Mordred

Quite easily done but that's off topic in this thread. If you really want to understand Cosmology I will be more than glad to help but in a more suitable thread. However put simply our Observable universe will always be finite and we do not know beyond our Observable portion. It is equally possible being finite or infinite. The current datasets both are possible.

How are you possibly disturbing and scientist here ???. Every scientist is well aware of the speed limit of information exchange or that it takes time for our brains to process information. It's absolutely nothing new.

Well I for one wish your time was better spent learning formal physics. Your claim of being like string theory though not doesn't even come close to the mark. String theory isn't my strongest suit but I am familiar with it to understand that should I choose to use it's formulas. I could make the same testable predictions involving particle properties as I can in QFT. Nothing was random in string string theory. Knowing it's rules one could determine a particles properties such as spin, charge, mass etc. You could take its formulas and directly plot a given string by all the rules of calculus of variations. I simply do not see anything in your post that allows me to make any testable predictions. In essence everything you have a physicist could not make use of. The very purpose of physics is to make testable predictions of cause and effect. For example the vast majority of particles in the standard model were predicted prior to any detection. One of the more famous examples was the Higgs boson. It's properties were well estimated via mathematics prior to its discovery. Your welcome to demonstrate via mathematics how your hypothesis can make testable predictions but I don't see it

The other fields have different coupling constants. They don't apply the index of refraction as per the EM field. Though all fields are still subjective to spacetime curvature that's a different devil. As well as the speed limit.

No idea, particularly since any unification would require mathematics. Considering our Quantum theories of gravity do work for everyday scenarios. They diverge only in the extreme UV scale. Trying to solve the problem without math is literally pointless. ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculation please review our rules and guidelines in the pinned threads above.

There isn't anything in that paper that presents any challenge to main stream understanding of DM or DE which are quite different from another. Gravity waves do not work the way you describe for starters. They do not not cause any attraction toward the galactic centers where the SMBH's you mention are located. Gravity waves are not continous attractor once they pass the original spacetime geometry is restored. I would strongly suggest you study the NFW profile, it will show that the galaxy rotation curves we see require a uniform mass distribution surrounding the galaxy. Any central mass being greater than the spiral arm mass distribution simply leads to Kepler rotation curves. Doesn't matter if it's the galactic bulge itself or due to SMBH's. Secondly we measure indirectly the presence of dark matter via gravitational lenses occurring in regions where no baryonic matter exists. By the way welcome to the forum just a forewarning the first day your limited to 5 posts after that you can post as often as you want. (Anti-spam measure). I have no idea why your confusing flat spacetime with the plane orientation of spiral arms. Flat spacetime doesn't mean flat like a sheet of paper. It means Euclidean 3 dimensional geometry that preserves pythagorus theorem. So I fail to see how using Boyer Linquist coordinates helps your case. Spiral arms are best described using the density wave theorem as the rings of Saturn albeit there are a few differences such as how it leads to different mass distributions with regards to metalicity distribution in regards to star formation. As that formula is the basis of your paper and you don't even show mathematically how it can get a non Kepler curve. Let alone dark energy which is a scalar field I would say you on the wrong track.

All the above can be found in Quantum field theory Demystified by David McMahon. Though its also found in any decent introductory textbook. David's book is done in a manner to keep QFT as straight forward as possible which is why I chose his format here. However there is a problem with the above. If you run the positive and negative frequency parts over all of momentum space you will end up with infinite energy levels. So one must apply constraints via renormalization to prevent that. Furthermore one can correlate this for the effective equations of state for the FLRW metric by examining how it relates via the Two statistics I mentioned (Bose-Einstein, Fermi-Dirac). The FLRW metric isn't particularly useful to describe the quantum regime hence QFT supplies those details.

I realize that you likely aren't familiar with the QFT treatment of the harmonic oscillator but the treatment has a elegance about it that shouldn't be ignored so I am going to demonstrate. first QFT uses creation ad annihilation operators. It also employs the Hamilton as the energy of a simple harmonic oscillator in this case \[\hat{H}=\hbar\omega(\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}+\frac{1}{2})\] now as this involves both matter and antimatter it is a complex field with both positive and negative frequency modes each in essence two overlapping fields each with a number density. Key note in QFT position and momentum are operators and its solutions are canonical just mention that for completeness. the creation and annihilation operators for the harmonic oscillator can be rewritten as \[\hat{a}=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{x}}(\hat{x}+\frac{i}{m\omega}\hat{p})\] \[\hat{a}^\dagger=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{x}}(\hat{x}-\frac{i}{m\omega}\hat{p})\] the number operator becomes \[\hat{N}=\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}\] giving us a simplified Hamilton \[\hat{H}=\omega(\hat({N}+\frac{1}{2}\] with eigenstates of the Hamilton being \[\hat{H}|n\rangle=\omega(n+\frac{1}{2}|n\rangle\] where \(|n\rangle\) is the number states for the number operator \[[\hat{N},\hat{a}]=-\hat{a}\] and \[[\hat{N},\hat{a}^\dagger]=\hat{a}^\dagger\] the annihilation operator drops \(|n\rangle\) by 1 and the creation operator increase \(|n\rangle\) by one. \[\hat{a}|n\rangle=\sqrt{n}|n-1\rangle\] \[\hat{a}^\dagger|n\rangle=\sqrt{n+1}|n+1\rangle\] with ground state \(\hat{a}|0\rangle=0\) now the interesting thing about the ground state is that it has no particles but the field is still there. (a field is a mathematical construct) so don't confuse it with any realism arguments please. As its rather lengthy to go over how the wave vector k is derived I will skip that for now in particular detailing the Fourier transforms involved. However we can step up from the vacuum to a wave vector state with the following \[|\vec{K}|\rangle=\hat{a}^\dagger\vec{k}|0\rangle\] for a single particle state we can expand this to multiple particle states for example \[|\vec{k_1},\vec{k_2}....\\vec{k_n}\rangle=\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_1}),\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_2})....\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_n})|0\rangle\] where \(\omega_i=\sqrt{\vec{k}_i^2+m^2}\) the RHS this is just the invariant QFT derivative of\( E^2=(pc)^2+(m_0c^2)^2\) using the Klein Gordon equations with the four momentum/four velocity. From this we see a creation operator with \(\hbar\hat{a}^\dagger(k_i)\) and energy \(\hbar\hat{a}^\dagger\omega\) for clarity. we further need the negative and positive frequency parts. (now that we have wave vectors with our invariant energy momentum relations) given as \[\varphi^+(x)=\int{\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\sqrt{\omega(k)}}\hat{a}(\vec{k})e^{-i(\omega_kx^0-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x})}\] \[\varphi^-(x)=\int{\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\sqrt{\omega(k)}}\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k})e^{-i(\omega_kx^0-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x})}\] since \(\hat{a}(\vec{k})|0\rangle=0\) the positive frequency part is composed of the negative frequency parts while the creation operators comprise the negative frequency parts. now here is the elegance, I have just modelled the zero point energy field with the harmonic oscillator that I can further calculate the particle number densities as well as provided the mathematics for each states wavevectors. One can then take this and using the QFT version of the Bose-Einstein statistics and fermi-Dirac statistics apply the above to obtain number density of any particle particle species knowing the black body temperature. Further more all the above is invariant and under the Hamilton. This simply demonstrates a far better tool to model a universe from Nothing as I also correlated the momentum space via \(d^3(k_i)\) so already am in a field treatment and as were applying the four momentum and four velocity have Lorentz invariance.

There is one major fundamental question that universe from nothing models based on zero point energy cannot answer. Zero point energy uses the quantum harmonic oscillator. We all agree on this. However in order to have a harmonic oscillator one requires a particle field to oscillate. It would be impractical to apply virtual particles as the initial temperature is to extreme. All particles have sufficient kinetic energy terms that they are all in thermal equilibrium and relativistic. Energy as previously mentioned is a property so doesn't exist on its own. So using the zero point energy the best one can do with it is describe conditions at the moment of BB. I should note zero energy universe models suffer the same problem.

Agreed I still recall all the heated arguments in regards to the Higgs field back in the 80's. It's amazing how far and mainstream research has developed since it's discovery.

There is so many mistakes in everything you have posted that everything you have in this thread is literally useless. Obviously your not heeding anyone's advise so have fun with that. I prefer dealing with those that wish to learn so I'm out. Good luck

When you try to describe physics in a non mainstream manner that is the equivalent of reinventing physics. In the last example above gravity waves do not behave in the manner you described and neither does its related mathematics You tried redescribing time with your math and ended up with incorrect equations that don't match observational evidence. Relativity is one of the most rigorously tested theories in physics with precision in all its predictions. Instead of trying to develop your own mathematics and conjecture. You would be far better off learning the mainstream physics and formulas instead of trying to invent your own. GR is such a successful theory that it predicted the possibility of gravity waves Long before ever measuring one. The mathematics was so convincing that governments invested millions of dollars on huge gravity wave detectors (LIGO) with only the possibility of detection. They also knew it was limited in the gravity wave frequencies but it's polarity isn't dipolar as the EM field but quardupolar. That required a different design of detector. The L shape of LIGO. Once again predicted by its mathematics. We have measured time dilation countless times far to many to name all the tests and every time the mathematics of SR/GR give the correct answers to match what is observed. So I seriously ask you with all GR's incredible successes. Why wouldn't someone take the time to understand it and its mathematics to understand why it's so incredibly accurate instead of trying to come up with their ideas. An expression you may be familiar with " If it isn't broke, don't fix it". Another expression that applies. " You can't fix something if you don't understand how it was built." For example think about the fundamental purpose of gravity theories. It is to explain why objects move in spacetime the way they do. That is one the primary reasons velocity is used in its equations. It is also why using the Interval for time is convenient as we can now apply vectors in the same manner as the motion of particles. Every formula in physics always derives from other well established formulas. They form the basis of their mathematical proofs. In GR all the main formulas has Newtons laws of inertia as part of their mathematical proof. Including \(E^2=(pc^2)+(m_o c^2)^2\). This is why it's so incredibly successful. It derived from known physics primarily kinematics. So instead of trying fix something that works incredibly well. Your time would be far better spent learning how and why it's so successful. As a side note in order to ever get a paper peer reviewed approved. You would need to prove you understand and can use those mainstream formulas that apply to any new theory. So if you ever want a good working theory you will need a good working knowledge of the mainstream physics. Its not guess work or sudden Eureka moments its painstaking work starting with known formulas. Let's take another GR equation proper time \[\Delta \tau =\int \sqrt{1- \frac{1}{c^2} \left ( \left (\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^2+ \left(\frac{dy}{dt}\right)^2+ \left (\frac{dz}{dt}\right)^2\right )}dt\] one wouldn't think Newtons laws of inertia is involved in the above unless one studies the kinematics of the four momentum, four velocity. Every equation applies other known equations.....

No matter how hard I try nothing you've shown makes sense. I can't find anything that even correlates to physics in this last post.

Big mistake however is assuming tine dilation is only electromagnetic. It affects every interaction of every force and every particle to particle interaction not just EM. That isn't nearly the only mistakes but to point everyone out will take far too long.

Yup agreed let's reinvent physics

Only had 30 percent eclipse at my neck of the woods but still looked cool. Least we had clear skies for once.

That alone tells me what your doing is incorrect. Let me guess you never factored in length contraction ? The Lorentz transforms include both so if v=c d=0. Hence it's not a valid frame of reference. It is also the primary reason massless particles follow null geodesics. The "null" indicates this relation.

The reason why I asked you to look over the Lorentz equations again is that is precisely what used the "Interval" \[t=(ct)\] it is usually just shortened to t. With that you already tallied the distance.... Multiple lasers at different angles and observer points is already done in GR. The Interval is already included. Nothing in your experi.ent adds anything new that hasn't already been done on an experimental basis. You simply have to properly understand it. Believe me it's far more easier to use velocity particularly once you start using instantaneous velocity for acceleration. Of course you can also do so using rapidity under the Lorentz boosts but most ppl don't know how to use tensors for that. There are very good reasons velocity is used. For example using velocity then \(\gamma\) is simply a constant of proportionality. Of course the other details is that you also have length contraction as well as time dilation both occur at the same time

It's still an experimental setup designed not to show any time dilation one that has unnecessary steps. Simply take a transmitter or reciever and move it further away from the sender/reciever at near c. You require relative velocity on the distance rate of change between sender and reciever. Quite frankly the scenario I just described is a common example in textbooks. You won't get time dilation unless either the transmitter or reciever has a relativistic velocity. You seem to be implying you get time dilation in a static setup. (Which is likely not your intention ) but the transformation formulas between Galilean relativity and Lorentz are near identical with the exception of the Gamma factor. Study the Lorentz transformations here and then revisit your setup. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation Start with the simple setup before you get into angle changes and an event following a circle (acceleration) which leads to Lorentz boosts (rapidity)

Just a side note if you have a metric with off diagonal terms such as the Kerr metric one can perform a blockwise inversion. Strictly an FYI for others as I'm sure KJW already knows this detail just in case anyone thinks only orthogonal tensors can be metric tensors that isn't always the case.

Your not going to find time dilation using your setup your using a setup that can be described under Galilean relativity as well as the Lorentz transforms. It was once thought Galilean relativity was usable for all speeds up to c. So the mathematics works on paper. However actual measurements showed the error not thought experiments. It is when you actually perform the tests that you realize that there is an error in the Galilean relativity calculations. Also you need to recognize both the above are under constant velocity. Any change in direction results in acceleration just as a change in velocity. So additional transformations are involved . However from what I read so far I suggest you study Galilean relativity as well as apply vector algebra before tackling the Lorentz transforms. You will learn the only difference between the two is the Gamma correction for length contraction in the direction of motion typically assigned x axis and the interval for time.

You are aware that the E and M fields are mediated by a gauge photon correct ? That article includes the Maxwell equations and is in normalized units. If c is finite and constant as the EM field mediator this also means the E and M field has the same speed limit. No massless particle including any field gauge boson exceeds c. Every field propagate at maximum c.

Not too familiar with the Kasner metric I will have to look into that one. Lol it will give me something new to study do thanks for that. Though I have run into a few papers on it. Hadn't put a lot of time studying it

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.04397&ved=2ahUKEwiIodbJsq-FAxUYBDQIHSx2AJoQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw054EguS3mqzq8k-KfOkm8o https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/25/ask-ethan-what-is-the-fine-structure-constant-and-why-does-it-matter/ https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0008009 Last link helps better understand how the fine structure constant relates to c. There is also numerous articles on precision tests for Lorentz invariance the speed limit is also tested through the Lorentz invariance tests as the two are linked. Modern tests have gotten us to incredible accuracy. If you think about how particle accelerators work were constantly testing GR.

No it isn't a consequence of relativity. Relativity simply recognizes the limit. It is simply a fundamental constant of nature much like the fine structure constant. In point of detail even the claasical formula for the fine structure constant which was established long before relativity was developed showed the speed limit. A great deal many professional physicists have tried disproving relativity. So far they usually end up proving the sheer accuracy of relativity. It's literally one of the most rigorously tested theories we have.