Mordred

Thats a good way of putting it

hard to find peer reviewed sites for health benefits for eating meat. However here is one site that explains some of the health benefits, processed meat and processed fruits and vegetables are of course no where near as healthy as unprocessed. http://authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/ some supportive links http://www.medicaldaily.com/3-benefits-eating-meat-234798 However I should note its also not without its health risks, Red meat being higher in trans fats in processed meats this is often higher. The key is a balanced diet, you can have too much calcium, too much vitamin c, too much iron, etc. Balanced diet is the key. However every persons individual chemistry is slightly different. Thats why its important to have blood tests and find out what your system is lacking, as far as vitamins and nutrients

ah kk,

GR is general relativity Do you perchance have the paper on that study, I would be interested in studying it

Do define gravity as a force, the boson it would need is the graviton. So far we haven not detected the boson. However that does not mean it doesn't exist. We just recently detected the Higg's particles (we may have not found all the predicted Higg's particles yet). The problem is the extreme energies required. The graviton is considered to be one of the hardest to detect and it would take higher energy levels than we can currently achieve. Our understanding of gravity is far from complete in all its workings, we still do not know how to apply gravity to obtain Unification of the forces. Its hoped that quantum gravity, QFT or string theory will be able to one day integrate GR completely into the quantum. However keep in mind GR is a well tested model of gravity, much of what it says it does has yet to be disproved. a line from Introduction to particle Physics by David Griffith describes it well. "In general the heavier the particle you want to produce, the higher the energy of the collision must be" In general the lighter particles are discovered first with the heavier particles coming later..

now that is a good question lol, one of the major hurdles for the MSSM (minimum supersymmetric models) GUT models. Those are covered in the GUTreview. Minimum supersymmetric SU(5) guage symmetry group. If I remember correctly.. in that I have one question is the SU(10) guage symetry group just the Higg's sector? edit never mind that question the Higgs sector is needed to break SU(5) to Su(3)*SU(3)*U(1) which means the Higg's sector needs 12 Goldstone bosons. As SU(5) has 24 guage bosons and standard model has 12. including antiparticles If I understand that's for the SU(5) to work the SU(10) GUT, from what I understand is a strong candidate from this paper, as it does not involve the supersymmetric particles http://www-f1.ijs.si/~ziherl/Greljo12.pdf man I really need a more modern particle physics textbook The two I have from David Griffith just aren't cutting it, any recommendations?

seeing as how zero point energy universe is mentioned lol. here is a historical coverage "Preludes to dark energy:Zero-point energy and vacuum speculations." http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.4623.pdf. here is an interesting review on the model and some of the problems associated with describing curvature within the model. arXiv:gr-qc/0605063v3 16 Aug 2009 ON THE ZERO-ENERGY UNIVERSE http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf both articles are an interesting read

Not sure I've ever heard it described in quite this manner, however your descriptive bears some similarities to the regions in Yukawa couplings. Or at least thats what it reminds me of from the way you described it page 98, GUTreview.pdf. Yukawa couplings has 4 regions. edit actually scholarpedia has a similar descriptive, "They predict that the (distance-dependent) interaction strengths of the known interactions should become equal at short distance scales, lead to partially successful relations between quark and lepton masses, may be associated with small neutrino masses, may have implications for cosmology, and may lead to new gauge interactions that survive to low energies." http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Grand_unification

might help if you reference the original thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83302-a-few-questions/ question 5 "Why do i wake up before something happens?E.g. a poster falling down. I don't know it is going to happen but there i am, suddenly awake lying there wondering why i am awake and then 5 seconds later, the poster falls down"?

I've never come across any confirmed direct measurements either.

that would be cool to watch in a movie lol

this should be 3 posts, not one. If the Earth were to stop rotating, would result in serious climate change, one side of the planet would get extremely hot, while the other side extremely cold. Life would either have to adapt or perish. A black hole is called such as the gravity is so great that light cannot escape it google Schwartzchild metric. Infalling material becomes high energy particles (Radiation) and circle the event horizon, A % makes it beyond the event horizon, the rest eventually escapes via the accretion jets. However any in-falling material beyond the EH is essentially lost as we cannot determine what happens beyond the event horizon. Light cannot escape remember. Now as for cutting through the Earth, the extreme heat alone makes this impractical. Its far safer to simply fly around the globe. So I wouldn't expect any serious research into this endeavor

well that definitely helps me realize what your doing is higher than my current QFT, I'm still in studies myself on QFT.

seeing if I can complete the latex to make it easier to read edit still didn't help me, recognize the forms well enough to see what your doing perhaps you might get better help if they are all properly converted.

Yeah hypervalent_iodine already explained that in a private PM when I questioned him for clarity, interesting article on fullerines though. Thanks for that info

I have no idea on the Ligo results however BICEP2 announced it found gravity waves in the CMB. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/ technical papers can be found here http://bicepkeck.org/ here is the arxiv paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3985 and details on the 3 year dataset http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.4302

After reading "Roads to reality" by Penrose, just completed reading the 1200+ pages I would have to agree, however Penrose doesn't hold much hope in any existing model from what I can tell lol. Even his Twistor model he has his doubts though he supports it over others. At least that's the impression I got from it. Seemed to me he is holding out for some new radical take.I have to respect one thing though. He encourages others to think outside the box but in order to do that you need to understand whats in the box. edit I should also give him credit his coverage of the geometry aspects of all the dominant theories was well done. As such I highly recommend anyone reading it, its a real eye opener, his viewpoints aside

ah gotcha well both models have their successes, and their problems so comparing the two is a matter of personal opinion. so rather than state my opinion seeing as I follow neither lol, I prefer QFT even though it also has its own problems. I'll simply supply a review of each. I'm also not versed enough in either models yet to formulate an opinion on either. Even though I have numerous articles and textbooks covering each, I haven't completed my studies of these two models. Loop quantum gravity review http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.4188.pdf string theory review http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep--th/9905111.pdf If your interested in learning either ADS/CFT or LQC let me know and I can supply some good articles designed to teach each. (hope your differential geometry is up to par though) that includes QFT articles mind you I also follow the policy of study everything, you always learn something in light of that policy you might find this 885 page article handy as it covers all 3 and others http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields

good idea however measurements rule it out. If you had an influence of pressure, as you say outside our universe then the motion of galaxies would be moving outward. In other words have a preferred direction. Our universe does not have a preferred direction or location. Now there is also no outside our universe. Unless you count the observable universe only. We do not know if our universe is finite or infinite. Here is some articles I would like you to especially read the balloon analogy here is two terms to remember in cosmology Homogeneous- no preferred location ie a center Isotropic - no preferred direction expansion measurements follow these rules galaxies move apart from each other equally in all directions, and the angles between any 3 galaxies do not change http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the

great now how did you anchor to the asteroid? in other words what is the composition of the asteroid? if its ice and rock have fun. if you fire the jets you now have a spinning asteroid, may or may not change its course F=MA how much force will your jets need to move that asteroid? how early do you need to spot the asteroid in order to get everything ready for the rocket to leave Earth, arrive at the asteroid, anchor to the asteroid and deflect its course. How many jets will you need to maintain a stable non induced rotation? 2, 4? One won't then you also have the problem of synchronizing the rocket jets so they don't induce rotation. Not to say your idea won't work, but there is an easier way assuming you have enough time. Simply place spaceship/rocket in orbit around the asteroid always facing between the asteriod and desired angle of deflection. Your ship will have a gravitational attraction to the asteroid and vise versa. Use your rockets to just maintain your position. Eventually the course will change. However in order for this to work you need a lot of prewarning. NASA already studied this idea as well as your rocket idea. So you probably won't get a paycheck forgot to add NASA has numerous ways to deflect an asteroid, the problem is the composition, mass and rotation of the asteroid and how much warning we have.

not detailed enough, are you referring to Loop quantum cosmology? Loop quantum gravity? IN string are you referring to M theory or ADS/CFT correspondance? also which do we agree with most in lines of what? Cosmology?

Its been proposed, by Polowskii. Its also been shown not to fit observations. Rather than repeat the details I posted in another thread I'll direct you there, A white hole hypothesis suffers the same problems http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83076-what-caused-the-big-bang/?p=805902 here is the key points problem 1) a rotating universe cannot be isotropic and homogeneous. It will always have a preferred location and direction. Regardless of how slow it is rotating. problem 2) a rotating black hole would impart that rotation upon our universe. problem 3) Poplowskii's model does not have the cosmological constant, expansion is due to the rotation. problem 4) where does inflation fit in. problem 5) A black hole does not have consistent feeding rates. Where is the variations in energy density distributions in our universe. If a BH supply starts gobbling a star the energy it takes in increases (more material) Why do we see no evidence of this,? we should see regions of higher energy density expanding outward form the preferred location. problem 6)Black holes gradually lose angular momentum due to Hawkings radiation in the accretion disk. For technical details see this article. I forgot to add in that other thread that they can also gain angular momentum due to conservation of momentum as they feed

carbon is not organic, it is an element. Carbon's high valence of 4 is simply highly useful in hydrocarbon chains (its readily combinable with other elements) But in and of itself it is not organic,. Also there are inorganic compounds with carbon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compounds_of_carbon

Delta1212 covered the misconceptions of the big bang fairly thoroughly. Its a misleading term. The hot big bang model does not describe the beginning of the universe. It only describes the hot dense state from 10-43 seconds forward. These articles will cover various misconceptions in particular "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies, the balloon analogy here is also handy http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh

yes and no, thermodynamics and freeze-out is also involved when discussing GUT. Thermal equilibrium is involved in GUT. You are right there is more involved than just thermo equilibrium in regards to the coupling constants. however lets use the GUTreview.pdf as a reference. look at the temperature, Energy(Gev) vs time graph. on page 6. The time component is determined by the expansion history of the universe, Essentially as the volume increases (expansion), energy-density (Gev) decreases, as well as the temperature. Just as I described above. You will notice on page 6 they also use the terms freeze out. So from that you can easily see that GUT does include thermal equilibrium within its calculations. Here is one sample statement on the same page. "After spontaneous symmetry breaking, The Guage bosons freeze out" , However how you define thermal equilibrium depends on the particles being examined. You can describe a system at thermal equilibrium at any stage, and exclude any particles not in thermal equilibrium. when symmetry breaking occurs is when the temperature drops enough to allow coherence or freeze-out, in simpler words stability. In other words you cannot exclude the thermodynamic state in regards to the coupling constants in GUT it would be like trying to describe pressure without temperature and volume. as an example In regards to coupling constant "IN QFT the coupling constants are only effective at a certain energy, they are energy or equivalently distance dependent through virtual corrections" the section continues on the corrections specific to various models till you hit this line "the strong coupling constant decreases with higher energy, while the electromagnetic coupling constant increases with energy, so that at some point they are equal" this is equal to saying the strong coupling constant and electromagnetic coupling constant are in thermal equilibrium. section 3.3.2 page 32. later on in the same paragraph "and if the process goes through a state of non equilibrium" PS (Its too bad I could never find any one article that has a complete picture on GUT. They usually leave out the thermodynamic calculations. at least the GUTreview sort of covers that in the Cosmology section at least as far as the temperature vs expansion corelations using the equations of state), Its not bad for approximations, however doing the same with Gibbs law or the Boltzmann statistics (Bose_Einstein and Fermi_Dirac statistics) is more accurate.