The general theory of relativity is as yet incomplete insofar as it has been able to apply the general principle of relativity satisfactorily only to gravitational fields, but not to the total field. We do not yet know with certainty by what mathematical mechanism the total field in space is to be described and what the general invariant laws are to which this total field is subject. One thing, however, seems certain: namely, that the general principal of relativity will prove a necessary and effective tool for the solution of the problem for the total field.Out of My Later Years, Pg 48, Albert Einstein
Because Albert Einstein ended his career there, it did not mean such progressiveness would not move forward to include such an attempt to consider the “total field.” By definition and allocation of a “step off point” people began to consider this possibility and sought such reformation in thinking as well
It is always the effort to see that such progressions in thought could have transformed any thinking person by the laws and rule of measure that will hold perspective toward the future. These are always being redefined by experiment, and such validations are adjusted then, to what we now use them for.
A new way to measure climate? A gravitational perspective held by Grace?
The calculation will be considered from the Earth frame of reference. The length is then unaffected since it is in the Earth frame. The halflife is in the muon frame, so must be considered to be time dilated in the Earth frame. You may substitute values for the height and the muon speed in the calculation below
While one may use this knowledge then with an attempt to discover new vaults of “time in measure” and recorded for historical pursuance by civilizations hidden in the pyramids, such efforts revealed nothing. They were not thinking the right way. It is the model developmental aspect which I have demonstrated over and over again that we can conceal the history of memories under such a analogical tool for pathways in the human sphere of perspective?
Illustrations: Sandbox Studio See:Secrets of the Pyramids By Haley Bridger Symmetry Magazine
Such dynamical thinking then is the realization that our views had been transformed from straight lines and such to geometric that help us to think dynamically in the world around us.
The Friedmann equation which models the expanding universe has a parameter k called the curvature parameter which is indicative of the rate of expansion and whether or not that expansion rate is increasing or decreasing. If k=0 then the density is equal to a critical value at which the universe will expand forever at a decreasing rate. This is often referred to as the Einstein-de Sitter universe in recognition of their work in modeling it. This k=0 condition can be used to express the critical density in terms of the present value of the Hubble parameter.
For k>0 the density is high enough that the gravitational attraction will eventually stop the expansion and it will collapse backward to a “big crunch”. This kind of universe is described as being a closed universe, or a gravitationally bound universe. For k<0 the universe expands forever, there not being sufficient density for gravitational attraction to stop the expansion.
Friedman Equation What is pdensity.
What are the three models of geometry? k=-1, K=0, k+1
Omega=the actual density to the critical density
If we triangulate Omega, the universe in which we are in, Omegam(mass)+ Omega(a vacuum), what position geometrically, would our universe hold from the coordinates given?
If such a progression is understood in the evolution of the geometry raised in non euclidean perspectives, this has in my view raised the stakes on how we perceive the dynamical valuation of a world that we were lead into from GR?
“In a sentence, the observations are spectacular and the conclusions are stunning,” said Brian Greene of Columbia University in New York City. “WMAP data support the notion that galaxies are nothing but quantum mechanics writ large across the sky.” “To me, this is one of the marvels of the modern scientific age.”
Such dynamics then are not just held to what we see of the earth frame but of what we hold in terms of our cosmological recognition of those same dynamics. How much sand then when reductionism has run it’s limit that we say how far our perspective has gone into the powers of ten, that we see a limit had been reached?
This pursuance did not in the reductionist point of view reduce our apprehension of the world around us but we engaged the world to see that such length contractions are still vital measures for perspective.
IN the “mean time,” we live in a vary dynamical world. If dark energy or dark matter seemed unrealistic then what measure of that space shall you consider to be, and that it shall not be, in the relationship of “time variable moments?”
IN the space of our cosmos we saw a satellite measure say that the expansion is speeding up/slowing down? Does this take away the dynamics of non euclidean geometries to say that this is an abstract version of math of what does not exist?
Here L is called the Lagrangian. In simple cases the Lagrangian is equal to the difference between the kinetic energy T and the potential energy V, that is, L = T – V. In this interactive document we will approximate a continuous worldline with a worldline made of straight connected segments. The computer then multiplies the value of (T – V) on each segment by the time lapse t for that segment and adds up the result for all segments, giving us an approximate value for the action S along the entire worldline. Our task is then to move the connected segments of the worldline so that they result in the minimum total value of the action S.
While such a explanation had been served by understanding how one can rescue another and how two different people can get their quicker is the idea that such a plan is possible in the recognition of the cosmos as well. You just had to learn to see inan dynamical way as well.
The easiest way to see how Lagrange made his discovery is to adopt a frame of reference that rotates with the system. The forces exerted on a body at rest in this frame can be derived from an effective potential in much the same way that wind speeds can be inferred from a weather map. The forces are strongest when the contours of the effective potential are closest together and weakest when the contours are far apart…..
In the above contour plot we see that L4 and L5 correspond to hilltops and L1, L2 and L3 correspond to saddles (i.e. points where the potential is curving up in one direction and down in the other). This suggests that satellites placed at the Lagrange points will have a tendency to wander off (try sitting a marble on top of a watermelon or on top of a real saddle and you get the idea). A detailed analysis (PDF link) confirms our expectations for L1, L2 and L3, but not for L4 and L5. When a satellite parked at L4 or L5 starts to roll off the hill it picks up speed. At this point the Coriolis force comes into play – the same force that causes hurricanes to spin up on the earth – and sends the satellite into a stable orbit around the Lagrange point.
The geometries as a whole seen in a local region, is the rule of law, as we move outward in space, or how else could we consider the dynamical movement that least resistance can fuel a path traveled with the least amount of energy expended?