Mordred

Antimatter is formed regularly, however it is short lived and is quickly annihilated from encountering normal matter. http://www.wired.com/2011/08/earth-antimatter-belt/ Not the best link but it shows antimatter via cosmic rays

It depends on the inflaton model. We know it needs to expand 60 efolds to solve the horizon problem. However the exact number isn't known and there is roughly 70 viable inflation models

To add to an earlier comment by Strange. Redshift isn't the only evidence of an expanding universe. One of the most commonly and strangely enough biggest piece of evidence is thermodynamic evidence. An expanding universe cools. Pv=nRt. I'm often amazed how often the temperature history is overlooked. Lol

Lol think about how I feel. I fly once a week

This far it's been an interesting article, I am only on page 70 atm. I have to admit the level of math and recognition of current models is well detailed. I am still working on the deviations. This far I don't see anything too questionable to argue upon. The author definetely has a clear understanding of the concordance understanding. Even without the premise of his modelling the article is well detailed. ( In many ways its far more detailed than a forum. Makes me wonder how you believe we can help ?) The English translation throws me off at times. Thankfully he includes the math. ( Which will take time to fully understand)

No you shouldn't think of particle spin as meaning spinning on its axis. I rarely use YouTube vids to answer questions but in this case it will make it easier. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v1_-LsQLwkA

Total lack of needed detail. What is your studies?

To give an example of where classical motion fails to describe the spin of a particle. Even though it's convenient to model a particles spin as a rotation this cannot be confused with a classical rotation. Take an electron for example it being a fermion has a non integar spin of -1\2. Mathematically though this means a 720 degree rotation to return to the same quantum state. see the problem? Normally a spherical object like say a planet returns to its orginal state in 360 degrees. Visualizing particles as little bullets instead of excitations will lead one astray. Yes they have poinlike characteristics, but at the same time wavelike. To Google how particle spin works Google spin statistics. "quantum mechanical spin is not described by a vector as in classical angular momentum. It is described by a complex-valued vector with two components called a spinor." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD PS glad to see your studying.

I wouldn't place any faith in this theory. For one thing his paper shows zero correlations to known formulas for comparison. Searches on it didn't reveal a single peer review. There is also zero correlations to the applicable symmetry groups such as SO(3), SO(2) and U(1). Besides anyone claiming a theory of everything in a mere 18 pages should raise a red flag.

To add to the above you can get a better feel for how energy-density correlates to pressure in the following relations. [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

You might want to study the Einstein field equations in particular the stress energy/momentum tensor. GR, includes energy density to pressure relations and the degrees of freedom of each particle species. [latex]t_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}\rho&0&0&0\\0&p&0&0\\0&0&p&0\\0&0&0&p\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

Your welcome another related term to study is worldline. "World lines of particles/objects at constant speed are called geodesics." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line PS +1 for your desire to study the standard model and not inventing your own, due to misconceptions.

This is the aspect your missing. I editted the last post see above for the relevant section in the link

Now in your light beam experiment light is no longer following a Euclidean (flat) straight line. It is following a null geodesic path. Which is a curved path. Some articles will describe it as compressed space time. I personally hate that analogy as its misleading. It's better to just describe it as coordinate tranformation. Look at the Schwartzchild Metric. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric Note the change in radius. Read the section bending of light by gravity. Note the added Length it takes for light to reach your second mirror "as the length-scale a goes to infinity)," https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_geodesics

The problem is observer a can see BOTH time dilation and length contraction. He calculates the lorentz factor into his calculations. Now let's do this experiment. Observer A builds a transmitter and receiver a sufficient distance apart to measure the spreed of light. He builds a second device precisely the same. He keeps one in his frame. Sets the second device into the other frame. Both devices calculate the speed of light to equal c. Between transmitter and receiver. However when observer a picks up his second device he notices that the number of tests is less than his own device. The point is you've already compensated for the variation by changing both units used to measure the speed of light by the two formulas posted above. When you state the speed of light slows down + the length contracts+ time slows down. THIS is wrong and will give you the wrong answer. It would be like stating the following. A high gravity well causes the following three observer effects. [latex]t_o=t_f\sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2}}[/latex] [latex]d=ds\sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2}}[/latex] [latex]c_o=c\sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2}}[/latex] The third equation is obviously wrong by the experiment posted above. In other words you've already corrected the relativity effects by corrections to the units used to measure the speed of light.

You need to drop the idea light travels slower. Think in terms of coordinate change due to space time curvature. Remember postulate 1. I found a handy simulator that you can play around with. http://www.adamtoons.de/physics/gravitation.swf It may require plugins of your using a phone. Now remember time always run slower in a gravity well than the clock outside of the well. This both observers Alice and Bob agree on. Which is slightly different than inertial frame time dilation. if the clock stays at the same gravitational potential it's clock will maintain the same rate which is slow to Alice at Euclidean space. If you think about redshift/blueshift you can make the connection between the two scenarios. [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex] So light is bluedshifted when it falls into the well ,redshifts when it climbs out. Time and length contraction follow the same relation. By the formulas you posted. [latex]t_o=t_f\sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2}}[/latex] [latex]d=ds\sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2}}[/latex] Wiki has the formula for circular orbits including a graph https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

There is also the atomic clock on Everest experiment. Hopefully I can find that paper this eve. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314656/Scientists-prove-time-really-does-pass-quicker-higher-altitude.html I read the peer review I'll hunt it down

This eve I'll dig up some papers on gravitational redshift/dilation length contraction. There is a particular article that does a good coverage. Via experiments similar to the one you suggested.

Ah I got what your asking I'm at work atm I'll get back to you later this eve.

Maybe this will help. Lorentz transformation. First two 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 [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] So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex]

The units are measured by coordinates (x,y,z,ct) GR involves coordinate changes. So Alice and Bob each measure the speed of light using what what he perceives as the units of measure. They will each measure the same speed.

Hint what are the units for the speed of light? The length of the meter changes and the measurements of a second changes. So each observer still measures the same speed. Its the units that change not the quantity. Though we can measure the change in wavelength ie redshift.

Essentially correct. If you look at the clocks on that link and when the red signal is sent you can see both aspects affected. It's great to try to mathematically seperate each effect but all the effects occur. Dilation, delay in signal and contraction. If you think about that the observer sees all three. Regardless of who the observer is Alice or Bob observing their opposite signal.

Yes speed of light is invariant, for all observer's. It appears what your missing is relativity of simultaneity. Ie when the events are observed to occur. "In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity Look at the graphs and the line "Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame." If you send just one signal the signal will occur later or sooner depending on the observer. In other words the two observers won't agree on when the clicks occur.

The problem your having is thinking multiple body problems should all share a common centre of mass. In point of detail the use of CoM becomes impractical in multibody problems. Place five dots on a sheet of paper (random). Draw as many lines connecting those dots. (You should have four lines per dot) Now assume each dot represents objects of the same mass. So devide each line in half. Each of these points represent a different CoM. The net effect you end up with more Centre of mass relations than the actual number of objects. Now ask yourself How many different centres of mass relations are involved in the solar system? Count every individual planet/moon system if two moons influence each other count them too. Then count planet/sun, if two planets influence each other count them too. Far too many to mathematically describe under a single Keplar style calculation.