elfmotat

A non-relativistic equation is invariant under Galilean boosts. (See here.) A relativistic equation is invariant under Lorentz boosts. (See here.) When the velocities in the problem you're considering are much smaller than c, Lorentz transformations and Galilean transformations become approximately the same thing. (More formally, Lorentz transformations and Galilean transformations are equal in the limit where (1/c)->0.)

No, it is a matter of which theory makes the best observational/experimental predictions. Whether or not something "makes sense" to you is irrelevant.

It was a joke.

You have no math and no data to corroborate anything you said.

Okay, so what they're saying is that there's some nonzero probability for "you" to randomly come about by particles randomly coming together to form some sort of brain. (Of course this raises the philosophical question of what defines "you." I will take it to mean that it has all your memories and patterns of thinking, etc.) This is what's known as a Boltzmann brain. I once saw a low estimate of the amount of time it would take for a simple Boltzmann brain to spontaneously form, and the figure was something like 101050 years. For perspective, the universe is only about 1010 years old. But this guy isn't just talking about a random brain, he's talking about one configured in such a way as to reproduce your exact memories, personality, etc. I don't even know how I would begin to quantify that, but it would dramatically increase that big number I gave. So no, this is not going to happen. Don't worry yourself.

I don't know how to put it any more simply than I already have, about half a dozen times. If your equation is true, then [math]\phi[/math] is just another name for velocity. Calling [math]\phi[/math] a potential does not make it a potential.

The CMB photons that we see all come from well outside of our local group. The photons that were emitted anywhere close to us were either absorbed or flew by.

So are you saying the universe is not really expanding? Time dilation is not an interpretation, it's a measurable effect. There is never any ambiguity as far as how much time a particular clock will measure. I don't know why you're so intent on this. Not everything is relative. It's silly to argue from a position that is demonstrably wrong. That just fundamentally makes no sense at all. You can't simultaneously age and not age. Plus it's completely made up. Perhaps this would be better suited for a discussion in the speculations forum, because you're very far off track from mainstream science. Events can't both happen and not happen. This is true in any physical theory. You're just making up logically inconsistent ways the universe could conform to the ridiculous principle that everything is relative.

Any photons created in this region of the universe near the big bang have long since traveled far away from here or been absorbed. The CMB photons we see come from billions of lightyears away. You won't be able to see the CMB once the rest of the universe is too far away.

I know what you're saying, and I'm telling you that it is wrong. It's fundamentally incompatible with a universe that changes size over time. Are you really willing to ignore nearly a century's worth of data on the expanding universe in favor of an ad-hoc "principle" that you made up?

This assertion is wrong, not the theory.

About to watch it. Let's hope he doesn't mention the Pauli exclusion principle...

When did I ever use the word "force"? That's such an odd thing to pick out anyway. "Force of gravity" can refer to a number of things, be it Newton's force law, spacetime geometry, or spin-2 massless fields.

I think he means that in a Lorentz transformation x's and t's are 'mixed' together to get the transformed coordinates. In the same way that a coordinate rotation will 'mix' x's and y's to get the rotated coordinates.

Where did you get m from? Are you just giving velocity more and more symbols? Define what you mean by "particle pair," because that could mean a number of different things.

What does that have to do with anything? You didn't come up with a theory, you came up with new symbol for velocity.

All you did was take the Lorentz factor and substitute in some different symbols. It has absolutely nothing to do with masses, nucleons, or potentials. You don't just get to insert a different symbol that means the same thing and call it a potential. It's frustrating that you're trying so hard not to understand this.

I'm telling you that you can't just decide to call a new variable "the potential." All you did was introduce a new variable. It has nothing to do with any kind of potential.

The rest of the observable universe, save the local group, will be out of reach in 100 billion to 1 trillion years, CMB included.

Just by looking at the equation I can already tell you that if it's true for all v, φ, and Φ, then it must necessarily be the case that v=±kφ and c=±kΦ. So effectively all you've done is introduce two new variables that contain the exact same information. I fail to see how that's useful. It doesn't magically become an electrostatic potential just because you've decided to label it with a Greek letter.

I'm sure they can make that happen.

It looks like a zoomed-in smudge.

Taking matter into account doesn't automatically include radiation, that's just silly. Photons generate a gravitational field because they have nonzero stress-energy, which tells us by the Einstein field equations that they generate curvature. Cosmological models must include radiation in, for example, the FLRW metric when modeling the expansion of the universe. If radiation did not generate a gravitational effect, cosmology would not work.

There is no electromagnetic field in Schwarzschild spacetime, by definition. It looks like you're just stringing random equations together, and I have no idea where you're getting Volts from given there's no electric field.

Then cosmology really wouldn't work, because cosmological models need to take into account the gravitational effects of radiation. So your idea is untestable?