Mordred

Lol what if you don't know the value of g then what? How would you calculate the force of g of say a planet with unknown mass?

Fine prove your model with the mathematics. According to the forum rules

Your post in 89 is a two body problem. You really need to learn math Here is the steps http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.math.ksu.edu%2F~dbski%2Fwritings%2Fplanetary.pdf&rct=j&q=keplers%20laws%20pdf&ei=ikCuVP2LMo3_yQSEo4G4Cw&usg=AFQjCNERKXhUjcq8DIiKhxLobebgqftHtw&sig2=JHBfI2EpZAe8PolcTP6sAA&bvm=bv.83134100,d.aWw Your 89 post regarding your test of the force of gravity at the center of mass can be calculated using the method of that link

If I didn't understand physics how would I know what factors apply to your theory to post those articles in the first place. They do relate to your model. Considering the variety of questions you posted throughout this thread. Yes that is what that equation is used for Google universal law of gravity for details http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

Went and re-read your 89 post. You included the center of mass component in your beginning descriptive. However the wormhole aspect needs some thought. In answer to the rate that gravity decreases [latex] f=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/latex] And please don't be insulting I am spending considerable time trying to help you

The shell theorem and the center of mass. I saw that problem in post 89. It's correctable via your second to last post

If you read peer reviewed papers model proposals are always compared to the pre existing models. After all the purpose of a model is to improve our understanding. If it doesn't improve our understanding then it's no good.

You might want to look up shell theorem with regards to your model http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem I didn't say my model prevents yours from working. I was able to disprove my model idea. You will need to try to do the same to yours. Model development. Premise of the model. Mathematical proof of the model Testing and supportive evidence of a model Disproving a model. A model only lasts if it cannot be proven wrong. So you need to examine how it may be proven wrong and figure out how to correct it.

I do get it. Does that mean you stop there and not learn how to show that to others with the tools of mathematics? After all you want to improve your model and ideas. Lets take an example. For several years I tried to replace the cosmological constant using thermodynamics basically a high density region will naturally spread out to a lower density by increasing its volume. Sounds perfectly plausible. We see this in our everyday experiences. Good example is a sail or how temperature spreads out. If I had stopped there I would have never learned that this doesn't work for the cosmological constant. It's not homogeneous and isotropic nor can it be constant. So I tried other methods and metrics to make it work. Including ADS/CFT. Never did succeed. So I know that idea cannot work. The problem your going to have with this is Keplers laws do work. Let's explain we have the sun and the Earth. Each has its own gravitational field. In Keplers laws the two bodies orbit the center of mass. Luckily the Sun is far more massive than the Earth so the center of mass is the sun. In other system such as two similar suns this isn't the case both suns orbit the center of mass.

Keep in mind GR is a coordinate metric. Look at the Minkowskii metrics to understand it. The SR book I linked has the appropriate metrics to explain that image

The tools are to be used and read by you. After all you need to become the programmer recall one of my earlier posts on model development? That model is an accurate 3d coordinate map of GR.

Lol no one's perfect. I've been looking for simple lie algebra covering the symmetry groups. I never could latex the matrix particularly from a phone with auto correct that doesn't recognize science terms. Grr

If you think about it I supplied you the tools to develop your model. Aka all those links and references. Lol

Here is one of the better GUT articles. Of key note Is the running of the gauge constants. (Strength of each force). As you raise the temperature the 3 forces reach a state of thermal equilibrium. Forming the electroweak force. At 246 Gev the universe reaches the VeV. The coupling occurs prior to this I can't recall what FeB offhand. If I recall roughly 168 GeV. Now the Higgs denotes the vacuum expectation value. However if you continue raising the temperature the seesaw mechanism kicks in roughly 10^16 GeV. Coincidentally this is close to the temperature when inflation occurs. This mechanism is also involved in giving the quarks and leptons mass. Just a quick and dirty GUT explanation. Think of it this way define space time foam? Is this a form of aether? If that's the case there was a recent thread showing the problem with an aether. Lol coincidentally he also had foam in his descriptive. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81656-the-universe-is-a-continuum-of-matter/ By the way I never get offended. I enjoy helping others learn. However I teach what's in the textbooks. New ideas are great but one needs to learn what those models teach correctly before developing new models. How else can you test your model if you don't compare them to the existing?

Opinions are always relative lol. Those conservation rules are important to consider when involving gluon interactions. As well as quark interactions.

If the contributors causing expansion and the contributors causing gravity was equal and opposite precisely there would be no expansion. The universe would be static. It's not. Neither is there just one contributor to expansion. As Strange already mentioned.

No prob I just found this handy reference in lie algebra. I just glanced at it looks handy. Note the lorentz group page 26. http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0005032 The O(3.1) is part of this group as. 3*3 matrix with 1 positive rotation.

The book recommends grade 12 calculus. It deals with the SO(5) model and teaches how to read the feyman diagrams as well as lie algrebra basics It's the first book I studied on particle physics.

There is also different conservation rules involved. Conservation of Lepton number Conservation of charge Conservation of flavor Conservation of isospin Conservation of color Conservation of momentum Conservation of energy What you posted wasn't a new model it's an understanding of the current one with misconceptions. Key one being space as a fabric (latex)

The mechanism are in the lie algebra reprentations. To describe it all would be an entire course. Here is a good lie algrebra text http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphyweb.lbl.gov%2F~rncahn%2Fwww%2Fliealgebras%2Ftexall.pdf&rct=j&q=lie%20algebra%20representation&ei=bPCtVLiENdO2yATNzoLwBw&usg=AFQjCNHBYxv20i8oJmr5yNIKSgVwAANYgw&sig2=RmH0KMhZEUythhh0ECYp7g&bvm=bv.83134100,d.aWw

In a sense yes. You have to be careful in that statement. It would be accurate to say different classes of particles have different rules due to their interactions. Not all particles interact with the strong force, bosons specifically have limited interactions compared to fermions. It would be good to look at the interactions of each boson. Then lookup what properties define a particle. This will help with understanding their unique differences. Then consider the difference between inertial mass and rest mass. I'll post a GUT article for you. However without understanding the lie algebra involved in the different groups much of it won't make sense. The best beginner textbook is Griffiths "Introductory to particle physics" that I've studied taught me a ton. I mentioned before geometry is used in particle physics the O(3.1) group is an example. That is mentioned in the Sean Carroll General relativity article I posted on this thread If you want to prove your theory you mentioned your going to need considerable study. Including particle physics and calculus and differential geometry. The lie algebra uses differtial geometry in its symmetry groups. http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0295 Here is a quantum geometrodynamic article.

It's easy to think the strong force and gravity go hand in hand. After all the mass of particles other than neutrinos and leptons is due to the strong force. Mass being a resistance to inertia. However once you start looking into GUT theories although we can predict the properties of the graviton we have never been able to produce or measure the graviton. Hence the debate is gravity a force which requires a boson. Or is gravity a property of space time geometry. Hence the name of the field quantum geometrodynamics.

When we say the universe expansion is accelerating it is the entire observable universe. However as mentioned the rate of expansion per Mpc is the same everywhere. It is the recessive velocity that is accelerating. This value depends on seperation distance. I posted how that works earlier in this thread. Now thermodynamics is specifically at a moment in time. To determine a specific thermodynamic state one must measure samples from the same moment in time.

If you can then yes. Good luck on that though.

Well there have been numerous attempts to unify the four forces. We can for every force except gravity. The three unified forces is the electroweak force.