Mordred

And yet we detect blackholes, we also detect the changes in their feeding rates. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150122114555.htm We've also spotted one in its birth moments http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/black-hole-birth-spawned-record-breaking-blast-131122.htm The Schwartzchild metric is a very specific vacuum non rotating solution. As pointed out the likely hood of ever seeing a Schwartz child non rotating BH is incredibly remote. Kerr rotating blackholes are however common. Imaatsfal has already pointed out The correction to the Schwartz child metric.

What in the world is phantom matter? Sounds like pink unicorns, Do you have any evidence to show phantom matter exists?

Energy is a property of particles, it doesn't exist on its own. Waves is the influence on particles whether virtual or real. The influence is carried particle to particle by the force carrying boson. Mass does not mean matter, see the previous posts. All particles have particle and waveform properties

Waveforms can be influenced beforei I can answer accurately I need time to study the models involved. From the pop media descriptives I can see the plausibility. This will take take time, but no worries I will offer support.

Many thanks mate hard copies on order http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Experimental-Foundations-Advanced-Theoretical/dp/9810227493 Lol add that to my 20+ collection of physics related books. Ps my wife always asks "Why are you so interested in this universe stuff, you will never go there" My response " I'm already there" After 15 years she still doesn't get it lol Looking over some of the reviews his take on the one way vs two way influences on photons may or may not provide insight beyond what I already understand. Knowledge is always good regardless of perspective.

I'm not too familiar with it myself, however looking over the information I found on the subject I cannot see any violations. It's a process that looks intriquing and complies with the known models from what I've read thus far. Waveforms can interact producing shorter and longer waveforms. A waveform change is a change in energy levels. So yes manipulating a waveform can induce current.

Makes it even more motivating for me to study his work. Any particular article recommendations? ( no limit on technicality) I've always been a firm believer in learning how our models developed historically. This includes major counter theories.

One of his questions was what defines matter. We got sidetracked on the answer lol. Wiki has a good explanation on mass "In physics, mass is a property of a physical body which determines resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg). Mass is not the same thing as weight, even though we commonly calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight. A woman standing on the Moon would weigh less than she would on Earth because of the lower gravity, but she would have the same mass. For everyday objects and energies well-described by Newtonian physics, mass describes the amount of matter in an object. However, at very high speeds or for subatomic particles, special relativity shows that energy is an additional source of mass. Thus, any stationary body having mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and all forms of energy resist acceleration by a force and have gravitational attraction" Keep in mind the word physical means anything that can be described by physics including energy. All particles are affected by gravity http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass Ps thanks for the reminder it's not often discussions on the Pauli exclusion principle comes up, we got sidetracked lol. Just a side note advise, look closely at scientific definitions, there is numerous clues contained in them. The definition of mass is one such example

Thanks for sharing that zyxt, I'll have to study that bit of history in more detail.

That's how I understand it as well. Helium 3 is fermionic while helium 4 is bosonic.

Rotating universe models have been considered and discounted as it's impossible to maintain isotropy regardless of how slow a rotation. No evidence is conclusive enough to counter the cosmological principle. The reasons galaxies spin is the same reason planets and stars spin. During the formation process, plasma state as the plasma forms centers of mass other particles etc start orbitting the higher mass density. This influences the center of mass to start rotating. (According to the conservation of angular momentum laws). As the plasma volume decreases the spin increases. A good analogy place a marble on a trampoline, roll another marble toward but not directly at the first marble. You will see the second marble orbit the first. Now apply that in terms of gravity. Gravity of both objects affect each other. So the motion of one rotating object influences the spin of the larger mass. Google tidal locking for an example of how a moon or planet can affect the spin of the planet or star it is orbitting. Galaxies are more complex, however the reason they rotate is the same. Conservation of angular momentum during its formation.

I agree wrong. For the reasons provided.

That second image is specifically showing aberration of light see the link provided under the image. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light I see Janus best me to it

Yeah I figured as much as the Bose-Einstein statistics apply to Bose-Einstein condensates. For the OP fermions is thermodynamically described by the Fermi-Dirac statistics. Though those two formulas are advanced. (Incredibly useful though ) The latter formula applies to the Fermi-condensate.

I agree it was one example of a variation I should of specified that example applies to Doppler. I didn't want to get into corrections to the cosmological redshift as that gets too distracting to the OPs question.

Good point I should specify that only applies to fundamental particles. Ill try to remember that next time

Time is relative to the observer. From outside the BH it appears time is slowed down. However from the frame of the singularity itself time moves normally. As a side note the Schwartz child radius is when the escape velocity equals c this is also the point that seperates a bh from a neutron star. How we view the BH depends on the reference frame of the observer.

What constitutes as a matter particle depends on if the particle is dimensionless or if it takes up space. Fermionic particles of the same quantum state cannot reside in the same space. Bosons such as photons can occupy the same volume without limit. So essentially only fermions count as matter particles. Now into where momentum fits in e=mc^2 is not the complete formula The formula you want is [latex]e^2=(pc)^2+(m_0c)^2[/latex] P in this case is momentum The subscript of o on the mass denotes rest mass. Which isn't the total energy of particles with momentum. Rest mass doesn't include momentum. inertial mass is based on total energy. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation The use of relatistic mass has been replaced by inertial mass

There is Three main forms of redshift, Cosmological redshift is due to space expansion Gravitational redshift is due to photons climbing into and out of gravity wells Doppler redshift is due to motion This article covers the three of them http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion Keep in mind there are variations on the formulas for reasons such as transverse redshift etc. (Transverse different angles ie object moving left to right at different angles)

Look at mass-energy equivalence for tests. http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2005/emc2

Actually he is half right. What bends space time is energy/momentum, photons have both so they can bend space time. Note the effect from individual photons is negligible. Density is involved as you have greater energy/mass per volume.

The problem is finding datasets that are easily related to. I could post numerous articles with datasets such as this one http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/07/perlmutter-team.pdf but would it help you? It is a dataset supporting and constraining systematic errors. However the paper is not easily understood. Papers like this are easily found. However visualization of expansion from this is not an easy task (Ps that's one of the reasons Jorrie built the lightcone calculator in my signature) I've been scouring the internet for several days looking for the easy to relate to articles etc with the data sets included. Not as easy as one might think most require software installations to use. Speaking of videos you guys will love this one. http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/virgo/millennium/ this took incredible supercomputer time over 3 months to generate. Note these two videos is a 100% simulated universe to test out model LCDM http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NjSFR40SY58

Symmetry is the relation being modelled. This can be shape, density, pressure, or interaction. Etc We define how we choose to model any system and how we describe that system. Naturally we tend to use easily understood reference points and baseline values as a reference point. North is convenient as we normally graph x as longitudinal, y as horizontal. For baselines we look for most common average value or zero then model the deviations from that baseline. ( good example temperature change from room temperature, then model the change in temperature from that point) You can always set the initial values,then describe the deviations. Most often this is based on convention and logic,

As long as you can define the coordinate relations that is in my opinion accurate. All models are described by mathematics. Most of the complex terminology in peer reviewed papers are differential geometry descriptives. Look on math is fun for transformations. Ie rotation transformation. Ps this also describes symmetry Including symmetry in particle physics Double PS that includes QM, fields, and string theory There is one expression to take note. "The universe does not care how we measure it" I'll let you ponder upon its philosophical ramifications.

Fully agree with that