Mordred

no property of a particle exists on its own. Color, charge and flavor are also exchanged via gauge bosons. there is two main categories of evidence. Direct evidence and indirect evidence. Both DM and DE, fall into the latter category for different reasons. They may not have direct evidence, but both have TONS of indirect evidence. You really must consider what steps it takes to convince the majority of the professional scientific community of the existance of something never before detected. Believe me professional scientists required CONSIDERABLE evidence to finally br accepted. Rotation curves require the velocity of stars and plasma. The velocity of the outer stars is precisely the problem. Don't you think Scientists haven't tried that? Of course they did. It didn't solve the problem. Neither did modifying the graviational constant. Aka MOND. Modified Newtonian gravity. goto YouTube watch a cloud chamber video, you can watch the trails of particles appear then dissapear. that is not what "off shell" means. How many times do I have to mention the conservation of energy momentum laws to you. You cannot create particles without first having sufficient energy from the original particles. How many processes can you name in the universe today has sufficient energy of 173 GeV ? Nuclear reactors don't even reach this energy scale, neither does fusion on stars. In the Early universe definitely.

The answer to this that you provided. Doesn't sit well with me. "From what I understand the answer is yes. But in the case of a KEM field or a standing wave of Matter it is restrained from just propagating outward toward infinity by the way that it joins together in the KEM field. You can see in a detailed picture of a KEM field ( I cannot put one up another one now because the website only allows me so many picture uploads or posts within a given time frame ), that a KEM field is made up of positive and negative quanta " Sounds like your describing the KEM as its own particle. A field isn't energy exclusively, it is a distribution of particles at every point in space. In detail its more a baseline establishment. For example an electromagnetic field consists of virtual gauge photons at every point. A vector or scalar field established the background momentum. In order to have a KEM field you would need a carrier particle. It's also must be a boson. Energy even as a field doesn't exist on its own. It's a property of particles or objects. If the KEM is a particle with quanta of energy it must be measurable and have some property that is measurable to distinquish it from any other standard model particles. In this case What property separates it from the photon field used in Quantum electrodynamics? How does it decay into other particles etc...

Ok thus far I must admit this is of a higher quality than most posts in speculations. (You have also asked for assistance in filling in the lack of math with is good) Thus far you've covered the electromagnetic charge relations. I noticed he has the correct normalization spin rotations. ie spin 1/2 requiring a 720 degree rotation. Does it work for color and flavor charge? On the aspects covered so far you have aspects of U(1) and several aspects in SO(3). Without necessarily being exact matches. I mention those two groups and energy-momentum relations are covered in the latter group. Magnetic charge in the first group. Now we need to see if there is correlations to the SU(2) group and SU(3) group. Thus far what I can tell is what he's done is develop a visual tool on the standard model. In so far as I haven't spotted any contrary claims of any of the standard models being in error. Though on relativity is his correlations based on Gauss Bonnett gravity? You had mentioned Gauss Bonnett theory in one of your posts.

It's not a peer reviewed paper. Either that or you misread the tevetron paper. You don't form 173 GeV particles without significantly increasing the energy levels of the particle being smashed. Here is the Tevetron peer review paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2460 Here is the details on the Tevetron itself. As you can see it accelerates protons. Up to 98O GeV resulting in collisions of 1.98 TeV https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tevatron The rest mass of the proton is roughly 938 MeV. Remember that energy momentum formula I posted earlier in this thread? [latex]e^2=(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2[/latex]

You asked what the strong force is. The answer to that question is above. The gluon doesn't define the strong force. The gluon is the exchange particle between two or more quarks. In point of detail its a field of gluons not necessarily an individual gluon. mediate in this application means exchange of energy, charge or color etc between two quarks. One quark emits say it's color property the gluon carries that color charge to the next quark. The same thing happens to to the energy for the strong force. This isn't the reason for dark matter or for that matter dark energy. Those weren't added to our models on a whim but based on observation evidence. Based on matter distribution of visible matter (baryonic) galaxies should rotate slower the farther you get from the center. They didn't. It took over 60 years of alternate model fighting to try to explain this without dark matter. I recall some of the elaberate arguments as I was a member of another forum before dark matter was finally accepted. The fact is only the existsnce of mass/ matter in a halo distribution enveloping galaxies could explain the rotation curve. Then on top of this observations spotted gravitational lensing where there shouldn't be any. There was no nearby baryonic matter of sufficient densities. We can measure and detect baryonic matter quite easily. We can even give estimated values of how much in a given region and type. Dark energy aka the Cosmological constant is needed to explain expansion in particular the accelerating rate of expansion. Based on baryonic matter and dark matter distributions our universe shouldn't be expanding as fast as it is. The late time integrated Sachs Wolfe effect is used to measure the density of the cosmological constant as the universe evolves after the CMB. Now as to how to go from the beginning of the universe to the particles we know? Well you have to understand how virtual particles work. Particles can pop in and out of existance all the time and at any time in particular virtual particles. You have quasi particles. These are used to describe particle like interactions. One example is your inflaton. Quasi particles usually only describe a specific particle property. In the case of the inflaton that is energy. However this isn't a real particle. It's more of a placeholder till the real cause or particle responsible is determined. However virtual particles are different than quasi particles in that they act like specific particles. However they are what's called "off shell" basically means not quite a real particle. One reason is they lack the energy to form a real particle this leads them to decay quicker than the real particle. Particles form in matter/antimatter pairs due to the conservation of charge, color and energy laws. To fully understand that would take more than I can post. As far as gluons forming top quarks 75% of the time. Well quite frankly you can't trust that pop media article you posted that in. We can't accelerate qluons in any LHC for one. Secondly there are no unbound quarks in the universe today. They are bound in protons, neutrons etc. The LHC accelerate magnetically charged particles. The gluon doesn't interact via the electromagnetic field. What we do is accelerate protons. The protons gain inertial mass, this results in highly energetic gluons within the proton along with highly energetic quarks that make up the proton. This reaction is then possible 75% of the time. This does not mean this occurs 75% of the time in ordinary conditions. One should never trust pop media style articles. They always tend to mislead or misinform.

It is a measure of the interaction between two or more quarks . Yes the gluon mediates the interaction. However that's due to energy not existing on its own. All forms of energy is a property of either a particle or object.

Why would that make any difference??. All forces are a result of some form of interaction. Regardless, how they relate to changes in motion remains the same. I fail to see your objection. All forces is a descriptive of how a interacts with b. It is not something that exists without a and b. Regardless of what a and b represents. In other words its a defined unit of measure. One with a magnitude and direction,

Oh it's possible but you wouldn't understand the equations. Not how the units themselves are defined. Why do you think the Feyman textbook is organized in the sequence its written in? Do you believe the author isn't aware that GR involves space time curvature as opposed to force? When you study a textbook you start at chapter 1 not skip to the portion that agrees with you. Here look at the description on this page in regards to force in GR. " By the early 20th century, Einstein developed a theory of relativity that correctly predicted the action of forces on objects with increasing momenta near the speed of light, and also provided insight into the forces produced by gravitation and inertia." Then look at the definition of force on the same page. "In physics, a force is any interaction that tends to change the motion of an object.[1] 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. " Then read the section including the formulas under Special relativity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force Your fighting a battle based upon personal feelings instead of actual knowledge. The term force can be used anywhere there is any form of interaction that influences motion.

That's the gist of the problem. You won't accept any as you put it older and far simpler concepts. Instead you want to comprehend complex partial differential geometry equations. When you don't even understand the basic terminology. Quite frankly that's impossible.

The other difficulty will come in Cartesian to Polar coordinate transformations. Needed for SR and GR. Tell you what prove you understand basic physics and terminology first. Otherwise no explanation I can offer will make any sense. Considering I posted the Einstein field equations stress energy tensor for Cartesian coordinates to Polar coordinate transformation in the stress energy tensor. ( Which defines how space time curves) several pages ago. You didn't understand it then, still doubtful your any closer to understanding it The issue your missing is you need a clear understanding of Basic physics before handling the complexities in GR and SR. If you don't know the difference between velocity and acceleration and how mass is defined in its relationship to inertia. How do you expect to understand GR? Newtonian physics teaches those relations. ( it would be like building an automobile with just a hammer)

I'm not going to bother trying to type my answers to suit your viewpoint on what you think is involved. Both GR and Newtonian physics use the term mass. When you study Newtonian based models you use force. This helps to understand the formulas involved. Perhaps if you had done this in the first place. You would have had a better comprehensive understanding of basic physics. Use the terminology of the model under study. I have enough difficulty getting you to understand basic physics math relations. Your math skills is not near enough to sit down and explain how geodesics cause acceleration change without applying a force. Quite frankly we've just scratched the surface on the field of kinematics. In point of detail we've only covered the basic terminology involved. Of which you still need to improve your understanding of including units, unit conversions, and vector calculus. Without these firmly in place you won't understand a single geodesic formula. For example inertia as opposed to moment of inertia. On basic vector addition. I have 20 Newton of force in direction 90 degrees and 120 Newtons of force in direction 180 degrees. What is the sum of force (net force) and direction ?

Well we still have the same problem. All measurements of quanta are observer dependant. A good example is redshift. Measurements of energy is also observer dependant. A quanta is a measure of energy. Bosons are defined as integer spin particles. It's spin doesn't depend on how much energy the particle has but on its spin statistics (angular momentum). None of the formulas in those images are involved in spin statistic. They lack the details on rotations and boosts to do so. Bosons have rotations that commute Fermions have rotations that anticommute. Or in other words fermions, have antisymmetric multiparticle wavefunctions, bosons have symmetric wave functions. This has nothing to do with the statement bosons has an odd number of quanta. This statement reads as garbage to me. Spin statistics involves specific wavefunctions. The two slit experiment on photons is a good way to learn how spin is determined. A particles spin is an intrinsic property of the particle it neither increases nor decreases in levels of energy. So once again we hit the barrier of lack of mathematics. None of the images include rotations and boosts in particular to wave function symmetry, antisymmetry Yet he's making claims to explain how bosons and fermions work with his model.???? Where is his j rotations? He doesn't show any details in regards to the Poincare group. Which is involved in spin statistics. Not does he have any correlation to the Pauli exclusion principle.

Bh space time curvature is an extreme case. Were dealing with far reduced gravitational bodies. Remember the strength of gravity from any object falls off at a rate of 2/r^2. [latex]f=\frac{GM_1m_2}{R^2}[/latex] The other detail you missed is in the case of the Earth or galaxies the gravitational strength curve is different. Let's use the Earth. Remember the Earth is made up of particles, each particle with its own point mass. Also remember the term net sum of vector forces. I hope you know how to add and subtract vectors? http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-1/Vector-Addition Now as you go from the surface inside the Earth to its center the net sum force of gravity decreases. Not increases. This is because there is now mass on both sides of you. Mass ahead and mass behind. This also occurs in the galaxy as you approach it's center of gravity the force of gravity acting at each point decreases in terms of net sum of gravitational force. Mass ahead and mass behind. In the case of a BH, your always outside the shell as all its mass is at the singularity.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=16&ved=0CDYQFjAFOApqFQoTCJ_GjL-848YCFQSKDQod3PcGnA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saddleback.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fbhubbard%2Fdocuments%2FSHELLTHEOREMPROOF1_000.pdf&rct=j&q=shell%20theorem&ei=V6SpVd--CoSUNtzvm-AJ&usg=AFQjCNEdTSOlRrQpfMyVdnkyOeTtahSKMA&sig2=z93zf7__9bC8TxZw3s_mIg Think of shell theorem as not just one shell but a series of shells. Like layers of an onion. At each layer you apply the net force. At the center the force from each point on the shell pointing toward the center cancel each vector out. Remember the vector direction of force in the shell theorem always points towards the center of mass. So say you have x force due to mass pointing to the COM at 90 degrees and the same amount of force going 270 degrees. The net sum is zero. In the case of a galaxy you don't just calculate the outer shell but every shell as a net sum of force as you approach the center. So imagine your flying a ship towards the center. At every point during your flight the net sum of force varies. Once the ship reaches the center of mass of a perfectly spherical galaxy the net sum of forces from all directions equals zero.

The images do have some similarities to the baryon octect, meson nonet, baryon decoupled. Here look at the image for SU(4) last page this article. http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/np3/lect-quarks.pdf The problem is these representations show how particles decay into other particles. Does not include Lorentz transformations. This is what the tetyonic images remind me of which makes me wonder if he simply pieced the conservation rules ( in their representations together ) without bothering to deal with the math or understanding what those images actually cover and describe. The conservation rules being ,color,flavor,parity,isospin,charge, energy momentum, etc. These being inclusive in the eightfold way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) None of the above include relativity. Which brings back the question of how does he claim to use 3d to describe a 4d coordinate system? Sounds to me more claim than possible with what the images could possibly cover. (Particularly since the word tetryon is a subspace particle from star trek.)

There really isn't enough information on tetryonic geometry itself in any formulized mathematics to really offer any great assistance. The author itself has yet to publish any serious peer reviewed content. I can only assist in stating that geometry is already used in describing gauge groups. Symmetry and assymetry groups utilize coordinate geometry. I can provide material on the subject but it will still take years to adapt that to suit tetryonic geometry without having any formulized mathematics to work from. Looking over what few papers I could find, there's no real completed leg work done. One major hurdle is the gauge groups work with 4d coordinates. t,x,y,z. I see no literature in tetryonic geometry covering the time component as a vector coordinate. So how he claims to cover lorentz boosts and rotations using 3d is a mystery to me. To start learning gauge theory your going to need the tools of differential geometry. This is the main mathematics behind particle physics. Without this lie algebra and group theory development is impossible. So here is a good set of articles covering the differential geometry of particle physics. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395part 2 An Elementary Introduction to Groups and Representations http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0005032 http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CEgQFjAJahUKEwj20drBpuHGAhUGnIAKHc9hDvo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tufts.edu%2F~fgonzale%2Flie.algebras.book.pdf&rct=j&q=Introduction%20to%20lie%20algebra&ei=24CoVbb4I4a4ggTPw7nQDw&usg=AFQjCNEgqEso2cp_9hJXTd44RDKgrbPmZg&sig2=pkp078ZX5-YHZzjT7G_n8w GR will be needed http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau Here is a good reference on fields. http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205: "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields As you can see from the above your request involves an extreme amount of time, particularly since there isn't any mathematic modelling already done by the author of tetryonic geometry of any significant level. A little assistance though your U(1) unitary group is primarily electrodynamics. SU(2) is your electroweak,(Su(2)*U(1)y*U(1)em. This group also covers flavor dynamics SU(3) is your chromodynamic group. SO(1.3) is the Lorentz group. SU(5) flipped group is the unification model by Georgi-Glashow GUT model. Currently you also have SO(10) MSM and SO(10) MSSM. Minimal standard model and minimal super symmetric standard model. This group covers all the afformentioned groups but also incoperates Pati-Salam model as a subgroup, also includes the Higgs sector. Other important groups. Heisenburg group [latex]H_3 R[/latex] Your Poincare group has specific letter designations. (Minkowskii space time isometries) Translational P (time and space displacements.)abelion group Rotations J in space. Is non abelion boosts k (transformation connecting two uniform bodies) J and K together work in the Lorentz group. Your Euler group is covered here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics) Here is a list of simple lie groups https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_simple_Lie_groups https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Lie_groups Hope that helps

I posted some material in your other double thread

Sorry the last post makes even less sense. It sounds like your trying to find a way to describe shell theorem. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

When you accelerate an object you change its velocity. Gravity is measured in the same units as acceleration m/s^2. Velocity is just m/s. Inertia is the tendency of an object to maintain the same velocity. Even if that velocity is zero. Any change in velocity (including direction) requires an influence( force, space time curvature can be described as a type of force). Weight can be described as the relation between an objects resistance to inertia (mass)*the acceleration due to gravity. (At least for simplicity sake, the Earths rotation also influences weight) were not ready to go into this detail. We would need to cover net acceleration due to location on Earth. W=ma and W=mg are in this case equivalent. Speed is just the magnitude scalar portion of velocity. Units and definitions are important. As they describe specific relations

Not bad the term force is fine. Pressure is just force per unit volume. Change this to oppose my free fall acceleration.(keeps the units straight) Weight is the measure of force on an object due to gravity. W=mg

Further data and calibration could change those results. The point being is its still too early pto be certain. You posted an example where one dataset doesn't precisely match the other. The next set may or may not lead to different results.

Here http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1507.02704 look at page 4 take thousands of the sensor readings on the images on the right hand side page 4 power spectrum etc. Then read the full document on all the calibration procedures and formulas involved in those calibrations. Then form the images on the left hand side on page 4. The axis of evil in the 2012 Planck dataset was due to improper calibration. Local noise ie gamma rays etc is indeed there, if you don't filter that noise out. You will not be able to take readings of an event at 380,000 years old. You really should learn to understand a process before assuming the explanation is wrong. I've lost count how often you've jumped to conclusions without understanding the theory or model in this thread. You keep jumping from mere description either on this forum or pop media style articles to conclusion. That's why I supply references and articles to fill those gaps that lead to why a model or theory states what it does.

Your still not understanding.... Take thousands of wavelength readings filter out noise etc. Assign a pixel location for each wavelength data set. The process takes several years. You also have to compile multiple sensors into one dataset for each pixel. Does that help explain how it's an interpretation of the data? Think of the difference between a radio telescope and one using lenses.

The image on the CMB isn't anything close to a picture say from a camera. Its a complilation of multiple sensor readings, each sampling is subjected to numerous calibrations to filter out background interferance from our local Milky way radiation and movement (redshift effects) If you change any of the calibration settings you change the image. I wouldn't call this fact. I would classify it as a data interpretation.

No matter how accurate any theory or model is. Science never states any theory or model as 100% accurate. Every model or theory has a degree of accuracy. Granted the closer that model or theory conforms to repeatable experiments and observation, the more likely one can consider it as being a fact. With the caveat above.