Mordred

Crackpot Ville has a decent population. Don't imagine it's too peaceful though lol It's amazing though we can identify which quarks exist in which particles. We can determine their individual mass enough to know they all have different mass. Yet people still want to believe they don't exist. Especially since the first quarks was discovered in 1964. I Should note quarks is the only elementary particles that are influenced by all 4 forces

Ok Here is something to note. There is a difference between a particles total energy and its rest energy. Total energy is the particles energy at rest. While in motion however the particle has kinetic energy. In particle accelerators the proton is given kinetic energy of a sufficient amount to create the proton and anti proton. The notation [latex]e=m_oc^2[/latex] is the particles rest mass or more accurately its inertial mass. However the particle can also gain kinetic energy.

To to what ACG52 is saying there are particles that are not influenced by the electromagnetic field. No matter how strong that field is. The particle ignores it. Neutrino is one example. However that particle is influenced by gravity. Some particles have no strong force interaction. Others do see wiki on the electron (interactions) Not all particles behave the same way. They have different forces they interact with. Some interact with only 3 of the 4 forces. Dark matter is even worse its only known (confirmed) interaction is gravity http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(physics_and_chemistry) Degrees of freedom is a bit trickier to explain. A large determinant is the particles spin see link above

Thanks for the compliment.

As Strange stated models that are shown to be more accurate than older models do replace the older models all the time. However no model is ever replaced by one that can't supply the mathematics. Ps I asked those questions for a very specific reason. The reason being was I wanted to see how you would answer the question. As it is after all your model. You can't supply the math and quite frankly this thread has been more argument than info. I know you have some familiarity with the mainstream. Certainly enough to know that one of the most common newbie questions is basically what is energy made of or what is the essence of energy. Be grateful. I can think of several forums where this thread would be instantly locked. (they only allow peer reviewed models only) I happen to be a member on them as well. If you think you have a tough audience here you haven't seen anything. now the point of my questions is that there is no way to measure energy directly. This is specifically why science teaches it is never a standalone measurable item. It can only be measured indirectly through its influences. Including gravity.

I'm working from my phone atm but the links I posted throughout this thread already have the metrics your requesting. If you like look on my signature cosmology101. Read particle physics of the Early universe. Also there is a free textbook by Liddle. If you specifically want inflation then you need the vacuum equation of state. Here is why. Particle physics tests on Earth show us that above temp 246 Gev all known particles reach thermal equilibrium. If you apply the ideal gas laws to our observable universe and reverse time. The temperature will easily exceed this value. At this point the equation of state for vacuum becomes important. The different models of inflation also uses this formula but derive modifications to it. As far as the NASA article they state energy like ie via virtual particle production like the inflation. You need to look deeper than multimedia style articles regardless of source. Too often they are written for those with zero knowledge so they keep them as simplified as possible. Often to the point of being inaccurate. As stated The metrics are in the links I posted. However they are also in the textbook I mentioned. Any cosmology model must include thermodynamics. They can't be based just on distance measures. The FLRW metrics and the Einstein field equations include the ideal gas laws. As far as your BH scenario. We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite. We know our observable universe started at a point. But we have zero data on anything outside our observable universe. As such we may never know if the universe is finite or infinite. So how can we say we started at a point? We can only show the observable portion did. We cannot say the rest did. There was one paper that calculated our current curvature. Our universe isn't perfectly flat. Just extremely close to it. If you stopped expsansion right now and using that slight curvature then assumed a finite universe the universe would take 880 billion years to circumnavigate. Now squeeze that volume into a single point. How hot do you get to and how dense. You would easily get into the Tev temperature range. Keep in mind these statements can all be mathematically shown in the materials I listed. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ Here is the FLRW metric in different dimensions ,2d 3d and 4d for flat positive and negative curvature. I wrote this article. References are listed. Here is page 1 the first link is page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Oops it was another thread I had posted the articles in. Anyways this article covers everything I stated above. http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf Should be noted if you work at it you can do neat stuff like calculate the number of photons at a specific temperature such as say the CMB or the number of neutrinos etc See the chapters covering Bose-Einstien and Fermi-Dirac distributions

I'm well aware of that formula and how they measure a particle. That's not my question. The title of your thread and statements of intrinsic energy and essence of energy. Implies energy existing on its own with no particle. Assuming no particle how would you measure energy?. Remember your the one pushing it as being unique and distinquishable. If that is the case you need to be able to measure it directly. So I ask you again How? When we have no means of ditinquishing it directly without measuring its influence on particles etc? Remember everything we know about the forces or energy is a measure of influences. Also remember your after the "essence of energy" how would you identify it? Ie strong or electromagnetic or weak? Again without an indirect influence measurement. Get the idea why science states energy is a measured property of particles? Or a system such as a mechanical system Or for that matter a gravitational system

You have the definitions wrong. Isotropic means no preferred direction. Homogeneous means one location is the same as another or no preffered location. A preferred location is inhomogeneous a preferred direction is anisotropic. The CMB map you posted I can't see completely so I assume your referring to the South pole temp. One must keep in mind the Planck data was questioned on a calibration error . Secondly homogeneous is a scale dependant setting. At a sufficiently large enough of a scale roughly 120 Mpc the scale for homogeneaty is set. Obviously at smaller scales the stars galaxies do not appear homogeneous. The dark flow hypothesis was never found conclusive. Both Bicep2 and the last Planck data found a strong agreement with the cosmological principle and subsequently the FLRW metrics of LCDM. The FLRW metric can only work with a homogeneous and isotropic system. If you follow all the recent papers on arxiv. They still apply the FLRW metric. The only time they don't is usually in argument with LCDM. Forgot to mention the temp differents between the blue and red regions is far less than 1 degree celcius. I can't recall the exact figure. The Planck papers cover it though and they can still be dowoaded Forgot to mention the temp differents between the blue and red regions is far less than 1 degree celcius. I can't recall the exact figure. The Planck papers cover it though and they can still be downloaded

Ah yeah right he did specify stable

For that matter the neutron is heavier than the proton

The definition is decent on inertia. However not all particles is a form of matter. Only fermions form matter. Bosons do not you can have an infinite number of bosons occupy the same space. Only one fermion can occupy the same volume How would you measure intrinsic energy without measuring its influence on a particle? Ever thought of changing intrinsic energy to potential energy?

Join the club lol You still have not shown how to derive observer potential

Fairly close without going into too much detail. There is a ton on the subject on WWW. Including some protection methods though vs nuclear insufficient

Pick up differential geometry A good text on QM is Griffiths "Introductory in Quantum Mechanics" However a strong math skill is needed in QM along with the other recommendations

Correct though not it's set intention it also applies to other objects beyond the Hubbles sphere As side note I was one of the authors proof readers for his his dissertation his knowledge and skills are far beyond me now. His current research includes the CMB in regards to inflation They can be found on arxiv.org So if anyone has comments or recommendations on the article I can contact the author Keep in mind there is a difference between Hubbles sphere and the cosmological event horizon. Hubbles sphere is the age of the universe * c The older FLRW metrics thought light could not reach us beyond the Hubbles sphere. Some older textbooks on the market today still apply those related metrics. If the metrics does not include the cosmological constant it is out of date. We can see objects beyond the Hubbles sphere for the reasons covered in that article which targets the common forum misconceptions regarding expansion. The author is a member on another forum which is where I met him. He wrote the article based on the common forum misconceptions

Here is one article you will find handy on the Highs as well as the standard and supersymmetric model. This paper specifically covers the SO(10) model. However it is basically the standard model + the Highs sector. To truly learn particle physics though you need to get a good textbook. Probably the best I have come across for the novice is Griffiths Introductory to Cosmology. Keep in mind you will also need QM,QCD and QED. The quarks sector is covered in QCD. QED deals with the electroweak sector. Griffith has a book covering each of these however stops prior to the Highs itself so he doesn't cover the SO(10) itself. Spin is angular momentum but not to be confused with a spinning top think of it this way all particle physics interactions are essentially strength and geometry. The majority of the formulas are geometric in nature. A good text on differential geometry is crucial. "Roads to Reality by Sir Roger Penrose greatly simplifies the complex http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83765-higgs-field-thermodynamic-research-cmb-and-now/#entry811661%22%5Dhttp://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83765-higgs-field-thermodynamic-research-cmb-and-now/%23entry811661 Need to turn off auto correct or add Higgs to my dictionary lol How particles decay must follow specific rules Conservation of Lepton Conservation of flavor Conservation of spin Conservation of color Conservation of isospin These form the basis of the Eightfold wayen the meson nonet and the Lepton octect or nonet Your model must conform to those rules http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84470-2nd3rd-generation-atoms/#entry817008 This thread has a brief descriptive set of wiki links as well as a brief descriptive of particle generation You can find some good articles on this page of my website in signature this will take you to the page under development http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/articles

You really have no clue do you. Spacetime curvature is a distibution curve. What is it distributing? It is distributing energy mass. In other words it is exactly the same as a pressure distribution. If you thought about the term stress energy tenser and understood differential geometry you would realize that. A higher energy density per volume is the exact same as a higher pressure. With the correct equation of state applied. Pressure exerts force. Your whole argument is meaningless. As spacetime cuvature is a pressure/energy density distribution. Just like inertia is resistance to momentum. Inertia is a measure of mass mass ie inertial mass is a property whose only influence is solely inertia. It is a resistance to changes in momentum energy is a property of particles it does NOT have its own unique and distinquishable property or essence. You sit here and preach to us your model ideas but have spent 40 years of being told "Do the math" and you never bothered. you don't even fully understand the terminology as the terminology reflects the mathematics. Learn to listen learn to learn but stop preaching to those that have done the work to learn the terminology and mathematics. The worse insult is that you wrote a book on your ideas which will only cause trouble for any student who buys your book. I provided the mainstream formulas and provided a peer reviewed professional article in support of my statement. I will listen to those professionals over your misguided opinion. Especially due to the fact you have zero msthematical support As far as the article goes I found it better written that Walds General Relativity but for the new student I recommend Principles of General Relativity by Bapowell who sticks strictly to Minkowskii. He also has years of experience answering forum posts. On a different forum. As far as the self centered comment I only listen to those that "Does the math" Am I happy with the current mathematics and terminology? Absolutely. The metrics make extremely accurate predictions when used in the right applications. Newtons force laws work in most peoples everyday existance. All metrics are good approximations at best. Including GR

The LCDM model says nothing about energy existing on its own. Study the FLRW metrics its basically GR and the ideal gas laws. All forms of energy interactd via particles including inflation the particle is the inflaton. the cosmological constant doesn't have a particle assigned yet so the consensus is via virtual particle production. Never in any peer reviewed model is energy on its own. The reason I asked for metrics on how inflation can come to a stop then start again is that no inflation model has that specific a characteristic. Inflation in most models comes slowly to a smaller rate. Our current expansion may or may not be inflation still progressing. With 70+ models on inflation there can easily be tons I'm not fully up on. However none I am aware of stop then start I stated this in another thread a model without the math isn't a model its only an idea or conjecture.

Yes I read that paper its called the 5d planck star if you search my posts I posted it once. Its at 5d star that explodes in a 4d fashion. That was to deal with the cosmological principle. If you want to use that idea you will need to work the math of ADS/CFT corrrespondance into your model. A model without the math isn't a model its a conjecture. If you want I have a few handy guides to learn ADS/CFT but I also recommend buying Roads to Reality by Sir Roger Penrose as the term dimensions itself is misleading.

Its excellent work so far but... I have to nention the top quark model has been ruled out when they discovered and confirmed the Higgs boson. They even have enough data now to narrow down the mass of the various quarks. Enough to show that they have different mass. Using that data they have made progress in showing precisely how the neutron and proton has the mass it does. Including the influence of the strong and electroweak force affects the mass. However the work above is still excellent work within the premise of the model itself Here is the paper on the work on neutron and proton mass. The paper includes the quarks. If if search the reference papers you can get the specific research papers on the quarks http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4088 I wasn't studying particle physics prior to the Higgs discovery however If my memory serves correctly my impression of the top quark model from forum duscussions was a strong model

You still don't seem to understand the cosmological principle. Confirmed measurements show us that the big bang is not the result of an explosion. An explosion has a preferred direction and origin. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred direction or location. Next point is nothing and that means nothing not even information can travel faster than c. So nothing not even Hawking radiation escapes a BH. Hawking radiation occurs outside the EH not inside the EH. The negative particle falls into the BH the positive particle escapes. All of this has been mentioned in the other thread

All forms of energy or energy density regardless of type or source in sufficient amounts can exert gravity. That is according to the Einstien field equations. I have zero interest in your personal model. I will continue to use GR and when its still accurate to a good approximation such as Euclidean non relativistic Newtonian.

Yes an EMP can fry electronics. The page you linked includes different sources of EMP including man made. EMP causes induced voltages see induction. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction for example a lightning bolt can fry nearby electronics even if it doesn't hit them through electromagnetic induction

Actually according to GR light or enough photons can in fact generate gravity. Even gravity waves can generate gravity. This is because GR ties energy-density and momentum to gravity unlike Newtonian gravity which is due to mass. [latex]e=\sqrt{p^2c^2+(m_oc^2)^2}[/latex] Set [latex]m_o=0[/latex] Momentum [latex]p=\frac{h\lambda}{c}[/latex] This ties into the stress energy momentum tensor of the Einstein field equations This lengthy textbook covers the above he includes a section on cosmology applications of GR http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "lecture notes on General Relativity" by Mathius Blau. Extremely good book especially since its free. 900+ pages

You might find this paper interesting. Calculations of the mass of neutron and proton. Its rather detailed I'm still studying it myself http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4088