Mordred

Like you said we've been down this road before. The above makes absolutely no sense. Protons are not the same as electrons. There is more than just their energy level that distinquishes between them. For one thing spin, and charge. The proton is also a composite particle. Where the electron is a fundamental particle. In the last thread I pointed out the conservation rules. Color, charge, spin, isospin, parity, flavor, baryon number and Lepton number. Did you not bother to even consider that information or just choose to ignore it.

A great man would have spent the time learning why the current models work the way they do, then show how his model works better than the current understanding. (This would entail needing the mathematics)

In other words we already consider observational influences involved in the photon path in our measurements. Your stating our current models are wrong because it didn't do so correctly. You have positive and negative velocity in the motion of a planet. Doppler shift measures the velocity we currently have for say Pluto. Why don't we notice the negative velocity influence in regards to the Doppler formula? [latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/latex] The above relations above would have to change to fit your ground potential. [latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex] Vr is the velocity measured by the source using the sources own proper-time clock(positive if moving toward the source vs is the velocity measured by the receiver using the sources own proper-time clock(positive if moving away from the receiver) Doesn't sound anything like your ground potential model does it? That's the Doppler formula. What about gravitational redshift? [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex] Or cosmological redshift [latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex] I don't see how you can fit your ground potential metrics into these formulas. Show me

With this statement I believe it would be different. Your going to have to prove me wrong. In other words explain how Doppler, gravitational and cosmological redshift would work in your model. Redshifts are the adjustments correlating our measurements to the observer. As such your going to need to show how to define those formulas to your ground potential model.

There is it's influence due to its density is of near zero influence or immeasurable. Simply put not enough locally to measure an influence (in regards to solar system rotation curves). It's local distribution locally is too uniform. By the way excellent question. I recall a good paper on it. I'll try to find it Found it http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0903 The subject on DM influence on solar system rotation curves is tricky to measure. I've started reading a thesis on the subject, https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.caltech.edu%2F~apeter%2Fthesis_peter_annika.pdf&rct=j&q=dark%20matter%20profile%20of%20our%20solar%20system&ei=5s4cVeD_H5ayyATFmIGoCQ&usg=AFQjCNHZVhFOuMzADDcEloJB9V3t3jx_Wg&sig2=DBv7xb9cxlaTfV2_GyBZPg Key note it's not enough to have significant influence on solar system rotation curves. Keplers laws works well as an approximation on solar systems until GR takes effect. Example Mercury. Here is a good coverage of MOND as I mentioned the topic. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.3133 (Lol the thesis above is 296 pages, many posters of alternative models have little or no idea just how much research is involved in the current models) they typically try to correlate basic formulas in some great and wonderful sounding ramification. Not realizing models have numerous cross checks with other models

By the way the rotation curve of a solar system has the Keplarian decline. (Most of the mass in at the Sun). Galaxy rotations do not have Keplarian decline. So I'm not sure why you would apply the solar systems rotation curve in regards to dark matter. Solar system rotation curves don't have anything at all to do with dark matter. The analysis you want to explain is the NFW profile. (That's a pretty serious mistake, when your applying an unrelated model) Particularly since the two curves are completely different. (In guidance, if you wish to examine a model that attempts to replace dark matter try MOND) Here you should read this. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCwQFjAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwikis.uit.tufts.edu%2Fconfluence%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F9440479%2Fchemouni_bach_GE_dec07.pdf%3Fversion%3D1&rct=j&q=singular%20isothermal%20sphere%20profile%20of%20spiral%20arms&ei=xNQDVaDFLsfwoATsxoCACQ&usg=AFQjCNGm931PDgYo5WOdtIksZVMLKqwVSQ&sig2=fa628v9sgDG0sloyufaLVg&bvm=bv.88198703,d.eXY The formula you want to explain is [latex]\rho_r=\frac{\sigma^2_v}{2\pi Gr^2}[/latex] NFW profile (also used for gravitational lensing, in part) There are variations in the above power law profile Here is a decent paper covering NFW to gravitational lensing http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9908213 Here is a good coverage of gravitational lensing http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/129979.pdf

While your at it, show how your model works with Doppler shift which is used to determine the motion of bodies. Our knowledge of how Doppler shift works is extremely accurate.

These questions are deserving of an answer, they are directly applicable to the topic

Most of that would be at the surface, in the form of plasma at high enough temperatures. Can't offer much on this particular topic. Never looked at the numbers involved. Though from a glance looks reasonable, (in flight from work to home,so will looker closer on. You might try learning how to latex your formulas. Judging from your prior posts, your an avid poster, with a desire to learn. It would be a valuable aspect to learn how to post in latex. It's also easier to read. (Though the formulas above aren't.) This site has a guide on how, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/#entry53693 I find this list handy http://web.ift.uib.no/Teori/KURS/WRK/TeX/symALL.html. PS (Some latex I still struggle with,lol or as they say "eat the Apple one bite at a time")

Numerous of LQC's papers specify the bounce. This includes there equivelent to chaotic eternal inflation where the bounce forms multiple universes. As with any metric there is always numerous variations. Your correct on the singularity avoidance being a constraint. If anyone wants to study LQC here is one of the better study aids on the subject http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4598 "Introduction to Loop Quantum Cosmology by Abhay Ashtekar

Correct, LQC for example doesn't have the singularity condition, due to the bounce. Singularity can also mean a point where our current physics can no longer describe.

Actually if he is referring to Hawking radiation the two particles are created on the outside of the EH. One particle falls in the other escapes. You don't know the state's until you measure one of the entangled particles. The other particle will have the opposite state.

First off the big bang is not a kinetic explosion. Observation evidence shows us there is no preferred location or direction in the Universe. This means no point of origin and center. You might want to read some related misconceptions in you exploding BH model. For some reason this is usually the most common attempt for novices to describe the Big Bang. (Probably all the multimedia imagery) These articles will help explain why a BH born universe doesn't work http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies

That's fine and we'll and good, but it's based on a feeling rather than actual evidence of how the universe started and thus when time started. One has to keep in mind we cannot see past the dark ages as light has too short a mean length path of freedom. The universe is too dense and obscure prior to reionization. So we can never see the BB in action or measure it directly. Least not (possibly) till we can detect the cosmic neutrino background. So our knowledge prior to CMB depends on indirect studies in particle physics and the ideal gas laws. Loop quantum gravity for example is a model where a previous universe collapses and the bounces, (expands) to form our universe. It's metrics is equally compatible and accurate as LCDM hot big bang model. Statements like time starting when our universe started isn't necessarily true. The answers given are more based on beginning models and personal philosophy. The only accurate answer is, as we don't know how our universe began, we cannot determine if time was present prior to our universe Lawrence Krauss model is based on the zero energy universe. It is one of the few models where a universe can start from nothing. There is too many models of universe beginnings all equally valid until proven wrong. To name them all, the classifications is bounce,cyclic, original bubble etc. Chaotic eternal inflation is an example of bubble universe (multiverse).

Yes to the first, it's also called null like. Not sure how to answer your second question

There is an excellent paper on time in regards to BB. It depends on the model used. Cyclic universes for example time always exists. http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1947"On the physical basis of cosmic time" stating time isn't present prior to BB may or may not be accurate. Oops first one is the physical basis of Cosmological time. Another excellent paper just not the right one. I'll keep it posted as it is an excellent reference. Here is the correct paper Time before Time - Classifications of universes in contemporary cosmology, and how to avoid the antinomy of the beginning and eternity of the world http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408111

Motion is also based on inertia, take a uniform pressure on every side of an object. As this pressure is uniform no inertia or acceleration can be imparted upon said object. This is the case for large scale structures and galaxies due to expansion. Instead the volume of space between those structures is increasing. We know this by understanding the cosmological constant as a uniform vacuum or pressure. Therefore there is no pressure difference on one side to the other. It cannot gain momentum or inertia due to the cosmological constant.

Gotcha, understand what you were getting at thanks

I believe I know what your talking about but want to check. Seems your describing spacelike, time like and light like seperation. Am I correct? [latex]s^2= \begin{cases} >0 & timelike\\ =0 & lightlike\\ <0 & spacelike \end {cases}[/latex] [latex]S\rightarrow S^{\prime}[/latex] [latex]S^2=c^2 t^2-\vec{r}^{2}[/latex] [latex](ct,\vec{r})\equiv(ct,x,y,z)[/latex] [latex]\vec{r}=x^2+y^2+z^2[/latex]

According to you g information has no energy or momentum. Regardless of whether or not it is quantum or macroscopic. It takes energy to exert a force. Without energy you exert zero force. So explain how something that has no energy breaks this law? In order to measure something you must have energy, momentum, charge etc. You cannot measure information as information is not a property of matter or energy. When you gather information about mass or energy your gathering one,or several of the above properties. Not information itself This includes fields. Fields are ultimately comprised of particles. You can often describe its average properties to avoid describing each particle. However your still describing properties contained from particles. Just averaged. This includes the ideal gas laws. Pressure and vacuum are an average of particle interactions. When your describing a vacuum or pressure you have either potential or kinetic energy. Your infotons do not have energy. So how can it possibly exert an influence. It takes energy to cause a change in wavefunction, momentum or acceleration. Without energy it cannot change anything gravitational or electromagnet.

You still don't understand, in order for informatons to have any influence you need some form of energy. Your information is NOT a measurable entity. It has zero substance, zero wavefunction,zero momentum,zero mass, zero charge etc etc. In other words it's absolutely nothing zero zip. Without measurable properties it CANNOT influence anything. This is basic physics that any first year student understands. The other problem you fail to acknowledge is your rest frame to inertial frame transformation is simply incomplete. Your not showing the Lorentz factors in the length contraction or time dilation. So your coordinates will be wrong, to observational evidence we have today. At relativistic speeds. GR is extremely well tested. Why do you think GEM includes a compatible tensor to the Einstein field equations?

Your not understanding, the problem with your inflatons. In order to have any influence you must have some form of energy. The influence must be measurable. Current QEM already describes its influences without introducing your inflatons. QEM also uses the Poynting vector and has a full equivelence to the Einstein field equations, as well as account for the spin characteristics in particle interactions. So it covers both the quantum and macroscopic measurements. In other words it's far more accurate with less interactions to keep track of

David one thing to note, the age of our solar system is determined by a variety of tests. Those tests don't just include samples from Earth, nor thermodynamic processes. They also include dating samples from the moon, and meteorites. By dating the age of the protoplanetary disk, as well as the sun itself. We can constrain the age significantly. Here is one process of many in use. 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

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2211 The part about many worlds interpretation not providing any evidence that QM doesn't predict is in agreement with this paper.

Yea it's one reason more support is on the MSSM varient I can't recall how SO(10) MSM handled the Hierarchy problem, I recall there was a solution in a dissertation I read but I can't recall the details I might still have that dissertation at home. However I'm in the field for a week still