Mordred

Im well aware of of the statistical aspects of jump phenomenon. I can't show you the distinction without detailing the GW wave. Hence my question. If you wish to examine the data you have understand its design including detector design. The detectors are dominated by mechanical noise below 60 hertz. How do you filter out that noise? without understanding the signal you wish to detect and the detector design you cannot answer that question. Nor can you conclude "Jump" without that understanding. It sounds to me like you wish to draw conclusions without understanding...

I don't see any solution shorter than 5. Clarify this with Total length travelled in particular it can go back on its track without adding to total length travelled... 😱

It is also how I learned degrees of freedom. The knowledge I gained from robotics was useful to understand particle degrees of freedom.

You didn't answer the above questions I had. Did you understand the formula above? There is roughly 6 main equations but they won't do any good unless you understand my last post. that link you posted has the key details on signal processing. The graphs above include the whitening background noise. You need to filter that noise out in order to see the GW Chirp. As mentioned by Imatfaal. You can study that section. I however can detail the GW signal itself. However that won't do any good unless your clear on the polarization differences between GW and electromagnetic interferance. The latter detail is needed to set the filter signal trigger. Think of an oscilloscope that isn't locked into a specific signal. It looks noisy until you filter out the background noise. In the noise dominated graphs above you need those details to trigger (lock onto) the GW signal. Secondly I can't show you the difference in arm movement of the detector without you understanding the above formula (at least conceptually). (I'm positive you don't desire to merely take my word on it, but would rather like the tools to confirm yourself)

I really don't know how much you understand on the transverse traceless guage and spin statistic aspects of a GW wave vs an electromagnetic wave. Do you understand what is meant by [latex]h_+, h_x[/latex] polarization? If I express this distinction "gravity has spin 2 which is invariant under 180 degree rotations, electromagnetism has spin 1 which is invariant under 360 degree rotations." would you understand the distinction in the trasverse traceless guage? How good is your GR? if I post the metrics involved, to show different aspects and predictions of the signal do you feel comfortable enough with GR tensors? the math to show gravity waves can be a bit daunting, but I could post several key equations to decipher the black line signal. Are you familiar with [latex]A^{TT}_{\mu\nu}[/latex] where [latex]A^{\mu\nu}=h_+\epsilon^{\mu\nu}_++h_x\epsilon^{\mu\nu}_x[/latex] ? I'm trying to guage your math skills and familiarity

I think you may have missed the point of posting those particular line elements. I had already posted you an example of how to derive the spacetime geodesics in one those line elements. I recommend you look at the geodesics of each line element. If you wish to show expansion as a static universe your paper will require those details. Among others already mentioned.

Good point on particles and fields. I was considering a rewrite on that post. Unpinning this thread and replacing the article. It had initially hoped for a more collaborative on its initial writing. A couple of details I wish to add is a decent example of many particle distribution and how it correlates to the metric tensor and geodesics. The problem isn't that I can't derive the necessary equations. It's finding a series of derivitaves that can be readily followed. Specifically thinking the Newtonian limit where [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}[/latex] I'm certainly open to other suggestions. However I feel this may be a good way of showing the field aspects of mass only. In a way I've been posting numerous derivitaves along these lines in Speculations and relativity forum to test how well they are understood by others.

the signature is the black line waveform. That's the signature of the GW itself. As you can see that signature is identical on both detectors. Well with a slight time delay. As the wave hit one detector before the other.

6 metres 5 metres if the mouse doesnt need to return to original hole

Sorry your going to need to show those calculations. The length contaction only occurs along the x axis. Which we can assume as the axis connecting events. You also need to specify which observer corresponds to which emitter. I still don't see how you get elongated. If you post your math we can spot the error.

Once again they can filter out the interference signatures from the waveform data. Gravity waves has a unique signature... The Ligo scientists have had years to fine tune the filters for mechanical vibration, electromagnetic radiation etc. Use of two detectors at great distance from each other is extremely effective at isolating localized interferance.

How do you elongated from a length contraction (only) formula?

So your suggesting a lightning strike occured precisely halfway between two detectors 300 miles apart. After all if the lightning occured closer to one than the other there would be a significant difference between detectors in both wavelength and amplitude. Sorry but as mentioned. Wrong wave pattern its not a tranverse dipole. Which is what lightning would emit. The detectors are designed to detect quadrapole waves. The left column specifies strain. Which is based upon the formulation of a quadrapole not dipole wave. A quadrapole wave contracts x plus and minus axis while simultaneously expanding the y plus minus axis. Then next half cycle the opposite. Hence the L shape of the detectors. This doesn't occur for a dipole wave... The two arms of the detector can discern between a quadrapole vs a dipole wave by studying which axis experience strain in which direction. The design can easily discern the difference between the two wave types.

Swansorts answer is correct. A muon has no length to contract or expand. I honestly don't see how you read Swansort's answer as being different... If it was an object with a length then yes it too would length contract.

So was mine So was mine. If you wish to give me a minus one feel free. Reputation points is meaningless to me. I post to help others understand. Not to inflate my ego...

lol remember a particle has also a wavelength. The change in wavelength is reflected in the relativistic doppler formula. Which shows the time dilation change in wavelength.

What is length of a pointlike particle? Answer zero length. A contracted zero is still zero. You can't have length expansion of something that has no length. The length contraction does occur but is meaningless for the length of the muon itself. It is the path length itself that has meaning. The pointlike particle dimension aspects is a common confusion. So don't feel bad in this case. Your questions were valid ones. As Swansort stated the length of the particle is meaningless. It is length of the path that is important.

I believe the statement" space is filled with the standard model particles and fields" is a better statement than space being some form of ether is more accurate. It is those fields and SM particles that determines the topography. The point being space itself does not have its own unique particles, which would be required for an ether. Unless you accept the graviton neither does gravity... Even twistor theory doesn't state space itself has its own particles. Though I had to confirm that with a PH.d that specialized in string/twistor theory. The metric tensor is determined via SM particle distribution. Thanks for the spelling corrections. I'm curious though why you would post a 1922 translation. The details of that paper is outdated by later research.

A lightning strike has a different wave signature. Electromagnetic radiation ie lightning induction follows a transverse dipole wave pattern. The signature received by LIGO is a transverse quadrapole. This signature is only possible via gravity waves due to spin 2 statistics.

well let me know when you discover that the Lorentz formulas your using uses the following Minkowskii line element. (time dilation/length contraction) which I assume your using [latex]ds^2=c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 [/latex] as opposed to the FLRW metric. [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2][/latex] [latex]S\kappa,r= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}[/latex] I already supplied you with the cosmological redshift corrections past Hubble horizon. PS geodesics and worldlines do not follow the same path in those two line elements Of course if your dealing with infinite redshift you may want to look at the differences under the Schwartzchild metric in terms of worldlines. Which is also different. [latex]ds^2=(1-\frac{2Gm}{c^2r})dr^2+r^2(d\theta^2+sin^2\theta d \phi^2)-c^2(1-\frac{2Gm}{c^2r})dt^2[/latex] Just a suggestion...

No problem, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a multiverse. You can split an infinite universe, an infinite number of times and each universe can still be infinite in size. The basis of chaotic eternal inflation past the mathematics is an anistrophy region that expands at a different rate than the parent universe. Black holes as universe generators have been proposed but this is extremely tricky to keep homogenous and isotropic. Poplowskii once tried this, his metrics is a good approach.

Reading through this post, you have either drank too much vodka lol or gone astray down the wrong garden path. tell me are you applying both length contraction and time dilation? This line tells me the answer may be no.

In terms of environmental biology influence. You have listed several key points. Farming itself led to advancement as less time was needed for hunting. I can also see economic advantages being an attributing factor.

Colbourne was the programmer. I'm not sure which language he used. The calculator itself was the brain child of Jorrie who has a Ph.d in philosophies of Cosmology. Marcus (retired astrophysicist) and myself made suggestions and wrote most of the guides. We all equally tested the accuracy of the calculator vs known datasets. Each new dataset (WMAP and Planck) we retested the calc. In some cases we had to extend the range on key parameters. Unfortunately the latex doesn't post well on this forum. That portion was setup for another forum I visit. I've tried correcting the latex copy/paste for this site but get size limit errors. As to your post. What you have has similarities to chaotic eternal inflation and bubble universe creation. Leading to multiverse. LQC has a similar model in that regard. A few key points. Singularity does not mean a BH type singularity. In the BB its of unknown volume. The point like description you see on tv is just our Observable universe contracted to a point. Secondly it wasn't an explosion... it was a rapid expansion. the two has different dynamics. An explosion has a centre ie origin. It also radiates outward. We describe this as anistropic and inhomogeneous. Expansion has no centre nor direction. It is homogenous and isotropic. homogenous = no Preferred location isotropic = no preferred direction. Secondly You will need to learn the math in order to program your model. I would recommend reading these from my site. Which you probably already visitted. Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies The last two articles helped develop that calculator in particular the stretch parameter. The articles above will help with misconceptions. Also to understand expansion. the articles below will help teach the required math. Training (textbook Style Articles) 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 A couple of them are full length Textbooks. Key note "spray" is also the wrong dynamics. A spray has a preferred direction and location. edit if LQC is your preferred approach. That site has an introduction to LQC.

Ok at least your starting on the right foot with mentioning this is only a Speculation. This thread will most likely be moved there I would do so myself except you posted this on two locations. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98203-repost-a-quantum-loop-multiverse-hypothesis/?fromsearch=1