Mordred

GR also does not state space time as a fabric like substance. GR is a geometric model of gravities influence upon particles that resides in space. Space being volume only Also to be honest the majority of your post makes little sense. I would suggest you study the Einsten field equations specifically the stress energy tensor. Then look at the electromagnetic tensor. It's evident that you didn't look too deep into the mathematics. One key aspect your missing is the connection between energy/mass density and gravity in terms of space time geometric distributions of influence upon particles residing in the volume of space. In this regard all particle physics, QFT etc are differential geometry relations. In order to show how your model improves upon the existing model you must be able to accurately describe the existing model particularly in terms of the mathematics. Then compare your model in terms of mathematics to the existing. The other side note is the reason the universe is expanding is a consequence of the ideal gas laws, along with the cosmological constant. It's not based on gravity. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Covers geometry and how it relates to expansion. Page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ Http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau The last link will cover the metrics of GR then in the latter chapters Cosmology

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor String theory was never intended to replace GR. Lol this was suppose to be part of my previous post. Phone didn't update

Unfortunately all the points in this post are inaccurate. It's apparent from just this post alone that you never truly looked at either of the above theories in mathematical detail. If you had you would realize that the term space is simply volume. Space time is any geometric model of space with the time component as a vector. Gravity only affects mass. So gravity can only influence particles. Space time is a geometric distribution of gravity upon the particles contained within a volume of space. If you look at the stress energy tensor you would realize it's energy density/pressure related.

A large body of that paper is based upon Bunn and Hoggs paper. These ones discusses the cosmological redshift and a series of smaller Doppler shifts. http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081 http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3536 There is several key factors to study. One is relatistic Doppler effect http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift Gravitational redshift utilyzes the relativistic Doppler redshift, The cosmological redshift can also be interpreted as a series of relatistic Doppler shifts. To understand those details you have to look at how each form is derived from Doppler redshift to relativistic Doppler. Then look at how relativistic Doppler derives into the gravitational redshift. The above papers also show the correlation in terms of Cosmological redshift. http://www.iucaa.ernet.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/11007/1135/1/211A_1994.pdf The above is a paper covering the equivelence principle in regards to Doppler. Et ala Synche. http://astronomy.case.edu/heather/151/davis.pdf These are the reference papers I used to write the above article with the help of PAllen and the other contributors. (Lol I should note it took a considerable effort and rewrites to consider those references as well as textbook examples the biggest trick was keeping it short in length lol) Also keep in mind none of the formulas cover the transverse Doppler in my article. We kept the numerous redshift formulas to the basic three. Forgot a reference papers http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6704

I'll have to study this but here Is one paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.0745

Incorrect again. Galaxy rotation curves does include GR. It must do so to account for speed of particulates and speed of each particle mass. Whose maximum is c, Force of gravity is not instantaneous throughout the galaxy. That's another problem inherent I. Kepler and Newtonian mathematics. Rotation curves are calculated via the virial theorem, density waves, and the NFW profile along with GR and the ideal gas laws. It is not based accurately on a single formula posted in this entire thread. None of the formulas used throughout this thread account for the speed of information. The NFW profile is the isothermal sphere distribution surrounding the entire galaxy. This sphere has been mapped in both observational influence via x rays and mathematically. There is plenty of indirect observational EVIDENCE for dark matter. Via its indirect interactions. The speed of c and information is why I asked you to perform a redshift analysis on your model. If you had you would have learned that none of the Keplarian or Newtonian formulas correctly map the influence of gravity at a specific moment in time. Newtons unviserval gravitational formula has this basic flaw. This is what your basing your graphs on. A formula that in inherently inaccurate and not the one currently used today. Take for example the Sun Earth baycenter based on the shell theorem. The calculations is the barycenter right minutes ago. Not it's current location.

That's fine in that sense your doing good science. The NFW profile is a part of the virial power law for the actual rotation curve. In essence it represents the rotation curve contribution due to dark matter. This is the portion you must account for. Ie explain without DM. (Its also used for gravitational lenses, due to DM)

I did I asked you to model the NFW dark matter profile. Not Kepler, earlier in this thread. You should have realized that is the profile you need to explain with your model as per the title of this thread That was my direction to modelling the correct profile of dark matter. In regards to galaxy rotation curves. The above posts was in answer to this false statement Piece of advise don't state your GPT theory explains aspects of physics that it cannot explain. You stated earlier it explained coulomb force, in another thread numerous mass problems, in this thread the need for no dark matter. You have yet to prove this via your model. Those pillars are well tested, very well tested. If you spent as much time studying those subjects as I have (including the peer reviewed competing models opposing them). You will learn why they are the leading models (Ps the above equations was from "Quarks and leptons" (Intro particle physics textbook.) I chose to post a pre Higgs formulation.)

Why should I develop your model for you? That's your responsibility not mine. I can can calculate the mass of the proton. I can tell you what % is due to the strong force, I can also isolate the internal electromagnetic force contribution to its mass, as well as isolate the quarks mass from it. Can You? I recall posting that procedure in one of the arxiv papers in one of your threads. You evidentally didn't read it. Why do you think Sensei asked you to show how to calculate the mass of the proton? Did you honestly believe that's not important?

I will once you start showing some science instead of stubbornly assuming proton and electron interactions can solve EVERY mass problem which it CANNOT do. The above is a clear limitation

Absolutely dead wrong, no possible way. This statement alone means you do not know how first second and third generation fermions work. Protons for example don't even form with stability until they drop out of thermal equilibrium, from the quark/gluon plasma. So how could all energy of matter be the result of protons and electrons during temperatures where there are zero zip stable protons? How does this possibly account for the energy of particles that DO NOT interact and proven not to interact with the electromagnetic force? Such particles are proven beyond doubt to exist. Can your model explain the bare mass of an electron and the cutoff limits of renormalization? Can you show how it explains the fine structure constant? At what range is the Coulomb force no longer accurate? How does the last question relate to bare mass? [latex]\alpha^0=0.130 MeV[/latex] [latex]m_o=-103.3 MeV[/latex] [latex]\Lambda=3.65 TeV[/latex] [latex] m_e=0.511 MeV[/latex] [latex] m_u=105.7 MeV[/latex] [latex] M_t=1.002 GeV[/latex] [latex]\alpha=X_3\alpha_o[/latex] [latex]Z_3=1\frac{\alpha_o}{3\pi}(ln\frac{\Lambda^2}{m_e^2}+ln\frac{\Lambda^2}{m_u^2}+ln\frac{\Lambda^2}{m_t^2})[/latex] How does your model correlate the above first, second and third generation Lepton mass?

The first 30 mly the Earth probably didn't have an atmosphere with a distinquishable temperature from the surface. This is also a period of heavy bombardment. Tons of dust, rocks were thrown into the atmosphere. You also need to keep in mind the atmosphere itself evolves. Originally it is mainly hydrogen and helium. (With that debris mixed in) http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/10/earths-beginnings-origins-life/ Now not all atmospheric components are greenhouse gases. (Hydrogen and Helium are not) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas Although water quickly formed once the crust started forming, in the first 30 Mly much of the lighter gases including water vapor was escaping the atmosphere due to extreme temperatures. (Though this is highly debatable, might be safer to consider its presence) Your starting to see the difficulties in modelling the Earths history via thermodynamic processes. In point of fact doing so is highly complex and convoluted. (Also extremely unreliable). The radiation levels of materials are also generating heat. The Earths magnetic field is unlikely to have formed at this time period, the atmosphere itself would offer little protection from the Suns rays, heavy bombardment also produces radiation. With all the complexities mentioned during this thread, can you now understand why we use meteors, moon samples, and radioactive dating? With your last post. It should be apparent as a more reliable methodology. If you want good details on the first 30mly Google Hadean won. Each stage has a specific eon, Google the conditions seperately in each. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth Hint type pdf after each Google search it will lead to better quality and possibly peer reviewed papers.

(One rule of thumb with me I always try to supply links to study and learn from. Those links contain the answers) One of those papers gave the emissivity, it's first formula is Stefan Boltzmann. Then it covered the problems and corrections.

I provided direct answers. I told you directly Stefan Boltzmann law isn't useful or accurate in this application due to convection, conduction and radiation. I then provided the link for emmissivity for granite and basalt which will be your two primary ingredients of the crust. Heavier metals will sink towards the Earths center. However you don't want to include convection flows.

Swansorts 0.7 value would make a decent average

If your dealing with the surface exclusively granite and basalt are the two primary minerals. http://www.omega.ca/literature/transactions/volume1/emissivityb.html

You can't exclusively with Stefan Boltzmann. It doesn't factor in a continous heat source such as radiation, convection and conduction. Did you not read the article I posted twice now? http://www.arthurstinner.com/stinner/pdfs/2002-ageoftheearth.pdf

Doesn't matter what the value is. It is a variant quantity, that you replaced into an invariant quantity. Then claim it explains everything, without further mathematical detail. Other than simply replacing v and c with phi and Phi. You even claimed this into the lorentz factor formula. You have not mathematically shown any of the graphs you posted, as far as I see none of the formulas you posted result in a sinusoidal wave form. Do you even know how that formula is derived? Do you know the tensor matrix relations that are involved with the Lorentz factor? None of your descriptives matches those relations. Yet you simply plug phi and Phi into those equations. This far none of your descriptions mathematically show how to derive your variables. maybe you can demonstrate it in phase space coordinates? Handy to show particle velocities in coordinate space (Hint this is why x and x' was asked for) phase space 6 coordinate. [latex]dV=dx_1,dx_2,dx_3,dv_1,dv_2,dv_3[/latex] you already mentioned your theory doesn't work in Cartesian coordinates. And yet the substitution you did was on a formula that DOES use Cartesian coordinates. "Consider two observers O and O′, each using their own Cartesian coordinate system to measure space and time intervals. O uses (t, x, y, z) and O′ uses (t′, x′, y′, z′). " http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation In other words you don't know what is invloved or understand what the current models are describing. Your just replacing variables then adding a description, without a property mathematical analysis. Take a good look at the vector components on that link above then tell me your descriptions match. [latex] \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1- \frac{\phi^2}{\Phi^2}}}[/latex] when [latex]\Phi [/latex] is not invariant. by your definition This above is complete garbage.

There is two lines to consider in one of the papers I posted above. "Earths conductivity were not homogeneous, but greater near the centre by a factor of 10, the cooling time would be increased by a factor of 56. In addition, he argued that if some degree of fluidity exists in the Earth, then thermal conductivity must be supplemented by convection." This is the section discussing Perry. "The discovery of radioactivity had two dramatic effects on the debate about the age of the Earth. First, it quickly became clear that since radioactive sources were found everywhere, including deep in the crust of the Earth, the heat budget of the Earth could not be reliably estimated. Secondly, by about 1910 the new methods of radioactive dating held the promise of finding a reliable way to determine the age of the Earth." This section is under radiation These are from http://www.arthurstinner.com/stinner/pdfs/2002-ageoftheearth.pdf

I'm confused, from what I've seen thus far is all you've done is replace v and c with your ground potential symbols into standard formulas. Then you claim This describes characteristics that is different than what the original formulas describe. How does that even work? If your describing properties that differ from what the original describe. Simply replacing the symbols cannot describe different relations or coordinate changes. Then you claim your formulas remove the need for dark matter...... Yet the original formulas that you simply changed the symbols in, require dark matter on the global scale. Sorry but you can't simply replace v and c, then describe dynamics that differ from the relationships in the original formulas. This doesn't work. Especially since in those formulas c is invariant. Yet neither of your GPT variables are.

The Stefan Boltzmann law works well in the correct applications. However in terms of the system your modelling several factors change. Surface area, convection rates as the crust develops greater depth, this influences emmisivity rates, your also dealing with different materials with different conductivity values. Iron has a different conductivity than say silicon etc. As the Earth goes through its development stages the system changes.

The paper I had, has the wrong Higgs mass. I'm still looking but you may have already accounted for it, if the Higgs field is responsible for the cosmological constant. Most of the papers I looked at ties the Higgs to the cosmological constant, but I've been unable to find a definite separation of the Higgs field itself from Lambda

Thanks for the compliment. All formulas are approximations. The Stefan Boltzmann formula included. Try to stop and ask yourself " where did the material come from to form the Earth?" The answer should be those meteorites. So given that information, then ask yourself in regards to Stefan Boltzmann equation. What is the radiation area while the Earth is forming? During its initial formation. The diameter of the Earth isn't the same as today. Nor is the precollision diameter (Theia) the same after the collision. Then you also need to factor in different the surrounding temperature. Today the Universe is 2.7 Kelvin. However 4 billion years ago it is slightly higher. This is another factor. (Though a minor one). Then you also need to consider time of convection, the surface cools faster than the material beneath the surface, it takes time for the heat to rise to the surface. These two points should be sufficient to show that the Stefan Boltzmann law would at best be an approximation, in this application. This is why one must look for observational evidence and empherical evidence. The other posters covered the other problems. Here is a paper showing Stefan Bolzmann law. The method used by Kelvin, Newton and Perry. Should show some of the problems with each method http://www.arthurstinner.com/stinner/pdfs/2002-ageoftheearth.pdf Here is a decent paper covering several aspects of the Earths age via meteorites, and mineral isotopes dating. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=20&ved=0CD0QFjAJOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FYouxue_Zhang%2Fpublication%2F221947444_The_age_and_accretion_of_the_earth%2Flinks%2F53fbfc120cf2dca8fffee686.pdf&rct=j&q=age%20of%20the%20Earth%20pdf&ei=qZchVfb-NciesAWhuYC4BQ&usg=AFQjCNEFgVbFdqARXb1IMrxOLrjZcgkvYQ&sig2=qOJQ2nz9nnBMj1gl8cf0ww

There is also the age of our sun. Try not to ignore science simply because it doesn't agree with your perception. That's a fatal and all too common a mistake. Thousands of scientists far more capable of the majority on this forum, over the past century of research, both mathematical and measurement went into determining the age of the Earth. Do you honestly believe your going to discover something, without full understanding? You base your calculations upon approximation formulas. Did you not consider different elements, and composite particles cool at different rates? Different materials have different heat conductivity, some make better conductors, others better insulators. This is why we look for the age of formation of known minerals. We can measure the properties of those in terms of dating with high accuracy. The Earth formed from the protoplasmic disk. Same with every planet. How did we tell the moon formed at a different time, involves sampling. No one was around to witness, so how did they determine a collision? It's great that your studying, but you cannot ignore disagreeable research. You have to consider and account for it Here is one thing to consider about formulas. They work great modelling a system they are intended to model. Add an influence, you must adapt.

The Earth isn't older than the other bodies in our solar system. This includes the evidence gathered from the meteorites. I posted a paper on that subject a while back. You've been given 9 pages worth of details. Science doesn't base its answers solely on formulas. Though it is a major player. In this case we have means such as carbon dating etc. The one link I provided constrains the age within 160,000 years. How did you miss that? http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CC0QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psrd.hawaii.edu%2FNov12%2FPSRD-ages-CAIs-chondrules.pdf&rct=j&q=The%20Absolute%20Chronology%20and%20Thermal%20Processing%20of%20Solids%20in%20the%20Solar%20Protoplanetary%20Disk&ei=k9kUVYWqDoS1ggTNv4HwDg&usg=AFQjCNG34qgwTUEwgU2wqhg6dHxg7LOkOQ&sig2=XKbP_XRYdR0sGjSxiIsLMw