Mordred

Well any curve fitting can be done with the infinitisimal linearizations of differential geometry. I consider this one of the best starting points into understanding physics.

Spacetime isn't a medium. Any treatment of spacetime as a medium will be easily proven inaccurate to observational evidence. As to the first part. The geodesic equations do not involve electrons. A good example is light curves in the FLRW metric. (Universe geometry) however after the CMB there are no free electrons and this no Compton scatterring. How one describes mass must also work in cosmology applications as well as near massive bodies. GR and the FLRW are fully compatible theories that do not depend on any medium or specific particle composition.

Correct and never examined the effect of frequency in accordance to Snell's law. Let alone the one way two effects of a medium on light as per the M and M experiments. (Lol a little side note I had the opportunity to prove a peer reviewed article wrong on applying Snell's law to describe gravitational lensing to a PH.D in astrophysics. He pulled his article off Arxiv)

Spacetime curvature does not involve any refractive index. The mass term cannot be described under refractive index. Or radiation pressure (pressure has directional components).

The statement of the photon gravitating to a higher refractive index in the above will not work for gravitational lensing. Different frequencies of light respond differently in a medium. (Prism being one example) A Gravitational lens doesn't have the same effect. Ie a spectrograph looking at a gravitational lens will not see the same prismatic effect. Spacetime curvature doesn't depend on frequency. (If you try to treat spacetime as a medium you will invariably get the wrong answers) I could easily falsify any medium association.

No I am describing a rank two tensor under GR ( though just the starting steps to understand a rank two tensor). I hadn't gotten into components of a vector. (A special rank two tensor would be the Dyad.. The reason you need a rank two tensor describe gravity is that you a gradient to describe gravity.

Well that would certainly involve a lot of antisymmetry relations. Acceleration caused a rotation due to rapidity. Torsion would give antisymmetry to the metric tensor. Ie to describe torsion using the metric tensor you would have to specify a direction of rotation. What you actually need is a covector vector and a vector. The covariant vector is the column vectors while the vector is the row vectors. Using the two vectors above will preserve invatiance under coordinate transformations. Gravity itself is a form of flux of the energy momentum stress tensor. With the Minkowskii tensor you have already made a coordinate choice (cartesian) so you can use the inner product of two vectors. Which will return a scalar value [math]\mu\cdot\nu=s[/math] the Minkowskii tensor is orthogonal all orthogonal groups are symmetric and commute. [math]\mu\cdot\nu=\nu\cdot\mu[/math] However this would not be invariant under coordinate transformation so the column vector would use a covector.

! Moderator Note There is too much word salad in this response to allow as a mainstream reply to an existing thread. ( Particularly one from 2010). https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/47848-what-is-a-magnetic-field-exactly/?tab=comments#comment-537902 Therefore I am granting you the opportunity to support your case in its own discussion. Personal theories must be discussed here without the need to click on outside links. I would recommend showing the Maxwell equations with regards to the above. Properly done you should be able to show the paramagnetic and diamagnetic effect in a mathematical formalism.

Some dynamics cannot be seperated into chicken and egg debates. The Cosmological constant is one example. Evidence is that it started at the moment of the BB. However it is only a contributor to expansion it isn't the sole cause to expansion. Both matter and radiation also contribute. A little piece of advise reading several of your recent threads. Focus on one question at a time. You cannot truly learn a topic by numerous random questions all at the same time. Study each question in detail instead of relying on short replies.

What would be doing the counting some dreamland Abacus ?

I will be adding further details to this later on as it's a good discussion that deserves extra attention. The key points I would like to add is that mass is best treated as resistance to inertia change. How a particle couples to the fields they interact with contributes to the mass term. With the Higgs field a good tool to use is the CKMS and PMNS matrix. This matrix is what is described by the Covariant derivatives in the Link Studiot posted earlier. (Though I would like to examine the equation in more detail later on. It's not a form I recognize though looks accurate). Anyways I will add more later on after work.

UpString theory doesn't entail more than three spatial dimensions. One of the most common misunderstandings of physics terminology is the word dimension. It literally means an independent variable, or other mathematical object. In relativity you have the three spatial dimensions x,y,z. Then variable time each of these mathematical objects can change value without affecting the other. The same occurs in String theory. Step one is to take a point particle and describe that point particle in one dimension (a string). Step two you will need a dimensional value to describe tension of that string as well as its length. [math]T=1/2\pi\alpha[/math] The steps continue into how the manifolds or worksheet is defined to describe the particles action. Then you need mappings etc of the different manifolds to get to the Calibaou space etc. However the meaning of dimension still remains the same. You will often see the descriptive extremely small space etc for certain states being described however these can often be parameter space or other mathematical spaces such as configuration space. What makes the nature of QM probability seems weird but it really boils down to having a theory that can predict all possible outcomes. When your dealing with waveforms and doing a Fourier transformation you will have uncertainties. Here is a visual image. Take a rope and wave the rope up and down so you get a sinusoidal wave through the 50 foot length. Now ask yourself the following question. What is the waveforms position ? You cannot answer that with certainty. You can be certain on its wavelength. Now take the same rope and shake it once to get a single amplitude. Now you are more certain of the position but you lose certainty on the wavelength. The probability goes beyond simply not being able to measure the small. The example above shows the need for probability even on a macro object. However in the quantum regime it gets more complicated. You have the uncertainty principle which the above loosely describes. The quantum harmonic oscillator which gets involved in multiparticle interactions. Then you also have the probability of which particle state ie spin of electron ie entanglement along with the correlation functions. Superposition of a wavefunction prior to measurement to determined states upon measurement. When you start examining the math and the usefulness of the probability functions QM isn't nearly that weird after all. One just has to recognize their is inherent uncertainties and recognize that the probability functions account for those.

Now factor in particle pair creation of a field at high blackbody temperatures. Such as say 10^11 Kelvin. Then factor in at every point in this spacetime you will get particle antiparticle creation and annihilation. How would expansion cause seperation with such a high density and consequently high temperature. If you apply the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics one can calculate the particle number density of a blackbody temperature such as the CMB and calculate the individual number density of each elementary particle species. Lol that is precisely the lesson I mentioned to the OP to read over in chapters three to five of the Uwe Jen's textbook I linked previously.

Tell me is the only defense for your proposal you can come up with ? Do you honestly believe this tactic has any chance of convincing anyone your idea is correct ? Why dont you instead try defending your idea with some actual physics ? I have given you some resources to get started. Impress us and provide something viable to work with. So far nothing you have stated in this thread has been convincing. You will need far greater effort to convince anyone your proposal solves the problems you are attempting to solve. Though I can pretty much quarantee once you apply the math you will find that your model won't work as you described it. Not with current data in particular. I know I can I prove with mathematics and current knowledge of the early universe physics that you cannot achieve the matter/antimatter your first paragraph mentions. I also know your DM proposal isn't viable to solve the Galaxy rotation curve. Yes I can mathematically prove that as well. I can employ Jeans equations for mass distribution for that. For further information on how to solve the Kepler galaxy rotation problem. Study the following https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro–Frenk–White_profile The main feature of the NFW profile is that you need a uniform mass distribution surrounding a spiral galaxy.

Your choice. There really wasn't anything of substance to your hypothesis. Good luck to you. Though I can promise you if your not willing to work on proper modelling no one will listen. Particularly when you cannot answer questions that can potentially counter your proposal.

Do you honestly believe you can simply ignore the comments we are giving you when those comments do in fact call into question the validity of your idea ? Tell me if a particle cannot travel more than a millimeter without encountering another particle how does matter and antimatter seperate ? I have given you the mean free path of particles prior to the CMB which is far less than a mm. Can you not address that question ? I am only on the first paragraph of your hypothesis. I haven't even gotten to how you believe you solve Galaxy rotation curves for DM. Lets try another angle of approach ignoring DE what causes the original expansion if matter and antimatter are in equal portions prior to being able to seperate ? Expansion requires a cause and energy doesn't exist on its own. Can (and dont give me space cubes, space isnt a substance its simply volume) quantum foam is simply a fancy descriptive for the degrees of freedom of particles residing in space. can you answer that question ? The Big bang isn't the pop media explosion you see on TV. An explosion radiates outward and has a preferred direction and point of origin. Evidence shows the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in its expansion (Google those terms and also Google the Cosmological principle) I would also read the balloon analogy link I provided earlier. for the record I really don't care what you wish to believe. If you wish to believe pink unicorns waving magic wands filled with pixie dust created the universe then that's your business. You not insulting my ego with a bunch of random conjecture with no true physics expressed nor any applicable testable physics to mathematically prove or disprove your hypothesis. That simply shows me the lack of effort on your part to properly present a model. It's also not meeting the criteria that is required in the Speculation forum. I suggest you review these guidelines. Now here is question. Are you aware our Sun produces antimatter ? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/when-the-sun-gets-violent-it-shoots-antimatter-at-the-earth-9193888/ How does that work with your theory of antimatter galaxies ? When ordinary Stars can and do produce antimatter. Please note we can also detect the difference.

No one is insulting anyone when I am simply pointing out you need to properly understand the topic. If you don't know Cosmology you cannot fix it. Especially when you don't know any of the formulas or evidence involved. the term Baryogenesis is a simple example. It literally describes the matter and antimatter imbalance of baryonic matter. You could have simply Google'd that term and gotten that answer. If your going to get insulted everytime I try to explain Introductory level Cosmology to you then we will never have an intelligent discussion of where your idea doesn't make sense. Or work.

Man it should be obvious. If photons prior to the surface of last scattering cannot reach us. Then obviously there is no possibility for antimatter to seperation from matter. The average density is too flipping high in the early universe. Please study Cosmology and learn before thinking you can solve it's problems. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe Here is some useful textbooks Training (textbook Style Articles) 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://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis I especially recommend chapters 3 to 5 of last link. In those chapters he describes nucleosynthesis which includes leptogenesis and Baryogenesis (Ie when the matter/antimatter assymetry occurs and CPT which is used to describe it. (CPT. Charge,parity and time = Sackarov condition.)

What is the likely hood of a matter particle not encountering an antimatter particle at a time when the observable universe just prior to the CMB is only roughly 3 Mpc in diameter. This is a time period before the surface last scattering. Photons could not even reach us without experiencing Compton scattering. The mean free path of photons was less than [math]10^-32 [/math] meters before they encountered another particle such as a free electron prior to temperature 3000 Kelvin. When hydrogen atoms can first form with stability. you are describing an impossibility when you consider the mean average particle number density in the early universe. Are you familiar with Leptogenesis and Baryogenesis in regards to the Sackarov condition Ie CPT ?

Matter exists everywhere in space at different mass densities. You cannot have an antimatter galaxy exist when it's surrounded by matter. Your idea is falsifiable in the very first paragraph

Ok how can you have an antimatter galaxy in a matter dominant universe without getting the Galaxy destroyed ? What happens when matter comes into contact with antimatter if you have an equal mix of matter and antimatter you will not have a universe.

You have very little to work with. You might believe you solved our problems but have zero applicability except errors in your statements. Your not even getting the descriptions correct on expansion. Others as well as a have been pointing out your errors but you aren't listening to them. We are page 3 of pointing out errors in your descriptives. Instead myself and others have been forced to describe basic cosmology to you. What happens when matter comes into contact with antimatter ? So how can you possibly have an antimatter galaxy in a matter dominant universe without that galaxy getting destroyed ?

You think that IQ means anything to me I tested the same range. The difference is I studied Cosmology since 1980. I have degree in Cosmology as well as particle physics. I am giving you information to properly develop a proper model. However to do so will require considerable study and work on your part.

No you have too many misconceptions and zero mathematics to make testable predictions. Physics models requires mathematics actual formulas that can be tested to test a model

Roflmao. Tell me do you expect a 5 year old child who played the game Doctor to be able to tell a real Doctor how to perform surgery ? Of course not. How do you expect to solve the major Cosmological problems that plaques hundreds of true experts without even knowing the basics of Cosmology ? For example give me the formula that defines the equation of state for a scalar field such as the Cosmological constant.