures the global density decreases. See the matter term under the equation above. This means gravity has a lower influence on a global scale. Eventually the influence of radiation and matter decreases. Again see formula above. However the Lambda term does not decrease in density as matter and radiation does. So once the Lambda term becomes dominant on the above equation we enter our Lambda dominant era at roughly 6.8 billion years of age for our universe. It is the detail of Lambda not decreasing in density as the volume increases that causes the accelerating expansion. However just for the additional increase to expansion without the cosmological term. The first two articles will detail the Deceleration equation, the fluid equation and the FLRW metric in regards to expansion. The last two links details the thermodynamic aspects in greater detail. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

Here is the basics of the Lorentz transformations. I included an open source textbook at the end. Lorentz transformation. postulates. 1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical 2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames. Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex](at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction. Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1. A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above in space time ds between two events is ( this below doesnt have curvature as SR assumes Euclidean) [latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex] Invoking speed of light postulate 2. [latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex] Where[latex] \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex] Time dilation dt=proper time ds=line element since[latex] d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant. an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt. [latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex] so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation [latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex] Here is relativity of simultaneaty coordinate transformation in Lorentz. [latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex] [latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex] This free open source textbook is also good to get started. http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ It will help fill in the blanks in the above

your welcome, there is some excellent details in this thread.