Mordred

Nor I

Agreed, I'm trying to translate the OPs post in terms I think he's trying to translate. In particular

Honestly the best answer is "How is the metric defined". In order to measure something, you need something to measure. Plus you need a reference frame. Then describe how they interact. (GR 101) That range of questions don't come easy. Like your reference to Brownian motion, its an exceptional example of interactions to pressure relations without container walls. (Extremely rough, assymptotic fluid). One beauty of the ideal gas laws, in Cosmology application is the FLRW metric and also the EFE. Incorporates the Avogrodos number. Look back on my posts on Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac equations. (Brownian motion is involved) though accounted for under degrees of freedom. ( The three forces, (electromagnetic, strong,weak)+entropy,chemical etc )) Cosmology formulas uses large-scale approximations on the gas laws. I posted a paper on the hydrodynamic aspects of curvature. (PS that last post was well presented.)+1

[latex]t=\gamma*\acute{t}+\frac{dr}{c*\gamma}[/latex] So far you defined the variables, and posted a metric. Where is the discussion, is this your own form? This doesn't define any reference to coordinate change. Define the observer, the above equation doesn't

With what I've posted on space time. How can you have a topography gradient without particle to particle interactions exerting force upon each other. For example ask yourself "Why do particles collect into a small enough volume to cause the deformation sufficiently enough to have measurable gravity ? How would you explain that without force? One thing to realize, pressure, density and temperature all depend on one another. other properties are the same kinetic energy depends on momentum. The big question of how a universe comes into being all have the difficulty, Where did the energy originate sufficient enough to form [latex]10^{90}[/latex] particles. If I could solve that... There's a key aspect of particles, you haven't looked at in this wide arena of subjects we covered. (Thus far in this post) Wavelength relations. "Why do all particles have BOTH wavelength and point like attributes," followed by "How do these wavelength properties interact with one another?" (Lol I once read a description of Cosmology " It is a field of study that encompasses all of physics") There was a caveat at the end, but can't recall it.

You can pick eithor or. they both amount to the same result. Force is just a term, I already covered what it means. It isn't a thing unto itself. It's just a description for a type of interaction regardless of source. In physics, a force is any interaction that tends to change the motion of an object. In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull. If your foolish enough to let this prevent you from learning. I can't help you. No one will be able to. space time curvature can cause an object with mass to change its velocity. So it counts as a force by the definition of force. The only difference between gravitational force as compared to the electromagnetic, strong and weak force. Is it may or may not involve a boson. The three forces are just names of interactions that causes change in velocity. Your just defining the source of the force. Just like mechanical force is one that involves an object ie weight on a pulley system. If it makes you feel better call it space time curvature force. It's pointless letting this get in the way

Well therein lies the difficulty. It's great you know differential geometry, and wish to learn Lie algebra, but lie algebra relates to various tensors. The Maxwell equations form the basis of the electromagnetic stress tensor, This defines the U(1) group. Just as the Lorentz transformation is defined in tensor form to the lie group SO(3.1) which covers energy momentum relations in GR applications. Spin statistics is also part of this group. I'll dig up some more training articles to assist.

In all honesty even though it's math intense. The links you need to fully understand, which I've already provided are. 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 Your math tools are covered here http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395part 2 Quintessence is dead AFAIK. What do you find wrong with active and passive gravity. Active gravitational mass measures the gravitational force exerted by an object. Passive gravitational mass measures the gravitational force experienced by an object in a known gravitational field. They aren't saying it's two different causes of gravity. Just defining the involved vector direction. What interaction is being defined. This is important as all objects fall at the same rate, but have different weights. The weight of an object is defined by the passive. how they fall by the active. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100916164034AAgZwWv Here is a simple explanation. Surprisingly well done for that site. You'll note those terms have pretty much dropped out of usage. So I wouldn't even worry about them. The only time you may encounter those terms is Newtonian specific teaching. More for history of how later theories develop It's certainly not used in Cosmology applications nor GR. ( weight is pretty meaningless in Cosmology) you will never see an equation for weight in Cosmology systems

That's a nice chart. I'll have to save that link

Recall this discussion on the ideal gas laws and how it correlates to the FLRW metric acceleration equation. This uses GR via the Einstein field equations. If you want to redefine physics you will need the math to prove your model or it is useless. The excuse their is no math for my model won't cut it. Trust me on that, I made that mistake once. I wasted 5 years trying to solve the cosmological constant. Once I learned the math I kicked myself in the .... for being so stupid.

The term matter only applies to fermionic particles. How many times do I need to repeat the same thing ? Neither GR nor Newton is defined by matter. They are BOTH defined using mass. The part you DON'T understand is all measurements of energy mass is OBSERVER dependant. If you paid attention you would realize that. That's where your different types of mass comes from. The different names are define by the type of observer. Why do you think Invarient mass is the more accurate description for REST mass? Invarient mass is a measure of mass that is the same to ALL observers. Inertial or relativistic mass depends on the observer. You also ignored the fact that particles with inertia can cause Pressure as they interact with other particles. You DONT need a box or container. I've been trying to teach you what space time curvature really means. However I have to constantly argue with you and your misconceptions. Space time curvature is a differential geometric descriptive. That descriptive describes the relations of coordinate changes involved in how gravity influences the particles that reside in the volume of space. You don't require an ether. Remember this post there is your space time curvature and time dilation in Euclidean form. Minkowskii metric. You don't have enough skill yet to understand the GR metric tensor forms. So this was done with SR Remember this post with supporting training style articles ? The last equation is specifically how space time is modelled. This equation shows the relationship between the stress energy tensor to pressure and mass/energy density.

How does one correlate the behavior of a collionless gas to either spherical coordinates Derived from the collionless Boltzmann equations. Is done via the Jeans equations. [latex]\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial(\nu\bar{v_i})}{\partial x_i} = 0[/latex] [latex]\nu\frac{\partial\bar{v_j}}{\partial t}+\nu\bar{v_i}\frac{\partial\bar{v_j}}{\partial x_i} = -\nu\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial x_j}-\frac{\partial(\nu\sigma^2_{ij})}{\partial x_i}[/latex] [latex]\nu\frac{\partial\bar{v_j}}{\partial t}+\nu\bar{v_i}\frac{\partial\bar{v_j}}{\partial x_i} = -\nu\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial x_j}-\frac{\partial(\nu\sigma^2_{ij})}{\partial x_i}[/latex] [latex]x_{i,j}, v_{i,j}[/latex] is position and velocity. The line overscript denotes average [latex]\sigma_{ij}[/latex] is the 4 momentum velocity dispersion. [latex]\nu[/latex] is the spatial density [latex]\Phi[/latex] is the potential. Now without going into too extensive detail. The above tells us how all particle species (including stars) behave as a collisionless ideal gas. Deriving the above leads to the spherical form relating energy density to potential and velocity dispersion in how it evolves as a function of radius on galaxies. [latex]\frac{\sigma^2\partial\rho}{\rho\partial r}=\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial R}=-\frac {GMr}{R^2}[/latex] Jeans equations takes extensive study, but it does an excellent job correlating many particle systems including GR and the ideal gas laws. The forms I have shown you earlier are far simpler to show galaxy rotation curves. We never rely on one theory and assume it's correct. Any model or theory is crossed checked against numerous equations and known relations in efforts to prove that theory or model. Most people miss this detail, they look at the simplistic forms and figure they can fix it. They don't know how interconnected those simple forms are to the more complex forms and how each is derived. Physicists take considerable time and effort in trying to simplify highly complex multi particle systems. Those that don't study the math never understand this fact. TBH Much of the time I spend answering posts is an effort to explain complex relations as simple as possible. (Jeans equations leads to virial theorem and galaxy rotation power laws). Albiet complex steps too long to post

You need to prove that with equations. This is the part you keep avoiding. In galaxy rotation curves I posted the simpler metrics for you. The Poisson form is more detailed, but the same relations hold. You continously miss the detail, both GR and Newton uses mass. In GR it's referred to as mass density. If you try to use just the amount of energy/mass density in just the center of the galaxy, to describe your deformation. You will end up with Keplarian decline. You really need to study the materials I posted. Topology change only occurs in the presence of mass/energy density. Once you remove mass/density there is no remaining deformation. I keep telling you space time is not a permeable material. It is not a fabric. Pressure requires particles with large momentum. Remove those particles you don't have pressure.

I'm a practitioner of meditation as I find it a great way to relieve stress. I find zero zip value in this post. There are plenty of scientific studies on dreams. Yet you never bothered looking nor including any scientific studies to support your claims. ( In truth at first glance, my first question is) What kind of drugs are you on ? Followed by How stoned are you ? No offense but the above is gibberish So here's your chance, show me related scientific studies (I'll accept peer review material, hokey sites via Wicca etc don't count). Prove to me that you can formulate an intellectual and educated response correlating your model Anyone reading this in the first paragraph will ignore this thread. Half your descriptives refer to astral projection and other such babble

Might help to Google quantum flavor dynamics. There is several quantum numbers the weak force mediates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavour_(particle_physics) There is three forms of charge. Electromagnetic, color and flavor. This lengthy article has a decent coverage. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=35&ved=0CCwQFjAEOB5qFQoTCOPhmOuz7cYCFUUWHgod21IA3w&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmi.ac.in%2F~govind%2Fteaching%2Fparticle-phys-pg-o14%2Fparticle-phys-notes-gk-2014.pdf&rct=j&q=quantum%20flavordynamics%20introduction%20pdf&ei=cdmuVaPlBsWseNulgfgN&usg=AFQjCNEvdQLx4KN3Rb0AO4PkSDTY-K4-1Q&sig2=YcX8ai1dF8dEd2Gtiv90rw

A relative value isn't absolute. By absolute do you mean invariant?

No problem +1 for asking such a little known question.

This has been measured, the universe on large scales is magnetically neutral

Yes, though it's been years since I last heard those terms used. Newton's third law is also known as the weak law of action and reaction. It states that for every action force, there is a corresponding reaction force which is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/WeakLawofActionandReaction.html For every action force, there is a corresponding reaction force which is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Furthermore, the forces are central forces, i.e., they act along the line joining the particles http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/StrongLawofActionandReaction.html. Weak law is linear momentum Strong law is angular momentum. the difference is shown here. https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Advanced_Classical_Mechanics/Many-Particle_Systems The strong law involves the central force. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_force Here is a decent coverage on both. http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:PHYS350/Many-Particle_Systems

I'll look at this later on in greater detail one thing I spotted on the last image glueballs are still hypothetical. Also you might want to goto arxiv and look at papers in regards to asymptotic freedom in QCD chromodynamics. In regards to number of gluons. In particular work by Frank Wilcez. Asymptotic freedom to radius relations different for the electromagnetic and chromodynamic. You have a lot of ground to cover. I recommend starting with Maxwell's equations and run a comparison data set. Focus on the electromagnetic aspects first. Classical to Qm then to QED.

First letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_isothermal_sphere_profile

False

Isothermal sphere- distribution of matter around galaxies.

Well thank you for your honesty. From what you described its primarily dealing with electromagnetic and gravity. (It's definetely not the first attempt, neither is trying to explain gravity via the strong force) So we can ignore for now color and flavor charge. However not totally. The reason not totally is all three except gravity are part of the electroweak symmetry. However you already have your work cut out for you. The way you described your KEM field may never gain acceptance. It's a considerable hurtle.( You already recognize several of the key reasons, as well as admit to them) How does KEM work with neutrinos, they don't interact via the electromagnetic force yet do with gravity? Then there is also the first generation to third generation particles. Does KEM define the sequence of decays ?

Here we go again. You really need to stop and actually study and perform the math. You keep stating things as being wrong when you make countless errors in why you believe them to be wrong. The fact is you cannot perform the majority of the mathematics involved in Cosmology and astronomy applications. So how can you possibly argue with professionals. Instead you base your understanding on your own fallacies and personal logic. Now as to the motion of stars have you ever heard of Keplarian decline? Probably not if you believe stars should orbit the galaxy at the outer edge as fast as stars in the galactic halo. The velocity of stars farther away from the center of mass (bulge should decline as the influence of gravity declines at a rate of 1/r^2. The velocity to radius relation of a solar system follows the following formula. This is based on the patent star being the Center of gravity. Such as our solar system. [latex]v = \sqrt{\frac{G M}{R}}[/latex] However this doesn't quite work for a galaxy. Instead we have to look at the distribution of mass as a function of radius. [latex]v = \sqrt{\frac{G M r}{R}}[/latex]. The mass distribution on spiral galaxies is [latex]M_{R} = \int_0^R \rho_{r} 2 \pi r h * dr[/latex] Now based on this stars moving faster than the escape velocity at a certain distance from the galactic bulge should literally leave the galaxy. That doesn't happen. Even using GR the result should be the same. So don't bother arguing about space time distortions stating different. If a body is in a stable orbit its velocity equals its escape velocity. This is true in Both Newtons laws and GR. Based on the escape velocity to stable orbit relationship and the FACT that the influencal strength of gravity decreases as a function of radius from the source. Stable orbit stars should be slower the farther you get from the the galactic bulge. The second formula accounts for added contributors to mass as you increase the radius. However based solely on baryonic matter distributions the Rotation curve should still follow Keplarian decline. However if you account for dark matter distribution by including the Navarro Frenk White profile and baryonic matter. Then and only then does the second formula show the correct measured rotation curve. The third formula wouldn't work as it's specific to a specific shape of mass distribution. That being a disk distribution. You would need the derivitave for an isothermal sphere. ) halo distribution. This is the Navarro Frenk white distribution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro-Frenk-White_profile The isothermal sphere formula is [latex] \rho_r=\frac{\sigma_v^2}{2\pi Gr^2}[/latex] [latex]\sigma_v^2[/latex] is the velocity dispersion. Didn't we cover this? I recall a certain discussion on redshift and the Sache Wolfe effect. I already explained this to you I don't understand you at all. In previous posts you specifically mentioned Hawking radiation, also the inflaton. Are you not aware that Hawking radiation is a virtual particle specifically virtual photons. Why would you accept that but not virtual gluon? Its precisely the same process just a different quage boson. All gauge bosons can be real or virtual. The difference is in the energy wave functions. All particles have point like and wavelike characteristics. I did mention this before. QM studies these wave functions in extreme detail. Google wave-particle duality and the two slit experiment. Here are other examples. Bernstein radiation, Casimiir effect, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Unruh_effect http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html (Awarded a Nobel prize) guess he must be wrong. Hawking radiation. (Also awarded a Nobel prize.) In regards to Gluons you might want to look up asymptotic freedom. (Also applies to gauge photons QED.) " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_freedom " understood qualitatively as coming from the action of the field on virtual particles carrying the relevant charge. The Landau pole behavior of quantum electrodynamics" QCD gluons is covered on the same page. (3 different people were awarded the Nobel prize for their separate research and contributions.) Are they wrong too? A gluon cannot cause any measurable space time distortion its mass is far too small. I also went through considerable time and effort showing you that spacetime is not A mysterious MATERIAL. Yes I'm shouting. In sheer frustration that you aren't grasping the energy density to pressure relations to the spacetime metric defined by the EFE. Now here is a neat discovery. According to the asymptotic freedom link above. The strong force between two quarks Increases and not decreases as the distance between them increases. Doesn't work with your theory above.