Mordred

Lol right volume, too early in the am.

That's where I went wrong!!I didn't drink enough to invent flambetty foam. Bartender!

Have you never heard the term indirect evidence? Direct evidence is something you can actually see and measure. Like a rock, take that rock drop it in a cup of water. The level of the water rises. From the change in water level we can indirectly measure the mass of the rock. Dark energy is similar. Through the changes in distance measurements and the ideal gas laws, including thermodynamic laws we can measure dark energy. Indirectly.

Are you familiar with the modularity theorem? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_theorem Which directly related to the Fermat theorem

Yawn, more gibberish 1 is not greater than 2. Fermats theorem In number theory, Fermat's Last Theorem (sometimes called Fermat's conjecture, especially in older texts) states that no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two It does NOT state anything you are stating

Any metric system can be used. You can replace the decimal system with binary, hexadecimal, octadecimal etc with the same degree of accuracy. Provided you formulate the relationships accurately. The decimal system is simply more convenient.

Huh nothing in your last post makes any sense at all. Your problem seems to be you don't understand science and take offense to it. Well too bad, science is what provided you the ability to post this gibberish in the first place.

Your not even properly describing Fermats last theorem in your relations. Even though you mention it http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastTheorem.html

Your math isn't even correct... Binary is a numerical system based on 2 states 0 and 1. Yet your limits is the decimal system 1 to 10.

There is no dodging, you haven't posted any scientific relation or statement. This is a science forum.

Yes we are, science is about describing how a leads to b, it's about predictive ability of studied relations.

What point?, it's pure gibberish. There is nothing here with predictive ability on any specific relations. The only descriptive is word salad badly grinded to absolute mush

Your interest seems to lie into particle physics specifically, however your lacking the needed tools. So I'm going to provide some of them, The nice thing about the next two links is it helps teach the related differential geometry involved. "A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics" part 1 http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 Part 2 http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 You will immediately notice both articles is 90% differential geometry. it's a necessary evil. Intro to calculus http://www.math.odu.edu/~jhh/Volume-1.PDF Vector calculus https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mecmath.net%2Fcalc3book.pdf&rct=j&q=vector%20calculus%20pdf&ei=ykb9VMinKcKlyATPxYCIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHaZioCHqqCO924EPbzoMQrUS2fIg&sig2=-YNebVqEZ49Ojn2rgCM88w

Sounds like your getting confused. Lets step back. First off use the full e=mc^2 formula. [latex]e^2=(pc)^2+(m_oc^2)^2[/latex] [latex]m_o[/latex] is rest mass p is momentum This link shows how this applies to lorentz http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation note Pauli exclusion isn't mentioned here.... Neither is baryogenises. Pauli exclusion principle states that two fermions with 1/2 integer spin (fractional) cannot occupy the same space. Bosons have full integer spin so they can occupy the same space. This has to do with wavefunctions and is quite complex. May be better holding off on this for a bit. Not really sure how you tied lorentz contraction and the Pauli exclusion principle together? Are you looking at the Dirac equations? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation Or the Klein Gordon equations? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein%E2%80%93Gordon_equation

We don't know what dark energy is aka the cosmological constant. However we can and do measure its influence. From those measurements it is possible to determine its energy density. Taking the energy density we can calculate its total energy. In terms of the ideal gas laws think of the cosmological constant as a positive energy density with a negative pressure (vacuum influence) In the FLRW metric this has an equation of state w=-1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) The equation of state correlates a contributors energy density to pressure relations. A good article to read is "Why all these prejudices against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966

Not necessarily, I could for example post my hypothesis, that DE is a result of dispersion of a higher energy density to a lower energy density. I even have the math, I've applied the ideal gas laws, the FLRW metric and Einstein field equations. With that math it wouldn't be moved to trash. The reason I never have posted that personal model is that it doesn't work... To this day I cannot keep the cosmological constant, constant, nor can it model a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. So the math itself disproved the model as well as observational evidence. What posters don't realize is math is needed its an essential step, but not the only step. ( The biggest problem with the above is the size of the universe, and the velocity of particles. Nothing moves faster than c)

Photons follow the curvature geodesics However is not directly influenced by gravity. Look under the photon interactions (electromagnetic) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon Photons have no rest mass, but does have an energy mass equivelence.

Actually formulas get changed all the time. One example is the FLRW metric. PS its also a good way to tell if the textbook is older. Prior to roughly year 1990, the FLRW metric didn't have the cosmological constant, The observable universe was the Hubbles sphere. Course the year I'm not positive on, I'm basing that figure on some of the textbooks I own. When the need for dark energy became apparent the cosmological constant was re'added to The FLRW metric. Prior to DM, there were numerous alternative models and variations of the Hot big bang. We didn't know of DM was hot, warm, cold etc. (Non relativistic, vs relativistic.). This information was vital to determine DM equation of state (thermodynamic) Prior to WMAP we didn't know the curvature constant k so we had 3 variations to the FLRW metric ( though all three curvatures are derived from the FLRW metric, the the three possibilities resulted in numerous other variants of other related formulas. The key point is, one can change a formula when there is repeatable experiments to support a new formula. Though the changes must be mathematically correct In terms of GR, well you have the minkowskii coordinate system, this is roughly at the time of Einstein, since then numerous (more accurate coordinate systems have developed) This. 980 page article covers a wide variety and the subsequent problems and misinterpretations in each http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau As smart and accurate as Einstein was, science keeps developing, GR included In terms of dark energy most of the formulas in this article are no longer used, the article covers some though not all the later variants and evolutions. http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1498" The Waters I am Entering No One yet Has Crossed: Alexander Friedman and the Origins of Modern Cosmology" written by Ari Belenkiy side note prior to Freidmann cosmology was described by formula 1, which looks nothing like the formulas we use today The article also shows the evolution of the redshift formula

Yeah your right I had to go over the calcs again wasn't thinking it clearly, lol wife was distracting me..( can't believe I forgot Newtons first law,, facepalm)

Shouldn't that be balanced? An unbalanced force in either direction would result in change in orbit. Mike there is two aspects conservation of angular momentum and the force of gravity. Both are vector quantities where the sum of the two equals zero determines your stable orbit. Key note Angular momentum not linear in this case. This does not mean one cancels the other, only that the centrifugal force =the centripetal force, both forces remain active Think of a pitcher throwing a baseball, the arm represents gravity, the radius of the arm swinging the angular momentum. Remove the arm(gravity) the ball flies in a straight Line path.

He also excelled at mathematics, it was his mathematics that was listened to not his verbatim. In order for any model to make predictions, it requires mathematics.

Seems pretty clear to me. An outside observer measuring any interactions occurring will see the time delay. However if you are in the same reference frame as the particles in your arm you will not notice any time dilation. In other words the only way to have a time delay is if your brain is in a different reference frame than your arm. From the reference frame of other particles in your arm, they are all in the same reference frame (they will not notice a time delay). Relativity depends on the reference frame of the observer. You didn't specify

Right one particle has to escape, keep in mind in order for Hawking radiation to work in terms of mass loss the blackbody temperature of the universe must be less than the blackbody temperature of the BH. If it's higher then the BH absorbs the surrounding temperature. One key note on Hawking radiation, is it works via the particles frequency, the particle that escapes gains the frequency (flux,energy)of the infalling particle. [latex]\lambda_{H}=8\pi^2R_H[/latex] BH has thermal radiation [latex]T=\frac{h}{2\pi}k[/latex] [latex]k=\frac{1}{2}f(R_H)=\frac{h}{8\pi M}[/latex] The familiar form being [latex]T_H=\frac{hc^3}{8\pi GMk_b}[/latex] As you can see from this the loss of mass isn't due to the anti particle as per se but due to that particle having a lower wavelength(energy) from the blackbody vacuum outside the BH, as opposed to the vacuum inside the BH. (Though there are other effects due to the entanglement, and anti particle,particle interactions inside the BH

Assuming you can maintain integrity, all particle interactions and corresponding force medications will experience the same time delay from an outside observers reference frame. However from the same reference frame as particles themselves there is no time delay

The similarities is closer to Parker and Unruh radiation. Which is similar enough to the instaton. Or quasi particles as opposed to the SM particles. virtual particles can be particle like. However in the case of Hawking radiation as its thermodynamic, it's virtual photons