Mordred

Lol I was just about to post Brian's article ya beat me to it. Thanks for the full paper

Yeah true enough

The two virtual particles are entangled, this is the aspect of the process that led to the quantum information paradox The virtual particle that escapes becomes a real particle

We're discussing Hawking radiation which uses entanglement. You can see its debate in the no hair theorem under the Hawking radiation section on this link http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox Here it's also noted under firewall http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics)

Come on I'm not the one defending one Newton equation. You are. I already pointed out Newton vs Einstein. Give us a break You need to study your ideas and math correlations thus far in this thread proves your lack. Learn or be misguided, matters not to me. I took considerable time and effort to show you basic errors. So have others. welcome to pink unicorns due to your stubborn misconceptions. I'm done By the way I am acreddited with a physics degree. I choose not to announce which (right of privacy, I respect other posters their rights)

Sounds good PM me or forum I will help best I can (PS I oil paint lol)

Kk, fair enough. However you need to study the relations of each force seperately. For example there is one unique property of gravity compared to the electroweak that I will let you research to discover. It is one of the fundamental reasons why we cannot develop a TUV as opposed to a GUV

I've watched your approaches to science. Pick up some textbooks. Enough said. Impress me show me some peer reviews and mathematics coupled with observations. Then I will listen

Your understanding

You are describing mathematic tools with no correlations. In all honesty its meaningless.

Time is simply a measurable rate of change or duration of change. The hot big bang only covers a beginning from a hot dense state at 10 ^-43 sec forward.

Tnruthfully how can anyone answer this without, with emphical data? We can speculate till the cows turn blue. Plenty of ppl studied relativity. What does personal reactions to being torn apart have to do with it?

Yeesh of course inertia is fundamentally movement the two terms are synonymous. Come on your experienced in physics, learn the fundamentals. Inertia means movement doh. In all honesty pick up a few textbooks, some of your ideas are way misconstrued. It's not that hard, I taught myself you can too

The key point science isn't religion or philosophy, it's what we can quantify and measurements. We describe those observations. When we encounter an observation that counters our previous understanding we develop a new understanding. This is not based on faith. This is based on observation, evidence, and math predictions. If your looking for the meaning of existence, it's to live, learn and experience.

The trick is quantum tunnelling, unfortunately this is still a grey arena. Einstein's spooky action at a distance is still an apt description. Quantum tunnelling afaik is a problematic influence of locality vs global influence. Unfortunately I have no definitive explanation. Best I understand it, a particle pair develops from an energy state, that pair conserves the laws of conservation of energy/momentum. (I loosely treat each entangled particle as one particle, with different localities) and think of the communation between the two as a shared state. That's the gist of my understanding, What happens to one influences the other regardless of locality. ain't science fun lol (PS) the owner of this site is an excellent guide, I met him via another forum. Might help looking through his articles http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm

There is no theory behind basic velocity math USE A CALCULATOR. F= ma every star has a different MASS. If you have a set force they WILL disperse. Forgot to add each star has its own vector

The net result is an average energy density. Where density waves comes into play is where the lighter gas is currently located, this increases the temperature via pv=nET (gas laws) the extra density aids star formation (younger stars) however stars cannot keep up with the gas movement. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Use some bloody mathNot to be offensive but my 15 year old granddaughter can understand this better than you can. Stars move at different rates of velocity

No actually it doesn't not when you perform the relative speeds I posted earlier I repeat yet again f=ma.... A collection of stars moving in the disk at 220 Km/s and a range of stars moving + or - 50 km/s of that range will spread out. Come on mate use some common sense a high school student can understand that. The last article shows stars with vectoral velocities to the galactic center, away from , perpendicular and parallel to the disk. Look closely at what u,v,w represents in that article. What we are telling you is not that hard to understand. You already agreed spiral arms are not rigid bodies. If you have different velocities a cannot keep up with b The scale is km per second how many seconds are there in a billion years? That is why average mass density is important. No one can calculate the influence of every star/ particle. Not even all the computers on this planet. That is where good approximation and the ideal gas laws comes into play. They greatly simplify highly complex interactions into averages. However in terms of momentum on a plane. Let's use easy numbers. Each velocity= a group number doesn't matter. Just the angular momentum. Group a=1 km/s Group b=2 km/s Etc etc etc. Group z=26 km/s If you continue rotations group z will eventually complete a full rotation and pass group a. This is basic math. Anytime you have a set quantity of force, with varying mass the lighter objects will move at a higher velocity than the heavier objects, add enough rotations and you will get overlaps.

Looking for recommended articles covering how the Pati-Salam integrates into the SO(10) model. In particular covering the orthogonal group integration. I've found numerous articles on each seperately but would like to study the integration. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pati%E2%80%93Salam_model http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SO(10)_(physics) The second link has it in a subgroup Most likely the details I'm looking for is articles giving a better understanding on the Pati-Salam left and right hand symmetry Just a side note if anyone knows of any good papers on Pati-Salam with regards to diquarks (if any, please add that as well) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diquark I've never come across any papers correlations of SO(10) in regards to diquarks so would like to do some research into that aspect (Peer reviewed material or dissertations only please) I know tall request but might get lucky lol

Well maybe this new discovery will be convincing... key words halo stars outer halo stars and globular clusters. http://www.gemini.edu/node/12337 Edit forgot to add the professional paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03952

That is incorrect Google red dwarf stars which make up over 2/3 the stars in our galaxy, they are extremely difficult to detect but not impossible via infra red detection. There is numerous classifications of stars that have varying levels of difficulty in detection. Not all stars are as bright as our sun. Some of them require detection using different wavelengths of light outside the visible spectrum due to redshift. It's also why several of the articles posted this thread show different measurements in different light spectrums. Face it you need to study the material provided instead of thinking your right. The reason why you don't see models that state there are no stars outside the spiral arms is that any observatory in the world can clearly see this would be false. You and only you claim otherwise. The amazing post is my last article I posted clearly states otherwise and it is based on a 5 year study measuring of 16000 stars. That paper was only a small sample of its database. However even then some of the light from some stars is so badly redshifted , you can only detect them via indirect measurements. Ie the orbit patterns of other stars. You also completely ignored the different speed aspects I posted. Which tells you the stars do not travel at the exact same rate and will seperate. Finally

Using a new technique scientists managed to photograph wave particle duality. http://actu.epfl.ch/news/the-first-ever-photograph-of-light-as-both-a-parti/ If anyone comes across the arxiv article for this I would enjoy studying it.

Here Is a handy site with three online textbooks including QM http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

Well I know everyone here was involved in the "what is space thread where I explained dove curvature, so I'll just repost the thread link. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87620-what-is-in-space/page-2#entry854913

Actually the curved space aspect is easy to understand once you recognize its a description of energy/mass density relations. Treat it as an ideal gas. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ As far as what keeps Lambda constant is the mystery.