Mordred

After thinking about it further your descriptive rings a bell in the zero point energy universe. http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063 " as an accelerated expansion of the Universe, immediately after the creation instant,while the Universe, as it expands,borrows energy from the gravitational field to create more matter. According to his description, the positive matter energy is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy, so that the total energy is zero,and that when the size of the Universe doubles, both the matter and gravitational energies also double, keeping the total energy zero (twice zero). ur task will be to show why the Universe is a zero-total-energy entity, by means of pseudo-tensors." The problem is this model works via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. 120 orders of magnitude of energy too much , derived from this model. (I once saw, but will provide never relocate an article discussing a suppression mechanism.)

No.. One of the biggest misconceptions sources is the believe all metrics are generic. The truth is any metric is designed for the system/ system state its developed to handle. GR for example has numerous different coordinate systems based on very specific observer and emitter observation influences. (Rightly so) In the " Universe from nothing theories ie Lawrence Krauss. This model is based on zero point energy universe. http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063 This model suffers a few problems. It doesn't explain that virtual particle creation. requires energy. 2) the model requires pseudo polar coordinates It's not the most highly professional viewed models, from my external study... Though at one time I advocate this model. Lol

Well being the typical geek that I am, I wired up 60 outputs to an AB SLC processor. I used indirect addressing to vary the numerous timers. Just to run Christmas tree lights lol. My wife rightly thought I was nuts. (She hated the bulky wiring but loved the display)

Actually it doesn't affect the law of conservation of energy. A thermal dynamic state depends on the system being described. For example the above described what occurs due to space time curvature. However it does not describe total energy of the universe. The total energy of the universe remains roughly the same. Approx equivalent to 10^90 particles. However within the mathematics of GR total energy isn't conserved. Think of it this way how one measures mass or energy is observer dependant. If two observers in different frames of reference measures two different values. Both are correct from their frame of reference.

Here maybe this will help on GR and conservation of energy. . "When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved." http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ One way to look at this. You have a light Ray or any multi particle/single particle system. Fall into or climb a gravity well. The total energy of said particles will undergo gravitational redshift. They gain or lose energy respectively. The energy lost or gain doesn't add or subtract from the gravity well. So it isn't conserved within the system being described.

As this is relevant, though not to the specific conversation currently under way. Rather the earlier conversion on one way speed of light. Here is a recent article discussing the precision of one of the latest tests https://briankoberlein.com/2015/09/15/relativity-wins-again/ Full article is here, as well as Nature http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6954

With your strong interest in mathematics here is two articles covering the mathematics involved in particle physics and how it ties into GR in the second article. First article is primarily differential geometry coverage. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395part 2

Noted the textbook I was referring to is the particle physics by Liddle. It's primarily based on SO(5) rather than SO(10). The author took the time to cover the now improved physics understanding in the opening notes. It still has tons of useful information provided one remembers our understanding has improved since its writing.

Well I for one give you props for recognizing this example of model building has flaws, and not pushing " This is how it is". As such it's an excellent example of model building the right way albeit improvements to conform to the physics and ideal gas laws are needed. Wish other posters had the same diligence. If you take the time to look over the materials I provided above you will notice one of the links is a full (but older textbook). The Mathius Blau article is roughly 990 pages covering GR, with the last chapters covering Cosmology. Later when I get a chance I'll post more training material for you, with GR and thermodynamic applications. In particular the Einstein field equations. If you can afford and isn't adverse to buying textbooks. For GR I would recommend buying General relativity by Wald http://www.amazon.ca/General-Relativity-Robert-M-Wald/dp/0226870332 +1

Well this being my first time looking at this thread thus far I'm impressed by your rigor. Unlike most speculation models your backing up yours with mathematics. I still have to look over what you have thus far in greater detail however I see a couple of points and potentially counter arguments against your model. Looking over this this far it looks like your using primarily SR as opposed to GR. I can see some inherent problems with this but not in something previously mentioned throughout this thread. A common mistake in many speculations is that there is a belief that expansion is based primarily upon distance measurements as its primary source of evidence. This is far from the truth. In fact an even larger body of evidence is thermodynamics. Rather than go through an entire course in Cosmology applications of thermodynamic laws I'll jump to some primary relations. [latex]E=(\rho c^2+p)R^3[/latex] Expansion is adiabatic if there is no net flow or outflow of energy. So that [latex]\frac{de}{dt}=\frac{d}{dt}(\rho c^2+p)R^3=0[/latex] Let p be proportional to [latex]\rho c^2[/latex] This leads to the relation [latex]p=w\rho c^2[/latex] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) This link gives the appropriate equations of state Without going through all the steps expansion is accurately described via the FLRW metric acceleration equation which can correlate energy density/pressure and temperature relations. The acceleration equation is [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] This leads to [latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex] where k is the curvature constant. now the curvature constant can have three main configurations 1,0-1. You've probably know about the stress energy tensor but this set of relation is handy to know. [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] Which correlate the stress energy tensor to energy density/pressure in Minkowskii metric form. If you look through the universe geometry formula below I go into basics on the FLRW metric and how the curvature constant affects light paths. The FLRW metric to distance formula is. [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] For example when k=0 light rays remain parallel, they Will either converge or defract depending if the curvature constant is positive or negative. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry 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 above links are basic articles on common misconceptions. These three will get you started on the ideal gas laws applications involved. The last will help you with your GR, and incorporates GR to the FLRW metric via the Einstein field equations and thermodynamic laws. 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/0409426An 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 http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau the main concern is if you want your model seriously considered you will have to correlate the ideal gas law aspects to the EFE and FLRW metric to explain the thermodynamic history of our universe via your model Including Big bang nucleosynthesis and the corresponding particle species % found in the CMB. Anyways it's late at my locale, I will provide some arguments on galaxy rotation curves in terms of an ideal gas isothermal sphere and the NFW profile. As well as touch on the Integrated and non integrated Sachs Wolfe effect. For dark matter I will probably add some details on gravitational lensing which Will correlate its gravitational influence. Dark flow itself is a locale group interaction its not applied the the entire observable universe. Our local group is moving to a sulercluster called the great attractor. Accronym name. The main point is as far as I can tell your model is based mainly upon SR and how light can cause influence upon observable influences. Unfortunately Cosmology doesn't based its model strictly upon light. It's intensely includes particle physics and thermodynamic laws as well. For example the temperature of the universe at any time by the inverse of the scale factor a(t). I would also look into cosmological redshift and luminosity relations

Yes that's correct."A non-inertial reference frame is a frame of reference that is undergoing acceleration with respect to an inertial frame." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame However that being said SR can handle accelerating frames. It's a common misconception that it can't. The article by Beaz has a decent coverage. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html

Have you considered the possibility of scan times interference? The results shown could be due to execution delays and input scan time resolution with your program. I haven't used datastudio itself, but I often run into problems of this nature in various software. In particular PLCs. In particular programs I write for motion control systems, in many cases this can be reduced by setting the appropriate priorities and interrupts on your measuring inputs. As datastudio is Windows based I would also stop any other tasks the PC may be performing to an absolute minimal. Also defrag and scandisk your PC to get some PC optimization. Another idea is run tighter subroutines when your performing the test to minimum instructions and record the result into a pointer driven datatable as opposed to variable driven. Variables use more memory than pointers. Essentially you want as few instructions used as possible during the test itself. If you look at the instruction clock cycles per instruction you should be able to tweak your software. Use subroutines instead of any jump commands. Jump commands typically require a greater number of clock cycles. Remember compilers execute instructions in the specified program order. So reduce the number of instructions per loop required to examine and scan the input of your senser (Lol in many ways I miss the good ole DOS days. For running fast execution times you can't beat the lack of interference from other programs running on the background and the lack of GUI. Running basic hardware for precision timing was far far easier.) One thing to remember program execution scan times can vary on a PC. Largely due to other programs running at the same time. Your CPU can only execute x instructions at a given time. One idea might be write a seperate program that does nothing more than scan the input and record the result to a datatable. Then use your main program to later examine and display the data. Shorter programs execute per program cycle far faster than longer programs Another method is to have a separate subroutine that just runs the input of the sensor, your timer and recording. Control said subroutine with keyboard commands. Example press ctrl t Execute test subroutine Execute drop gate Run timer Read input record if ctrl E goto main (exit subroutine command) else repeat subroutine Keep this subroutine as short as possible.

+1 on this.

A line of pic chips is Mikrobasic. Uses basic programming lanauage as the compiler. The software comes with the programming kit. The chips themself are cheap. http://www.mikroe.com/mikrobasic/pic/ basic is similar enough to Pascal that conversion is easy.

I think you need to start including some mathematics to go with your statements. It would help avoid numerous confusions. I'm posting from a phone, didn't see your reply when I added the pseudo Euclidean edit. Sometimes happens, for which I apologize

I don't need to, you just need to look at Minkowskii coordinates which is pseudo Euclidean. "The Minkowski metric is sometimes termed a pseudo- euclidean metric to emphasize that it is euclidean-like ex- cept for the difference in sign between the time and space terms in the line element." http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro490/lectures/lecture490_ch4.pdf It is not the only metric where relativity of simultaneity is applied.

I don't see how you can be confused by that. Flat space time is represented by Euclidean geometry. You use Cartesian coordinates in Euclidean geometry. Minkowskii space is a pseudo Euclidean metric. If your basing your assumptions that the only thing you need to define relativity of simultaneity it's no wonder your making the assumptions you have been. I suggest you start looking at Rindler coordinates and relativity of simultaneity. Start by actually reading the first paper I posted.

If I were you I would look at what the term wavelength means and how it relates to color of light. http://scienceprimer.com/electromagnetic-spectrum

Why would mathematical consistency require one inertial frame ? That makes no sense. As long as you have a reference frame you can mathematically show differences from than reference frame and still be consistent and precise. The reference frame doesn't even require the the observer to be at rest. It's certainly easier, however GR can handle it. David345 posted you the metrics, I also posted a few articles. Did you read them? For example Euclidean geometry is in the form of Cartesian coordinates, however in one of those articles there was a section showing how relativity of simulaneity works in polar coordinates. Which isn't Euclidean. http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0511062 One side note the majority of the paradoxes mentioned in that paper, are artifacts of coordinate paradoxes. Even though it doesn't go into detail on which paradoxes its referring to. An excellent article covering numerous "artifact of coordinate paradoxes" and the solutions for them (by selecting a different coordinate system) is the following. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau I think one of the problems you may be having is SR and GR didn't stop with Einstein. Advances in both theories are continuously being developed. This includes different coordinate systems. For example simultaneity also occurs in Rindler, Born, Fermi coordinates etc. This list includes the FLRW metric, Schwartzchild Metric, Turtle metric and Kruskal Szekures metric https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%E2%80%93Szekeres_coordinates Every coordinate system in relativity follows in one fashion or another relativity of simultaneity In some metrics there are different specialized observers. Commoving, corotating, accelerating etc. not to mentioned different curved spacetimes. Relativity of simultaneity applies in every case. You don't often see it mentioned in the different coordinate systems as its principle is easier to teach in the Minkowskii metric. This doesn't mean it doesn't apply in the more complex GR coordinate systems. They would have to as in every case the speed of light is invariant, and observations by all observer's are equally valid. I always found this explanation handy, though as I mentioned above its certainly not the only metric. 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] If your not using Lorentz then you need to define the coordinate transformation rules. 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] The first article I posted shows the last set of equations in polar coordinates. Once again each type of coordinates will have their own solutions. You can Google the coordinates I posted above to find the different solutions. Another useful item to include is the Levi-Civita connection Here is An example on simulaneity in gauge groups of general relativity http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204063 PS my earlier post on posting metrics, I was hoping to see you post the metrics to describe what you were getting at. Not pictures and oft confusing verbatim.

Lol the post you quoted was by Sensei not the OP

Ask yourself this question Is all forms of salt equal in conductivity? Wouldn't you want the most ideal form of salt?

Oh my mistake here I thought you wanted to design a system that would be practical and account for any side reactions due to materials and impurities for maximum efficiency?

1) what material are you going to make the device out of? Will it act as an anode or cathode? 2) What effect will salt water have on said body, including passing a current through it ? 3) how will the individual chemicals react with each other with or without passing current through the solution? 4) how much water will dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen due to the current? Nothing to do with chemistry right. Big WRONG

I don't believe it matters to anyone on the forum if your right or wrong. You've been given good advice both in the physics and chemistry. If you choose to spend the money prior to studying the known sciences involved in your application. That wasted money certainly won't be coming out of our pockets. The best advice you've received so far is study what's involved both in the physics and involved chemistry first. Prior to spending your money on something that may or may not work. If you choose to ignore that advice its your problem not ours.

How fermions and majoranna fermions couple to the Higgs field differ. Fermions couple to the Higgs field via the standard Dirac mass equations. While majoranna mass is non Dirac. The two relations is a bit complex, and involves conservation of charge. I won't try to post the different formulas, however I will provide a good article on the topic. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&rct=j&q=majorana%20particle%20coupling%20to%20Higgs%20field&ved=0CDIQFjAFahUKEwjRsIrs1evHAhVIK4gKHbo7DpY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublictopics.PublicPostFileLoader.html%3Fid%3D555b18df6307d95c0a8b4649%26key%3Dbcf63c2e-b37c-4877-9cb5-8b2867d50492&usg=AFQjCNH9M7I1QIcCpiYM1W56G7fCyT8LtQ&sig2=vVvj1dwqxxgDQUvRzTwmHw One from arxiv. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.0899 there's still debate on the seesaw mechanism and how it applies between majoranna mass and Dirac mass (I would simply use the term invariant mass)