Is This Correct About Gravity, The Hubble Shift, Galactic Rotation Velocities and the Origins of Spacetime?

[Mordred]

Oh let's examine the outside observer to a BH. What point do you get infinite redshift 

A) the event horizon

B) the singularity

Under graph why is this the case ?.

Of the two listed above which singularity is apparent ? 

How does LQC avoid the true singularity condition ?

[captcass]

The questions cannot be answered because they are idiotic questions based upon idiotic premises.

My paper is based on logically understood effects in time, instead of illogical effects in space, and ties astro and quantum physics together.

Those questions are not even asked in my paper. They simply make no sense. The mainstream is all based on the wrong perspective that lead us to .......well, nowhere......

To DM and DE, i.e., "I don't know"......

The questions don't even exist in the universal continuum I describe. There is no need for them.

Well, time to assume the horizontal. Good night.

 

 

Sorry, Mordred: cross post. I was answering Moth. As I said there, it is time to assume the horizontal. My paper answers your questions if you want them tonight.

I hope you guys are west coast. I'd hate to think of you doing this at 1 in the morning.....

 

[Mordred]

My questions can be easily answered. I hope to see your answers tomorrow. These answers are important for you to understand. You don't need your model to answer them.

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved, belatedly, to Speculations

 

[captcass]

Well, Mordred, unfortunateley the moderator has now determined this is speculation, even though the paper is peer reviewed and published. I guess there is a "very slight" BB "THEORY" preference on this site. Even published papers that undergo peer review for over 14 months are considered to be just "speculation" here, and YOU, who might be published "one day", and who thinks he is "close" to the solution, demands MORE proof and accuses the author of completely unsubstantiated claims of falsifications due to your own ignorance.

So, I didn't want to leave you unanswered. You so DESERVE so much more than that.  

First of all, publicly accusing someone of "falsification" and "theft" of intellectual property can cost you a hefty sum. It is called "liable" when it is in print. Don't think for a moment I won't find your real identity and sue your butt off. It is time someone tied your nasty tongue, my friend. I am just the guy to do it.......done it before and know the ropes, ins and outs...... hey, Moderator, guess who else is liable! Yes, the site that suborns and publishes the liable!

Second, you have not answered, nor can you answer, any of the questions I gave you. You can't answer them because your theory is totally irrational, illogical, BS. I will NOT respond to you anymore until you answer them.... If you want to know my answer to your last ignorant question, READ the PAPER.......something you obviously haven't done if you are still asking these ignorant questions. I'd say that makes you untruthful, as well, as you keep saying you read the paper, when you have obviously not, hence the idiotic, unrelated, questions and responses. You are just a Troll incapable of seeing past his own "THEORIES".....and hell bent on degrading and embarrassing everyone else, peer reviewed and published or not, who has a different theory, peer reviewed and published or not...... You like to think of yourself as "forcing" people to admit their deceptions and "exposing" them as deliberate frauds. Guess what? This makes you the obvious psyco dude. Just an obsessed, mean spirited little troll who is totally incapable of thinking beyond the box..... To YOU, Mordred, the totally idiotic theories are not theories at all, they are FACT. And this makes YOU the idiot who cannot discern fact from theory...... 

This is where you get to list YOUR peer reviewed papers, Mordred.......?????? Got some or what? No, I guess not. Just another darn Troll who wants to be "someone" "someday" and who's path to glory is the denigration of everyone else who doesn't agree with him.....and his completely nonsensical mainstream theories.

Third, your last question to me, after just ignoring my questions to you, is ludicrous as it is based on your flawed BB viewpoint. Just junk science, my friend..... Yet you refuse to address what I have written that provides you your answer, saying I ONLY need to rely on YOU! What an ego! You can't even discuss what I have written (and is peer reviewed and published) as you simply, sadly, just can't picture the concepts others can plainly see....Again, you are BB Blind and just totally OBSESSED with getting everyone in this forum to agree with you...a very nasty little egotistical troll. 

As you cannot continue this conversation as it relates to my PEER REVIEWED, PUBLISHED, paper, and just want to "educate" me and "convert" me to your idiotic theories, I will no longer be responding to you unless you answer my questions, which you can't, because they have no answers because your "mainstream" stuff is a load of.....(fill in the word of your choice)....

You are So ignorant you said a metric IS a tensor! WT*?

Sorry, Mordred, I thought you were a decent sort.......Sigh.....

Anyone else who wants to continue the discussion is welcomed gladly.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by captcass
spelling

[Mordred]

Well I don't feel like responding to the above not worth my bother in truth. A peer review article does not make it main stream. 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

Of course not. You cannot address anything honestly that conflicts with your THEORIES and you have never been published.......you are just a bunch of opinions based on unproved, and, frankly, idiotic, totally illogical theories. Otherwise you could answer my questions.......

Guess what, my friend, you just surrendered. You can not defend your point of view and just gave up. Why? Because you can not answer my questions and you have never been peer reviewed or published on any of this.

Not "worth your bother", indeed, says the "I always have a reply..." Mordred......

Well, Moderator, if the intrepid, ever-present, all-knowing, sacred, Mordred, has surrendered, perhaps this thread should be moved back out of "speculations". The paper is, after all, peer reviewed and published. Or does that not matter here, even if the sacred Mordred  surrenders.....? 

[Mordred]

Not with that attitude.

[captcass]

LOL!  MY attitude? Take a look in the mirror my nasty little friend! Lordy, Mordred......How about answering my questions? Just can't do that., can you? Why? Because it is ALL BS!

Take note all, the ever present Mordred surrenders because he can't take what he dishes out and can't answer basic questions! The poor guy is just BB Blind! And UN-published.....just a (very sad, hopeless, really) point of view......

[Mordred]

Sigh boring

[captcass]

PS: The "Main Stream" is idiotic..absollutely lost since the misintepretaion of Hubble's observations. Trouble is, you follow the blind instead of rejecting the idiotic and trying to think of a rational, logical, explanation that fits in a logical universe.

 

 

 

 

[Mordred]

I follow mainstream for good reasons. Nothing you can possibly say will ever change that.

[captcass]

Yes, I know, when you can not come up with a reply, it is boring. Guess what? When YOU can not come up with a reply it is YOU who are boring....

Geeze, Mordred,where are your graphs and words? Aren't you going to "educate me"?

 

Can you answer any of my questions, or not? Never mind. I already know the answer..."NOT"....

Your house has no foundation.....

[Mordred]

You don't want the education. So why should I bother

[captcass]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I follow mainstream for good reasons. Nothing you can possibly say will ever change that.

You follow mainstream because it is "mainstream" and you cannot even consider anything outside your comfy little box, where everyone SEEMS to agree on the idiotic crap. You cannot even consider that the "mainstream" might be the vortex carrying your waste down the the toilet into your septic tank. (Good Lord, where are these analogies coming from?!)

You see, Mordred, you just admitted your critical flaw......you ONLY follow the mainstream.....What THEY think is more important to you than your own critical thought....

[Mordred]

Ah that's why I am studying electroweak symmetry breaking to see if the Higgs field can account for DE.

[latex] \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/latex]

 [latex]D_\mu[/latex] minimally coupled gauge covariant derivative. h Higg's bosonic field [latex] \chi[/latex] is the Goldstone boson (not shown above) Goldstone no longer applies after spontaneous symmetry breaking [latex]\overline{\psi}[/latex] is the adjoint spinor

[latex]\mathcal{L}_h=|D\mu|^2-\lambda(|h|^2-\frac{v^2}{2})^2[/latex]

[latex]D_\mu=\partial_\mu-ie A_\mu[/latex] where [latex] A_\mu[/latex] is the electromagnetic four potential 

QCD gauge covariant derivative

[latex] D_\mu=\partial_\mu \pm ig_s t_a \mathcal{A}^a_\mu[/latex] matrix A represents each scalar gluon field

 

 

Single Dirac Field

[latex]\mathcal{L}=\overline{\psi}I\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)\psi[/latex]

under U(1) EM fermion field equates to 

[latex]\psi\rightarrow\acute{\psi}=e^{I\alpha(x)Q}\psi[/latex]

due to invariance requirement of the Langrene above and with the last equation leads to the gauge field [latex]A_\mu[/latex]

[latex] \partial_\mu[/latex] is replaced by the covariant derivitave

[latex]\partial_\mu\rightarrow D_\mu=\partial_\mu+ieQA_\mu[/latex]

where [latex]A_\mu[/latex] transforms as [latex]A_\mu+\frac{1}{e}\partial_\mu\alpha[/latex]

Single Gauge field U(1)

[latex]\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

[latex]F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\nu A_\mu-\partial_\mu A_\nu[/latex]

add mass which violates local gauge invariance above

[latex]\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu A^\mu[/latex] guage invariance demands photon be massless to repair gauge invariance add a single complex scalar field

[latex]\phi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_1+i\phi_2[/latex]

Langrene becomes

[latex] \mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+|D_\mu \phi|^2-V_\phi[/latex]

where [latex]D_\mu=\partial_\mu-ieA_\mu[/latex]

[latex]V_\phi=\mu^2|\phi^2|+\lambda(|\phi^2|)^2[/latex]

[latex]\overline{\psi}=\psi^\dagger \gamma^0[/latex] where [latex]\psi^\dagger[/latex] is the hermitean adjoint and [latex]\gamma^0 [/latex] is the timelike gamma matrix

the four contravariant matrix are as follows

[latex]\gamma^0=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&-1&0\\0&0&0&-1\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\gamma^1=\begin{pmatrix}0&0&0&1\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&-1&0\\-1&0&0&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\gamma^2=\begin{pmatrix}0&0&0&-i\\0&0&i&0\\0&i&0&0\\-i&0&0&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\gamma^3=\begin{pmatrix}0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&-1\\-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

where [latex] \gamma^0[/latex] is timelike rest are spacelike

V denotes the CKM matrix usage

[latex]\begin{pmatrix}\acute{d}\\\acute{s}\\\acute{b}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}V_{ud}&V_{us}&V_{ub}\\V_{cd}&V_{cs}&V_{cb}\\V_{td}&V_{ts}&V_{tb}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}d\\s\\b\end{pmatrix}[/latex] 

[latex]V_{ckm}=V^\dagger_{\mu L} V_{dL}[/latex]

the CKM mixing angles correlates the cross section between the mass eigenstates and the weak interaction eigenstates. Involves CP violations and chirality relations.

Dirac 4 component spinor fields

[latex]\gamma^5=i\gamma_0,\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3[/latex]

4 component Minkowskii with above 4 component Dirac Spinor and 4 component Dirac gamma matrixes are defined as

[latex] {\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu}=2g^{\mu\nu}\mathbb{I}[/latex] where [latex]\mathbb{I}[/latex] is the identity matrix. (required under MSSM electroweak symmetry break}

in Chiral basis [latex]\gamma^5[/latex] is diagonal in [latex]2\otimes 2[/latex] the gamma matrixes are

[latex]\begin{pmatrix}0&\sigma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}\\\overline{\sigma^{\mu\dot{\alpha}\beta}}&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\gamma^5=i{\gamma_0,\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3}=\begin{pmatrix}-\delta_\alpha^\beta&0\\0&\delta^\dot{\alpha}_\dot{\beta}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\mathbb{I}=\begin{pmatrix}\delta_\alpha^\beta&0\\0&\delta^\dot{\alpha}_\dot{\beta}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

Lorentz group identifiers in [latex](\frac{1}{2},0)\otimes(0,\frac{1}{2})[/latex]

[latex]\sigma\frac{I}{4}=(\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu)=\begin{pmatrix}\sigma^{\mu\nu\beta}_{\alpha}&0\\0&-\sigma^{\mu\nu\dot{\alpha}}_{\dot{\beta}}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\sigma^{\mu\nu}[/latex] duality satisfies [latex]\gamma_5\sigma^{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}I\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\tau}\sigma_{\rho\tau}[/latex]

a 4 component Spinor Dirac field is made up of two mass degenerate Dirac spinor fields U(1) helicity 

[latex](\chi_\alpha(x)),(\eta_\beta(x))[/latex]

 

[latex]\psi(x)=\begin{pmatrix}\chi^{\alpha\beta}(x)\\ \eta^{\dagger \dot{\alpha}}(x)\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

the [latex](\alpha\beta)=(\frac{1}{2},0)[/latex] while the [latex](\dot{\alpha}\dot{\beta})=(0,\frac{1}{2})[/latex]

this section relates the SO(4) double cover of the SU(2) gauge requiring the chiral projection operator next.

chiral projections operator

[latex]P_L=\frac{1}{2}(\mathbb{I}-\gamma_5=\begin{pmatrix}\delta_\alpha^\beta&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]P_R=\frac{1}{2}(\mathbb{I}+\gamma_5=\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\ 0&\delta^\dot{\alpha}_\dot{\beta}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

 

Weyl spinors

[latex]\psi_L(x)=P_L\psi(x)=\begin{pmatrix}\chi_\alpha(x)\\0\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

[latex]\psi_R(x)=P_R\psi(x)=\begin{pmatrix}0\\ \eta^{\dagger\dot{a}}(x)\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

 

 

also requires Yukawa couplings...SU(2) matrixes given by

[latex]diag(Y_{u1},Y_{u2},Y_{u3})=diag(Y_u,Y_c,Y_t)=diag(L^t_u,\mathbb{Y}_u,R_u)[/latex]

[latex]diag(Y_{d1},Y_{d2},Y_{d3})=diag(Y_d,Y_s,Y_b)=diag(L^t_d,\mathbb{Y}_d,R_d[/latex]

[latex]diag(Y_{\ell 1},Y_{\ell 2},Y_{\ell3})=diag(Y_e,Y_\mu,Y_\tau)=diag(L^T_\ell,\mathbb{Y}_\ell,R_\ell)[/latex]

the fermion masses

[latex]Y_{ui}=m_{ui}/V_u[/latex]

[latex]Y_{di}=m_{di}/V_d[/latex]

[latex]Y_{\ell i}=m_{\ell i}/V_\ell[/latex]

Reminder notes: Dirac is massive 1/2 fermions, Weyl the massless. Majorona  fermion has its own antiparticle pair while Dirac and Weyl do not.  The RH neutrino would be more massive than the LH neutrino, same for the corresponding LH antineutrino and RH Neutrino via seesaw mechanism which is used with the seesaw mechanism under MSM. Under MSSM with different Higgs/higglets can be numerous seesaws.  The Majorona method has conservation violations also these fermions must be electric charge neutral. (must be antiparticles of themselves) the CKM and PMNS are different mixing angels in distinction from on another. However they operate much the same way. CKM is more commonly used as its better tested to higher precision levels atm.

Quark family is Dirac fermions due to electric charge cannot be its own antiparticle. Same applies to the charged lepton family. Neutrinos are members of the charge neutral lepton family

CKM is also a different parametrisation than the Wolfenstein Parametrization in what way (next study)

This has been a spare time project for some time.

[captcass]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You don't want the education. So why should I bother

Why do you assume YOU are the educator? You are unpublished and.....what???????

You are Soooooo dependent on the THEORIES you accept as FACT to give you security and prominence in the forum.

Anything outside that theoretical realm drives you, apparently, nutz. It makes you nasty.

[Mordred]

See my last post and see why I teach. (I also help teach at my local university)

[captcass]

There is no Higg's field. There is no Higg's boson. CERN expected to find either a mass of 15 or 35. They got a 26.....

Not conclusive at all, I would say.....

All just misinformed rubbish science......based on a non-quantum, "Standard" model of particles that do not, actutally, exist in an evolving quantum continuum except as possible events.

It is time, once again, to assume the horizontal. If you want to continue this discussion tomorrow, just try answering, or at least respondng to, my questions. Otherwise.....Borinnnnggg!

[Mordred]

Uh huh and billions of dollars at three seperate LHC's is just lying. It's all a conspiracy.

[captcass]

I'm not saying they didn't find an "observationaly" dependent quantum event of mass 26. I'm saying it is obviously not the Higg's as it was neither of the expected values for the Higg's. (and particles do not exist, only events)

Don't you ever sleep?

By the way, as I told you in other threads, you cannot "educate" me because I already know all you are trying to "teach" me. Been there, done that, and it is, simply put, just crappy bad science based on idiotic premises. Sorry, there is no other way to put it: over 100 years of plain old junk based on incorrect perceptions.

[Mordred]

Well you got one thing right particles is an old term we keep simply as laymen understand that term.

particles are field excitations.

Not everyone has the same time of day.

[captcass]

Correct. But it is definitly bed time here. Good night, Mordred. Sweet dreams of quantum continuums! And BEYOOOONNNNDDDDD!

[Mordred]

Night

[captcass]

No, I say, "DAY"!!!!!!

You know, from the BB perspective, you REALLY know your sh*t and can teach it very well. And, yes, you have a lot of patience in that, as Moth noted. I don't want to denigrate you on that and congratulate you on it as it is a lot to learn and understand. Of course you have no final answers, as they are just not there in the BB model, but the real trouble is that you can't seem to be able to see other points of view so as to reject them on THEIR flaws, not just because they aren't BB.....

If it ain't BB, you are on it like a nasty, vicious, pit bull, instead of trying to see the other perspective, whether you end up accepting it or not. For this reason you can never accept the correct alternative if it shows up, or even discuss other alternatives. "BB Blind".

I think this is why you get so aggressive and, well, .........(fill in word here)

Anyway...I don't want you to think I think you don't know your stuff. I just want you to understand that I, too, know that stuff and had to reject it as idiotic and had to move on to find what is in my peer reviewed, published, paper. This is why I get so PO'd when you ask me about when this or that is equal to this or that z, etc......It just shows you haven't read and considered my peer reviewed, published, paper. If you had, you would know z isn't even considered or discussed. It isn't necessary. It presents differently as an effect in time......

I already KNOW what you are trying to tell me. Been there, done that. I have told you this over and again in other threads. You can't seem to accept the fact that someone who thought and understands what you do can now just say it is junk and the perspective from the point of view of effects in time instead makes the whole universe (universal spacetime/quantum continuum) logical, simple and elegant.

So, I am not going to continue on with you unless you "address" (I know you can't "answer") the questions I asked about your BB theory, and are willing to continue discussing my peer reviewed, published, paper on its merits and concepts, not on why the BB is right instead. 

I do not want to debate you on which is right....but will discuss aspects of MY peer reviewed, published, paper with anyone who can refrain from being nasty...