Mordred

While I've looked over string theory time to time. I certainly wouldn't count myself an expert in string theory. Usually I refer to this article. https://www.coursehero.com/file/6445491/Intro-to-String-Theory-G-terHooft/

As you noticed rest mass, just in closing the other form of mass is inertial mass. More for other readers. By the way +1 not many drop their personal model ideas

Here is the stress energy/momentum tensor in Minkowskii metric. (Special relativity) [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] [latex]SO(3.1)=SO(2)\otimes SO(2)\backslash Z_2[/latex] what the above correlates to is the 4*4 matrix (coordinates) correlates to the 4*4 observer coordinates via the Z integer group ( particle angular momentum (spin). electron is 1/2 spin, photon spin 1, gravity falls under spin 2 not part of the Z group. (May be another integer spin, i.e. -2 cannot be 1\2 or 1 or zero) loses symnetry (Side note The letter group designations can have several meanings in lie algebra, there is a subset just on electromagnetic) This above is the poincare group which the Lorentz group is a subset of equates to Included is pressure, and energy density. [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=\Lambda_{\rho\mu}\Lambda{\sigma v}_g{\rho \sigma}[/latex] Which corresponds to [latex]G_{\mu v}=\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu\nu}[/latex] The equations of state for cosmology applications is here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Key note [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] One thing to mention is the ideal gas laws include solids. This is one example of how interconnected the various theories and models are interconnected. I've provided the literature to understand this post previously.

Yes but all these are currently calculatable via the ideal gas laws. Which you can then apply to the Einstein field equations. Any formula can be adapted to specific systems. This is done on a regular basis. The generalized formulas one usually finds in textbooks, the system specific formulas in peer reviewed literature. One good example is redshift formulas I've long ago lost count on the system specific variants I've seen. If you study the math you will learn that any formula can be modified to include other related formulas. All formulas are done to good approximation none are ever completely exact.

These are typically covered under the terms field as opposed to waves. For example the electroweak field (which includes the strong, weak and electromagnetic field inclusively) Waves and particles are essentially combined under the field category. You can get other fields such as scalar vector fields. Your interest and mannerisms towards your understanding indicate your strongest acceptance of understanding lies under field theory. So I would recommend studying Quantum electrodynamics (electromagnetic) Quantum chromodynamics (strong force, Quarks gluons etc) Quantum flavordynamics(weak force) Quantum geometrodynamics( gravity) Collectively they combine under QFT. Quantum field theory

Particle physics already accounts for the binding energy of Quarks within the proton. The FLRW metric accounts for thermodynamic processes via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics. Which covers the 108 degrees of freedom of all standard model particles. The Fermi Dirac statistics deals with all fermions. The Bose Einstein statistics deals with all the Bosons. Both statistics, include chemical reaction, entropy density, degrees of freedom, spin, mass, momentum and binding energy of said particles. The GR portion of this is covered via the Lorentz group SO(1.3) Lorentz group of both the SO(5) and SO(10) particle physics models. [latex]So(10)\bigotimes So(5)\bigotimes So(3)\bigotimes So(2_{L,R})\bigotimes U(1)[/latex] The subgroup [latex]SO(3)\bigotimes SO(2) \bigotimes U(1)[/latex] Deals primarily with the SM particles, including the strong force, weak force and electromagnetic force. The SO(3) group is the Lorentz group rotations (GR) influences upon the SM groups. The supersymmetric particles is incorperated under the SO(5) portion but this group also includes the Higgs field and thermodynamic influences upon the other subgroups. The SO(10) portion though incorperates your Pati Salam subgroups for left and right hand chirality including the Higgs field. so tell us what's missing? Usually people that state they need to fix GR don't have a clue what GR actually covers. Particularly the Einstein field equations. The FLRW metric incorporates the ideal gas laws and GR. The acceleration equation of the FLRW metric includes pressure, energy density and GR. (Via the Einstein field equations) The Einstein field equations stress energy tensor handles the energy,momentum, energy flux influences due to gravity. It never ceases to amaze me. Most of the posters that try to fix GR. Usually try to describe the atom portion only. They tend to stop at the strong force or electromagnetic force. They rarely include quarks and gluons. However they never realize that four forces and all the standard model particle interactions are accounted for in the numerous international model connections between GR, Thermodynamics, particle physics models. The Einstein field equations didn't develop without including Thermodynamics and the Maxwell and Dirac equations. (It incorporates those factors) Those details can be found in these 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 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau The above was used to develop the cosmic inventory http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf "The Cosmic energy inventory" in terms of particle physics and GUT which details the group's above. Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2 GUT theories http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES my advise is study what GR, particle physics and the FLRW metric can and does describe first before assuming there is problems that you can fix due to reading pop media literature. In other words study the models first before trying to fix them. The articles above in particular differential geometry is included in the articles above. If you don't have strong differential geometry start with http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2 The first link teaches differential geometry or rather extensively reviews the needed math. Part two takes you into the GR portion. The tools to learn is above several of those articles include textbooks. In particular interest is particle physics and inflationary cosmology (full textbook) If you need further my signature has my webpage that includes further articles. Including a handy expansion light cone calculator. (Lol the material I provided though should take a year at least to properly understand) I would also look over and study the Feyman lectures. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ there is four textbooks available here.

Use latex enclosed in [ ] at beginning [/] at end with latex word enclosed. [latex]example[/latex] Use the quote function on the example

One shouldn't based his physics on a guess. All forms of energy can generate mass and thus gravity. Your statements above doesn't explain anything in any detail, as its extremely poorly descriptive. Gr accounts for kinetic energy as well as other forms of energy via the stress energy/ momentum tensor. So does cosmology in the FLRW metric and particle physics. Thermodynamics is an essential ingredient to the Einstein field equations and FLRW metric. Sounds more to me the lack is in how you understand the current models, considering those models does an excellent job describing orbital and bodies in motion. Here is the stress energy/momentum tensor in Minkowskii metric. (Special relativity) [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

Essentially accurate as far as it goes. The Higgs field itself and its interactions with the elementary particles gives rise to the mass of those particles. The field itself being comprised of particles that have both particle like and wavelike characteristics. this site FAQ is extremely close to your descriptive. Also does an excellent non math overview . http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/ A more detailed explanation is available here with the math though simplified. http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/how-the-higgs-field-works-with-math/ make sure you check each link to his numerous article sections. You will get a great overview of how particle, fields and quanta terms are interconnected with waves and particle like aspects. Wave descriptions of particle fields is quite common. Here is another example. http://www.mitp.uni-mainz.de/Dateien/HiggsHBMeyerSymmetry.pdf However energy itself is a property of particles. So it's often better to think of it in terms of a field of particles. (Dont confuse this as a form of ether). If you take the critical density value of 10^-29 grams per cubic meter. The average energy density per volume is roughly 5 photons per cubic meter. ( including all particle contributors). That correlates to roughly 6.0*10^-10 joules per cubic meter.

Your going to have to reference those studies. Rest mass is constant, but any increase of energy does generate gravity via an increase in mass. You can't separate the two as energy density increases so does its force of gravity. When you get right down to it energy and mass are equivalent. Energy being a property of particles. Gravity a property of mass

Sorry your something statements make no sense. I can't follow what your trying to describe closest I can fathom is your trying to describe either redshift or Doppler effect. But that's just an extremely wild guess

RobbityBob1 a tool that may help you understand force vector summing is to use a force vector diagram. The steps are easy, make sure all units are converted to Newtons. Take a protractor and a ruler. Each Newton of force is 1 mm. Or if you need a different scale say 1 cm etc just keep the scale the same in each calculation. So say you wish to sum two forces 1 Newton and say 5 Newtons. One going 0 degrees the other going 96 degrees. Step one. Use protractor measure angle 0 degrees. Then use ruler draw a line 1 cm. Label start a end point b. Then from point b measure angle 96 degrees. Measure 5 cm. Label this point c. draw a line from a to c. Then measure angle from a to c and distance. the alternative obviously is to apply trigonometry. But this method is quick and handy for approximations. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-1/Vector-Addition The cloth requires less force to move than the table or object on top of it. Once the force of the pulling on the cloth is sufficient to move the cloth (and overcome friction) the cloth will move. However there is still insufficient force to move the table or object. So neither the table or object moves only the cloth.There is one aspect of friction that may help. Coefficient of friction. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html. this will get you started. Engineers handbook has a handy table http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/frictioncoefficients.htm Friction itself can be categorized into different aspects. Some covered here. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction The static friction formula is [latex]F_s=\mu_s F_n[/latex] [latex]F_s[/latex]static friition [latex]\mu_s[/latex]coefficient of friction [latex]F_n[/latex] normal force required to move a given mass

I would say anyone measuring the age of the Universe and recognizes the influences of GR. Would seek a common reference point. Cosmology today utilizes a well known homogeneous and isotropic point. That being the CMB. However if you look at time in Cosmology. You have three versions. Proper time, conformal time or cosmic time. All three forms require calculations accounting for GR influences. None of the three uses strictly our clocks as per se. So in regards of a common moment of now. That would depend on whether each observer uses similarly accurate measurements and calculations. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_time#Conformal_time_and_the_particle_horizon http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_time If you look close enough at the metrics one could say we use density as our clock. (Wish I could remember the article I learned that expression from lol) however it's always stuck with me. Oh if you choose the moment now (same homogeneous and isotropic density ) and extrapolate backwards this is look back time (forgot one).

As far as how particles including the photon can decay into other particles. A common mistake is thinking a certain particle can decay into any other particle. Particle decays follow numerous conservation rules. Conservation of Lepton number, charge, baryon number, spin, isospin,parity, energy/momentum,color, flavor. Think that's all of em might have missed one or two. Griffiths "Introductory to particle" physics has an excellent coverage on this. Further details though can be found under Eightfold wayen, baryon octet and meson nonet. You can have intermediate or multistage decays as well provided they follow the rules above. The four forces use gauge bosons as the force carrier, photons for electromagnetic, W and Z bosons for the weak force, gluons for the strong force. Graviton hypothetically for gravity. All bosons are integar spin only. Now one key detail.. A particle is identified by key properties. Spin, charge, mass a photon has spin 1, it cannot have spin 1/2 if the particle has any other spin other than 1 it is not a photon. Same goes with the other properties. Swansort has already asked a key question on the photon in regards to orbit.

To be honest one of the best books covering the topic of the spin 1/2 particles and spin 1 particles is this book. Quarks and Leptons. Spin 1/2 electrynamics is an entire chapter covering Maxwell equations and Dirac equations. It also covers spin 1 in the same detail. it is at the introduction level but you will need strong differential geometry. http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471887412.html I wouldn't even want to begin posting all the related formulas. If you can't afford textbooks then a good option is to research QED. This paper isn't too bad though http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nikhef.nl%2Fpub%2Fservices%2Fbiblio%2Fpreprints%2Fh90-22.pdf&rct=j&q=electrodynamics%20of%20spin%201%2F2%20particles%20pdf&ei=NgZgVZbwMsezggTLiYGABw&usg=AFQjCNFhIonZPsFSrKFLMNIm27x9Kv2eWQ&sig2=Gtx9_GzeEV0HxXEGHc7SaQ These are good articles in the mathematics involved. Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395part 2 If you want the equation for fermion actions coupled to gravity see page 376 of the last link equation 6.8.103. Equation 6.8.104 covers your bosons (integer spin particles) You will need to extensively study both articles to fully understand those two equations. Forgot to add one article. The Construction of Spinors in Geometric Algebra http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0403040v2

One of the first rules in particle physics is that particles can only decay into less massive particles. This follows from the conservation of energy/momentum laws. Particle spin is an intristic property of elementary particles you cannot slow down or speed up the spin of say an electron. It is modelled as angular momentum but it isn't the same. This basic link covers it in simple terms http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-exactly-is-the-spin/ your model is applying spin as an angular momentum rotation at least according to what I've read and that simply won't work out once you apply spin statistics. It's not nearly the same as say a rotating planet. (Which is why I referred to Belly phase)

Sorry but you aren't applying action reaction in objects on a surface, you also are not staying any distinction as to when GR is more accurate than Newtonian Euclidean geometry. Here is a major point to realize The equivalence principle is extremely well tested, so is time dilation. Unless you can mathematically and by experiments prove either GR or Newtonian physics as being inaccurate compared to your model your not going to convince anyone In point of detail your posts thus far indicate areas where your understanding of the current models fall short. Here is a good article covering GR and free Fall. Though it may be a bit technical. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau free fall is in the earlier chapters.

Lol with all the fun you've been having lately with force vs inertia, vs centrifecal acceleration etc, in other threads. I can only imagine how much your head hurts lol.

Since when is a photon a Lepton? Leptons are half integer spin particles. The photon is an integer spin particle. Spin of one. Secondly your analysis does not include any stress momentum terms yet you describe compression and decompression of space time yet include no mathematic analysis of energy density to pressure relations to show the variations of light momentum in relation to space time energy density relations. You also show no correlations to your left hand and right hand neutrinos. Which is in itself another problem. Neutrinos don't interact via the electromagnetic force. They may be fermions but their only interactions is via gravity and the weak force. Where is your math showing otherwise? If you want to understand left and right hand neutrinos I would suggest studying Pati Salam model. Which covers the left hand right hand fermion families. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pati%E2%80%93Salam_model By the way SO(10) includes Pati Salam as a subgroup Now onto spin are you aware of Sx,Sy and Sz are part of spin statistics? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD I raise this last point to show that your simple little formula does not in any way describe the body of related models and theories involved when it comes to particles. You have no correlations to pressure, energy density, gauge couplings, spin statistics, Dirac equations, Maxwell equations or the Einstein field equations. One simple little formula is not going to magically replace all the above mathematics. As far as your images go a 360 degree rotation returns to the original state. Not so for a spin 1/2 particle. It takes a 720 degree rotation. A 360 degree rotation would have the opposite quantum phase. To understand that you will need to study Berry phase. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CC0QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepage.univie.ac.at%2Freinhold.bertlmann%2Fpdfs%2Fdipl_diss%2FDurstberger_Diplomarbeit.pdf&rct=j&q=Berry's%20phase%20of%20spin%201%20particle&ei=GbFeVb2TN5LBgwSx2wE&usg=AFQjCNEUSKVQjBSbq3hLmySTVBS0VMa8ZQ&sig2=8AVz_wp7GgTBdhMCI8zBSw Here is a shorter version of Berry phase in magnetism. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CDsQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-old.mpi-halle.mpg.de%2Fmpi%2Fpubli%2Fpdf%2F6325_05.pdf&rct=j&q=Berry's%20phase%20of%20spin%201%20particle&ei=GbFeVb2TN5LBgwSx2wE&usg=AFQjCNFYi9baCvT_d4rVefOqN6PyeZnygg&sig2=qXqC0adNFjvSc5TDyAVBNw

Light has to travel a further distance due to spacetime curvature following the null geodesic. This is mentioned under the Shapiro effect on the wiki page above. "Throughout this article discussing the time delay, Shapiro uses c as the speed of light and calculated the time delay of the passage of light waves or rays over finite coordinate distance according to a Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein field equations." "which is the extra distance the light has to travel. Here R_s is the Schwarzschild radius.hich is the extra distance the light has to travel. Here R_s is the Schwarzschild radius." Look under the metric section. The speed of light is still invariant.

It might be helpful to look at the definition of velocity as opposed to acceleration. Once you've done that then look at Newtons three laws of inertia. [latex]a=\frac{dv}{dt}[/latex] acceleration is defined as the derivative of velocity with respect to time. Velocity is essentially speed and direction. Newtons three laws of inertia. I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. now here is an important distinction This is why your term velocity acceleration is incorrect. If there is a change in speed, direction, or both, then the object has a changing velocity and is undergoing an acceleration. now think about that last bit in terms of Newtons laws. When you've done that look at what makes a stable orbit. Your close but your wording is incorrect. Here is a hint Newtons cannonball http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball

I definitely enjoyed the last paper, it's well thought out and detailed. Thanks for posting it. Going to add it to my archives

Feel free to post your mathematics and evidence then. Though one question remains explain how non rotating bodies exert gravity when they have no spin. Or how two bodies of equal mass exert the same force of gravity with two different rotation rates. Keep in mind there has been numerous claims in the past on gyroscopic anti gravity. None has ever been proven, Take a gyroscope stand on a scale spin the gyroscope your weight on the scale will not change.

No the speed of light is invariant. All observers will see the speed of light As the same value in a vacuum. Gravity does not alter c.

My last post is in response to the above. Don't forget only charged particles can be accelerated via the solar winds.