DrRocket

The fact that you honestly see nothing faulty in a paragraph of total gibberish tells the whole story. Nobody can take you from a state of total misunderstanding (honestly less than zero) of elementary physics to a level of comprehension commensurate with that of a college freshman with the resources available on a bulletin board. Buy that physics book and read it.

As swonsont observed here this is a case of sensationalism and bad reporting. Best to stick to papers by the researchers.

On the other hand reasonable interim goals in a logical progression would be good. Mastering the multiplication tables ought to precede an assault on quantum field theory.

Potential energy is actual energy. It is just a convenient name, and not "something that is potentially energy". This illustrates the problem with misinterepreting technical terms in light of the everyday meaning of the words. If you consider relativistic mass, as in [math]E=mc^2[/math] then [math]m[/math] is a reflection of energy and it doesn't matter whether that energy is potential or kinetic. It does matter what reference frame is used to determine either energy or relativistic mass.

You would expect anti-matter to emit anti-photons. Of course, since a photon and an anti-photon are the same thing, you would not notice a difference. Since anti-matter will tend to annihilate with ordinary matter, there would be a LOT of photons. You would notice a really bright light. But not for very long.

Verifying information is a completely different animal from discovering information from scratch. It is not only possible, but the norm, that a statement can be investigated and verified in a routine fashion, perhaps using "national technical means", while discovering that piece of data in the first place is nearly impossible without a "tip". In theoretical computer science this is subsumed in the P=NP conjecture. Example: Determining whether Bin Laden is or is likely to be a resident in a certain specified building is one hell of a lot easier than finding which acre of the surface of the Earth contains his current abode. In short, you are all wet.

In Guth's original theory of inflation he thought that the inflation field was the Higgs field. It was later determined by others that the Higgs field cannot fulfill the role of the inflation field. As of now the inflation field is a separate scalar field of unknown origin, assuming that it exists at all.

The Feynman Lectures on Physics comes in a nice, boxed, three-volume set. That should illustrate the principle quite clearly.

If you believe that a dead battery has no potential energy, just take it out of your car and drop it on your foot. Thermodynamics texts are filled with engines that operate by taking gas in one state of thermodynamic equilibrium and extracting work, resulting in another state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Go read the book.

And that is why theories live and die on the basis of agreement with experiment. There is nowhere to hide. “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong” – Richard Feynman

Go read a physics book. There is nothing to debate.

Most kids know the multiplication tables by the third grade. If you can't do elementary arithmetic with great facility you will be so distracted by the arithmetic trivia that algebra will be a total mystery. It is very common for remedial mathematics students to have trouble with fractional exponents, not because of difficulty with the concept of an exponent, but rather because they can't add fractions. In your position self-study will be extremely difficult. Take a class.

I am quite competent to challenge shortcomings in a textbook all by my little own self. That is because I understand the underlying physics and mathematics. Your challenge in the thread on potential energy is invalid because you understand neither, and have made a number of factually incorrect assertions in your "challenge". If you don't like a definition then what you do is define an alternate term and DEMONSTRATE the benefits of your alternate concept. What you don't do is pervert the meaning of a well-defined concept and claim that it is something that it is not.

incorrect

When you choose infinite separation as the ground state, gravitational potential energy is negative and you need a minus sign in your expressions: -GMm/r .

Crackpots, essentially by definition, do not present either valid reasoning or valid evidence. Scientific theories are regularly challenged by real scientists using real data and formulating logical and potentially valid theories. It is not a matter of "taking sides". It is a matter of logical consistency of a theory, and, more importantly, consistency of the consequences of that theory with experimental data.

Completely, totally, utterly wrong. Potential energy is not only relative to a reference frame, it is relative to an arbitrary choice of ground state within any single reference frame. The basis is called physics. You are in desperate need of a physics book. Try The Feynman Lectures on Physics.

Mathematics, per se, has nothing to do with reality. The tie between reality and mathematics is science, particularly physics. It is possible to construct many mathematically consistent models. The degree to which they do or do not describe nature is the province of science. Einstein was right. But his statement does not support your thesis. Not surprising. Faraday was notably weak as a theoretician and in mathematics. "Faraday's law" is subject to much misuse and misinterpretation when not understood in the mathematical context of Maxwell's equations. See the discussion in volume two of The Feynman Lectures on Physics, sections 17-1 and 17-2. "Maxwell's equations" by the way were actually codified and put in the form usually seen by Heviside, not Maxwell. Everyday language is not sufficiently precise to allow clear and accurate statements of scientific principle. Statements of the necessary accuracy are in fact mathematical, no matter what specific words are used. Mathematics is NOT just equations. Everyday language and "common sense" have been proved to be woefully inadequate. You have no choice but to use the language of physics if you wish to either understand the subject or to communicate clearly regarding it. That language is mathematics. It takes precedence over everyday language of necessity, just as French takes precedence over Navajo in the study of French literature.

This is impossible to answer intelligently without knowing what you know. I would suggest a college algebra or remedial mathematics class at a local community college.

Faltness "within 0.5%" is inadequate to discriminate between a small positive curvature, a small negative curvature, or zero curvature, and hence tells you nothing about whether the universe is finite or infinite. Under the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy, positive curvature implies a spherical geometry, negative curvature implies a hyperbolic geometry and zero curvature implies a Euclidean topology. The first is finite, the latter two are infinite. If the requirement of global isotropy is relaxed then there are other possibilities. One that is seriously considered is a flat torus (sometimes called "Pac Man space" in popularizations). This is a flat compact (finite) manifold, topologically a 3-dimensional generalization of a donut.. You will find all sorts of incorrect and misleading statements regarding the possibilities for the topology of space, and what that means, in the literature. The reason that it is said that the universe has no "center" is because the universe appears to be homogeneous and because there is no meaning to "center'. Remember that the big bang was not an explosion in space but an explosion of space.

The spelling is the very least of the problems. You are missing the point. It appears that you have missed a great many points.

The usual explanation is that, as for electromagnetic energy, it is stored in the field. There is a problem when trying to carry this over to general relativity. Conservation of energy in general relativity is both subtle and problematic.

"Mathematics is the study of any kind of order that the human mind can recognize" -- Pasquale Porcelli, Professor of Mathematics. Your problem is that, like most people who are ignorant of mathematics, you fail to recognize what mathematics really is. Very little of mathematics is equations. Logical qualitative arguments ARE mathematical arguments. No one has said that you are an idiot. You have admitted to being ignorant of mathematics. Ignorance and idiocy are not the same thing. One might, however, be of the opinion that proclaiming understanding while simultaneously admitting ignorance is a bit idiotic. Mathematics and physics are two completely different things. But mathematics is the language in which physics is expressed. It is illogical to think that one can understand a subject while remaining illiterate in the language in which it is developed and recorded. Your "10%" is illusory. "To summarize , I would use the words of Jeans, who said that ‘the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician’. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once." – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law

Very very little of mathematics involves equations. Very very little of what you have presented is logical. The language in which physics is expressed is mathematics. If you don't speak the language you are scientifically illiterate. It is illogical to believe that you can begin to understand a subject as large as physics if you are illiterate in the language in which it is formulated and recorded.

The expansion of the universe IS irrelevant to whether there is a center. What is relevant is that the model of the universe is a homogeneous and isotropic intrinsic manifold, not embedded in anything larger. In that context the word "center" is meaningless.