It's a little ironic, and more than a bit amusing that I had to explain the existence of Beltrami fields/flows to you, and their use in "force free" plasma models for decades if not a full century, and yet you're *still* trying to attack *my* math skills.
Wow.
You are not fooling anyone with this ongoing bluff otherwise show us a demonstration of your maths skills which leads to the conclusion the tensor calculus is wrong and energy is conserved even in static curved spacetime.
Not at all, but then the LCDM model presumes a *flat* universe so "curvature" has absolutely nothing do with the issue of conservation of energy, or lack thereof in the LCMD model.
No, actually it's the LCDM model and it's proponents who assume that the standard particle physics model must be a "train wreck", or at least incomplete.
The maths is based on the status of GR circa 1915.
If you want us to believe you are a profound mathematical genius then why haven’t you pointed out the flaws in Einstein’s and Hilbert’s maths which shows GR is not conserved globally even in static curved spacetime?
In fact you don’t even have to address the tensor calculus which is clearly beyond your level of comprehension as indicated by your bluffing; instead it is far easier to address the historical facts that Einstein and Hilbert were aware energy was not conserved globally nearly a decade before Friedmann came out with the first expanding model of the Universe.
This point alone completely destroys your nonsensical argument unless you can show Einstein and Hilbert were either aware of expanding spacetime in 1915 or they never considered the conservation of energy to be non applicable to static curved spacetime.
Then there is the inconvenient fact that after abandoning a static universe model, Einstein co-developed the Einstein-deSitter model which is an expanding Universe where Einstein according to your own standards violated his own theory.
I personally would just assume that either parity isn't always conserved in the weak force, and such a lack of conservation of parity is somehow ultimately responsible for the fact that there's more matter than antimatter in our visible universe. Or I would assume that it's "conserved" only when matter and antimatter are equal, and we just can't "see" all the antimatter that might exist outside of our visible universe.
Ultimately I believe that all the forces of nature might ultimately be resolved in a theory (of everything) based on electromagnetism, but admittedly I haven't seen one yet that thrills me.
For a self professed mathematical genius this is totally ridiculous; otherwise show how parity P is conserved even if the Universe is 50% matter, 50% antimatter given that
CP is still violated.
In fact a mathematical genius like yourself should be familiar with the
bra-ket notation of QM and show if P is not violated then neither is CP by demonstrating the eigenstate of the neutral | K° > meson does in fact spontaneously transition into a combination of its particle and antiparticle states
| K° > and | ₭° > respectively according to the transition;
| K° > ↔ | ₭° > ;
instead of existing in a long lived transition state | Kₜ > where CP is violated and;
| Kₜ > = (| K₂ > + ε| Kₗ >)/√(1+ |ε|²)
where | Kₗ > =( | K° > - | ₭° >) /√2 and | K₂ > =( | K° > + | ₭° >) /√2 are the mixed eigenstates for the particle and antiparticle states and ε is the amount of CP violation which is experimentally determined to be ε = 2.3 X 10⁻³.
So get to the task of showing us mere mortals how you are right and QM is wrong.
It's kind of silly IMO to "assume" that parity is necessarily always conserved when we have *controlled experimental evidence* to the contrary. On the other hand there is *zero* experimental evidence that energy is not conserved. Notice the key difference when it comes to controlled experimental evidence?
For a mathematical genius this is totally contradictory.
There is no controlled experimental evidence either to show matter/antimatter in whatever ratio you want is going to tell us whether parity is conserved or not.
