Mordred

here is one immediate problem a static universe is a closed universe, Also our observable universe is larger than the Hubble radius. Einsteins static universe is only possible with a positive [latex]\Lambda[/latex] and positive curvature k=1 the value for [Latex]\Lambda[/Latex] in his model is [Latex]4\pi G \rho[/Latex] please note G is used here, however the static universe is unstable. This is already well known so no one will ask why the universe is expanding when the universe is static as the two are incompatible by definition a static universe is a closed curved universe, this is not our universe. Our universe is flat and may or may not be closed. http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr422/lecture12.pdf the critical density formula is a perfectly flat universe. which is defined with [Latex]|\Lambda=0[/Latex] which coresponds to an average energy density of 1.88h^2*10-29 g/cm^3 [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] "The critical density is the boundary value between universe models that expand forever (open models) and those that recollapse (closed models)" I have no idea where you get this q-1 term this isn't used in the FLRW metric at all http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ page 2 of previous link http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf our universe is k=0 or extremely close to it so if your q=-1 is suppose to be k=-1 then your talking about our universe

click more options bottom right then click attach files, then choose files max file size 1.95 MB

nah the universe doesn't care how we perceive or describe it, we simply have to accept and improve on our limitations in doing so. Understanding something so complex takes time and development (if we had all the answers science wouldn't be nearly as much fun lol)

that pretty much sums it up, lol how do you have a coordinate system with zero coordinates ? your describing 4d nothing lol yay we just invented 0d spacetime roflmao j/k on that one however as a photon is a particle and a wave, can it exist on 0d space, a wave requires time? like I said meaningless, any method to try to describe it becomes nonsensical

I wouldn't say impossible, I prefer to think of it as meaningless. keep in mind relativity is observer dependent. We might come up with a different way to explain observational influences that provide a solution. In some abstract ways its akin to the singularity problem of the BB and BH's. describing the photon as being point like with no wave, with the universe contracted to a point like state due to contraction, or the photon being everywhere at once or having no time , are all meaningless statements. As meaningless as the metrics of the BB and BH singularity. I don't have the paper anymore but there was a mathematical model of FTL that worked, with the assumption that everything moves at FTL. Then instead of contraction you had Lorentz expansion, and reverse time. Worked within the context of GR and SR though that metric also stated V=c still had the same problems. Its been a few years and I never heard anything further on the paper so it may have been squashed

your decimal places are still wrong 4.768^10^-12 = 000000000004768 4.768*10^12 =4768000000000 where ever your decimal point is move it 12 spots to the left for -e for positive exponent move over 12 spots to the right 1.0*10^1=10 take 1.0 move decimal 1 spot to right (1.0*101 =1.0*10=10) 1.0*10^-1=0.1 take 1.0 move decimal 1 spot left (1.0*10-1 =1.0/10 =0.1) 1.0*10^2=100 take 1.0 move decimal 2 spots right 1.0*10^2 =1.0*(10*10) 1.0*10^-2=0.01 take 1.0 move decimal 2 spots left 1.0*10-2 =1.0/(10*10) calculate the bracket first 1.0/100 =0.01 4.999*10^10 take 4.999 move decimal 10 spots right 4999000000.0 4.999*10^-10 take 4.999 move decimal 10 spots left. 0.0000000004999 this rule works only if your multiplying a number by 10x or 10-x so take 4.999 *10^2 = 49.99 4.999 *10^-2 =0.04999 now do it the opposite way write 4999 in scientific notation count the number of decimal spots till you have 4.999 (when your coverting in this direction count in the opposite direction) 4999=4999.0 =4.999*10^3 count left x spots then write a positive x write 0.000000499 in scientific notation 4.99*10^-7 count right x spots then write the -x value let x=5 4.999*10x replace x with 5 so now you have 4.999*105 =499900.0

lol true enough

were not in the same frame of reference as the non existent frame of reference of the photon. we measure the photon according to our frame of reference. "In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) may refer to a coordinate system used to represent and measure properties of objects, such as their position and orientation, at different moments of time" if there is no time then there is no frame of reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference spacetime In physics, spacetime (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum if there is no time then there is no spacetime as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime GR and SR are based on geometric descriptions you cannot separate them to make a definition outside of those metrics

A measurement is not possible in the reference frame (rest frame) of a photon because there is no such frame. That's all there is to it. You can't make a measurement (or do anything else) in a reference frame that doesn't exist. In the Lorentz transformations it is an invalid frame. for this reason already posted "The Lorentz transform cannot be applied in this case because you end up dividing by zero"=infinities=meaningless in terms of defining it according to physics. the rules is the same for all observers is correct. the photon rest frame does not exist and it is a valid observer frame. 3 is not possible for the same reasons and the reasons everyone else has already mentioned. same goes for 4 and 5 6 is completely wrong the photon exists in everyone's frame of reference and its momentum is invariant at c. the photon does not have a frame. the rule of GR and SR is that the speed of light is invariant (always equals c in all frames of reference) the rest frame of the photon does not exist, and therefore there is no frame of reference for the photon. a speed of 0 is a violation of the invariant rule for the speed of light

I'm sure I'm not reading what you mean correctly considering that AJB is an assistant professor at the Institute of Mathematics of the Polish Acadamy of Sciences at Warsaw. As I seriously doubt my interpretation of this post so I'd say he has definitely studied the number system. Can you explain in more clarity what your meaning is?

the Kalman filter could be used as a filtration method, I can certainly see no reason why you couldn't use it, the only problem I can think of is it may filter out the noise you want to read but that can be managed with the right algorithms. The problem with filtration methods however is they typically slow down reading to recording rates. This may cause some problems in time for signal processing. Unfortunately detecting gravity waves is a tricky subject to develop specifications to practicum. In terms in what frequencies would constitute a gravity wave for example. On that subject I would have no idea, I would assume that once a signal is identified it is then filtered, which seems the most reasonable approach. on that end you may find this article handy http://www.gravity.uwa.edu.au/docs/review.pdf

no it simply means I typed position without thinking about it and didn't realize it, wife was yacking at me at the time. (if your married you can understand how distracting that can be lol)

http://www2.cose.isu.edu/~hackmart/planck%27s.PDF this one isn't particularly home experiment http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0102 http://backreaction.blogspot.ca/2012/05/testing-variations-of-plancks-constant.html this video will be helpful, particularly in examples of how to do the calculations (he shows a nice easy method of doing the exponent calculations, that will greatly simplify your calculator problems) http://www.brightstorm.com/science/chemistry/the-atom/plancks-constant/ this video series will help on the exponent rules https://www.khanacademy.org/math/pre-algebra/exponents-radicals/exponent-properties/v/exponent-rules-part-1

anyone can make an honest mistake. No matter how much they know. One shouldn't imply an honest mistake with knowledge or ability. If I thought my first answer was correct I would have provided an answer showing an example, instead of admitting the error.

oops yeah your right my bad lol, was distracted when I typed that

um no the answer is accurate, e use in mathematics is exponent, but it is also used to mean energy or Eueler number or the charge of an electron. The answer I provided is accurate. To this statement c in physics by convention usually means the speed of light h is the planck constant conventional constants are ones that are used so frequently that everyone accepts their meaning in the majority of models. However there is nothing preventing a model from using c to represent a missing value with another meaning here is a list of some of the conventional ones http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/funcon.html however as I mentioned there are examples where fundamental constants are used in a different context such as "e"

the use of symbols can change depending on their context of use, there isn't enough letters in the alphabet for every formula to maintain unique symbols for variables and constants. So you will find that e can have many meanings depending on the models being examined. There is some conventional symbols but there is always exceptions. for example p=pressure p=position is one example of multiple uses for p symbols are defined according to the model itself, however with all the various models the same symbol can be used in a different context and is defined differently according to that model.

the main difference between the generations of elementary particles is their mass, particles are identified by the flavour, quantum number, and mass. However between generations their interactions are identical. there is two leptons and 2 quarks in each generation. each member if a higher generations has a greater mass than its corresponding particle of the previous generation. the above information can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_%28particle_physics%29 the lightest generation is the most stable of the particles any higher generation decays into the lower generation http://sciencepark.etacude.com/particle/classification.php the 6 flavors corresponds to 3 generations, quarks and antiquarks have charges of 1/3 down quark and 2/3 upquark where the leptons are 1 and 0. how the flavours interact is determined by the conservation of flavour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavour_%28particle_physics%29 here is the various conservation laws involved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_conservation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_%28particle_physics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_isospin those are the ones I recall being involved I may have missed some though lol for example Conservation of color "All three colors mixed together, or any one of these colors and its complement (or negative), is "colorless" or "white". This is how the color charge on particles behaves. A combination of three particles, one with red charge, another with green charge, and another blue charge, has a net color charge of zero ("colorless"): David Griffiths "Introductory to particle physics" has an excellent coverage but its been a bit since I last read it so may have missed some details. (doesn't require as high a level of previous knowledge as some other particle physics books I've read)

this is what I'm talking about which your section 5 does not cover. baryon octect, color octect, meson octect, gluon octect. where is your lie algebra showing how the 4 forces relate to particle physics and how those particles would decay and interact, for the full standard model of particles, GUT theories include these aspects, as well as the vacuum expection value. Where does the Higg's field fit in? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_model http://proj.ncku.edu.tw/research/articles/e/20080523/images/080408014859tzxABW.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_%28physics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangeness http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meson-octet.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon for the color octect. the strong force is the color force. flavordynamics covers the weak interactions so your GUT model should explain these interactions in terms of the lie algebra SU(3)*SU(2)*O(1) is your model the MSSM symmery group? or the SO(10) symmetry group? you don't show any correlation to which form of symmetry is involved. GUT models focus on the symmetry groups and how they ineract and combine at high enough temperatures, you don't show any of these references. here is an SO(10) example http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0508153 does your blog show anything close to this level of attention to detail? I think not. considering this article is 221 pages long the others have also already mentioned the lack of experimental evidence support however I will also add you must be able to compare your model with the current models and show how it works better, Can it answer all the questions that they do? does it do a better job etc. (for that you will need experimental evidence) for example at what temperature do the 4 forces unify? in what order and temperature ? all you've done is correlate electromagnetic charges, but this does not cover the above interactions, color charge is not the same as electromagnetic charge, it has different rules of interactions.

you also don't cover chromodynamics of quark interactions, nor the color rules, nor do you cover flavordynamics. You will will also need to see if you can explain the baryon octect and meson nonet rules

agreed on the speculative aspects till further research is done

a is the length of the semi major axis (orbital radius). you need to calculate for "a" depending on the orbital period. (orbital period is the time it takes for an orbiting body to complete of full orbit. the error is the accuracy of the model method. this has no relation with the rest of your post. a better formula relating orbital period, (time) semi major axis and bodies gravity is covered here. (due to the extreme difference in the suns mass and the Earths mass the center of gravity is the Sun itself in Kepler's laws so the sun is stationary) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_orbit keep in mind orbiting bodies are elliptical which is where it vis-visa equation comes into play (also on that page). here is what the semi-major axis means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-major_axis "In geometry, the major axis of an ellipse is the longest diameter: a line (line segment) that runs through the center and both foci, with ends at the widest points of the shape" for an ellipse you have two axis the semi-major axis and the semi minor axis. a is the semi major axis b is the semi minor axis your not ready for a technicolor article this will only confuse the bugger out of you or in this case M theory (ADS/CFT) correspondance= string theory models stick to the standard model until you understand it before trying to learn the alternatives ( trust me geometry is something you need stronger skills in before you tackle string theory geometry)(don't feel bad though, very few people understand string theory based geometry) "Technicolor theories are models of physics beyond the standard model that address electroweak gauge symmetry breaking, the mechanism through which W and Z bosons acquire masses" key note not standard model for that matter what little I know of it, it confuses the bugger out of me lol the link on the unit names is a good reference to use

gravity and centrifugal force are unrelated, yes you can simulate artificial gravity by centrifugal force but this is NOT gravity. There is no connection between the two. Gravity is caused by mass, not pressure and not by centrifugal acceleration. a 10 solar mass BH will have the same force of gravity regardless if its rotating or not

here is the arxiv article covering the problem, there is not a conclusion as to the cause, only data on the anomaly. The article compares some of the suggested solutions but they don't match well with the data. Also it draws no conclusions other than reporting the anomaly. The data simply isn't strong enough to support any proposed solution http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.2933v1.pdf as far as dark matter goes there is some further possible evidence of its properties that would also add some quantity of light, "Detection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 and "An unidentified line in X-ray spectra of the Andromeda galaxy and Perseus galaxy cluster" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 Next decade of sterile neutrino studies http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 if these turn out to be relevant then it would also effect the IGM to some extent. However (assuming these articles are correct) it may or may not be sufficient to account for the factor of 5 discrepancy mentioned in the first article (the relations of these 3 articles to the first is a personal conjecture, I will probably look into it further to see if their is relevant similarities, just for the fun of it lol) So please do not jump to any connection conclusions lol

I would start with the general physics books first, the Feyman link if you press read has 3 books I would go through them in order, QM I would wait till after in light of your field choices, The particle physics books I would step into prior to the QM subject. David Griffith's particle physics book is extremely well written to understand with a decent math ability and good general physics knowledge. (no QM is needed to understand this book). Electronics generally only requires electromagnetic theory. (Optics can be understood without QM though can also involve QM) Nuclear physics though requires both particle physics and QM, ) there is several separate fields related to particle physics that also require QM those being QED,QCD and QFD, these collectively form the basis for quantum field theory, study relativity before getting into QFT ) the Griffiths book doesn't require these skills for the introductory level, though he will discuss them a bit. differential geometry,and calculus is a strong aspect to understanding any of the above. as well as statistical mechanics, (strong math skills is essential to understanding any physics beyond the basics)