Mordred

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)

this site has a few manuals online reading http://www.feynmanlectures.info/ David Griffith also has a good set of books, https://www.google.com/search?q=David+griggith&gws_rd=ssl#q=David+griffith+books Revolutions in 20th Century physics is excellent. So is his introductory to particle physics and quantum mechanics books. Principles of Modern physics is also good, NEIL ASHBY STANLEY C. MILLER http://books.google.ca/books/about/Principles_of_Modern_Physics.html?id=my4bAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y my signature has numerous Cosmology related articles some of which is textbook style with one free textbook on cosmology and particle physics by Liddle. If there is a particular area of interest in physics let me know I can probably recommend other books or articles, (I have a huge collection of Cosmology related books, including various physics involved)

how would you expect me to have any faith in what you say if you don't understand the math involved by your own admission? When I judge a book on physics I expect the author to at least have a solid understanding of the mathematics involved, even if they don't use the math itself in the books writing. (by the way I never buy a physics book unless it includes the metrics, and I have over 30 in my collection) I've long ago lost count on the number of times I've had to clarify verbal descriptions used by those books. such classic examples includes 1) if space-time warps what is it made from? 2) what inside or outside the universe? consequence of poorly described balloon analogy 3) all the misconceptions involved in the rubber sheet analogy When I buy a physics book I want to be able to take the details in that book and calculate specific models of my own. I want to know exactly how much of an effect an interaction described by a particular model has in terms of the metrics. I also want to know exactly what the relevant formula are and how they are used. Otherwise I'm just reading a good story. Not a book designed to teach physics fine explain to me how the modified Abraham Lorentz Dirac equation works term for term variable per variable. here use the one in this reference http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2203v1.pdf teach me how to use it mathematically, after all you wrote a book on it how do you specifically solve the runaway acceleration problem? I know how others have shown solutions for it what is yours? describe the scaling properties of the self field? what is the evolution equation for ALD? what does it describe and how? what is the conservation of stress energy tenser equation and how does the stress energy tenser decay? if I'm going to buy a book describing an alternate model outside of the concordance definitions, those are the types of questions I would want the answers for and yes I have read articles on ALD

you have also missed the part that shows that interacting particles also exert a force that force is in terms of pressure due to a particles energy and momentum, the critical density formula is derived with those interactions as well as gravity. Here is another article showing the pressure relations and the critical density. In cosmology the FLRW metric uses the equations of state which correlates a particles energy-density to its pressure contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 I mentioned before the Einstein field equations here is a quote from wiki "The Einstein field equations (EFE) or Einstein's equations are a set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity which describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy.[1] First published by Einstein in 1915[2] as a tensor equation, the EFE equate local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress–energy tensor)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations http://www.helsinki.fi/~hkurkisu/cosmology/Cosmo4.pdf equation 4 is the stress energy tenser to energy density and pressure relations, the section from equation 4 to 13 covers how the critical density is derived. this statement describes the curvature "The nature of the curvature then depends on the density" as I stated critical density is k=0, [latex]\rho=\rho_{crit}[/latex] the curvature and cosmological constant is used to define the rate of expansion which is H in the critical density formula [latex]H=\frac{\dot a}{a}[/latex] a is the scale factor. the dot denotes today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_%28cosmology%29 more detail on expansion can be found here http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion Hubble's law as well as its correlations with the above can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

the others covered the BH analogy, I will cover Bernoulli law, which also uses Newtonian gravity and pressure, it does not state pressure creates gravity. "The relevant Forces for Bernoulli’s equation are gravity and pressure" page 6 http://www.cs.cdu.edu.au/homepages/jmitroy/eng247/sect04.pdf by the way this requires a streamline, so it will not work for solids. So it cannot be used to describe how a planet or an asteroid has gravity.

wiki has a good coverage on the basics of stellar parallax including a diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax

also read this thread on light doesn't move, the correct answer is light does move. (see the thread for examples) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83906-does-light-actually-travel/ this page has a couple of experiments that show the photoelectric effect on various objects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect also see this thread on how light can move individual particles via its momentum and exchange of momentum http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00222.htm unfortunately I'm off to work so otherwise I'd take the time to find better articles

this has to do with the actual metrics, movement requires a force, (newtons 3 laws of inertia) now there is no preferred direction to how galaxies expand away from each other, this means that whatever causes expansion is isotropic (no preferred direction) as there is also no preferred location (homogeneous) this means that whatever is causing expansion is uniform. now consider 1 galaxy, then apply a uniform force all around that galaxy, this means there is no greater force on any side of the galaxy, so the galaxy will not move. hrrm this presents a problem. If you do this to every galaxy then the galaxies themselves won't move. However what can be affected is the space between the galaxies. Think of the universe in terms of a perfect fluid, or ideal gas, space being the volume, the energy-density total exerts a pressure, that pressure causes expansion. It doesn't move the galaxies directly due to its uniformity, but it can cause the gas itself (space) to expand.(via the particle to particle interactions that reside in space,) (the FLRW metric and the Einstein field equations both uses the ideal gas laws, its part of them), keep in mind that in expansion the angles between 3 galaxies will not change, they move away from each other equally without a change in angle between any of them. (hence the balloon analogy to describe the metric relations)

critical density of the universe is the calculated value that will gradually halt expansion and then start to collapse, a critically dense universe is a perfectly fat universe in terms of energy-density to pressure relations. k=0 see these articles for more details. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 with the FRW metric portion. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis (this is covered in the preliminary review chapter 2)