
Content count
6207 
Joined

Last visited

Days Won
4
Mordred last won the day on July 4
Mordred had the most liked content!
Community Reputation
1082 Glorious LeaderAbout Mordred

Rank
Resident Expert
Contact Methods

Website URL
http://www.Cosmology101.wikidot.com
Profile Information

Gender
Male

College Major/Degree
University of the Caribou

Favorite Area of Science
cosmology and particle physics
Recent Profile Visitors

Does physics say my notion is incorrect?
Mordred replied to discountbrains's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Its modelling by its fluid/ ideal gas influence. We do the same with all particle species in that every particle has a pressure to energy density relation. Matter exerts zero pressure while radiation w=1/3. 
Hijack from Special Relativity  simple questions?
Mordred replied to JohnMnemonic's topic in Trash Can
Swansont is right in that the photon frame is not a valid reference frame, You get too many garbage answers when trying the LT transforms in that frame such as the photon being everywhere at once. For example a null geoedesic is denoted with a separation distance of ds^2=0. Hence the application of the term Null. We know it still takes time to get from event A to event B so stating time doesn't pass for the photon frame is obviously also garbage from the reference frame of the photon. The time of travel can only be shown via other reference frames Not the photons reference frame. 
Does physics say my notion is incorrect?
Mordred replied to discountbrains's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Its more readily described in terms of its effective equation of state [latex] w=\frac{\rho}{P}=1[/latex] it has negative pressure (the negative is simply a vector assignment) characteristics. That characteristic can be described as antigravity like. However once you consider the thermodynamic influence the pressure term is more accurate. Mathematically the equation of state formula for a scalar field does an excellent job of modelling DE in terms of thermodynamic fluid statistics. 
Does physics say my notion is incorrect?
Mordred replied to discountbrains's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Its not considered a fundamental force we may not know what causes DE but there is no indication it is a fundamental force. 
Impossible null magnetic moment of nuclei with pairs Z=N, excited with spin 2
Mordred replied to wwlad's topic in Speculations
! Moderator Note I also see that he specified the topic belongs in the Speculations section of our forum. In that forum you will require the maths that I do not see in your paper. Your paper states it isn't important however it is. You will never change any mainstream theory without the preponderance of evidence. The mathematics is the tool to provide testable predictions. I will move this thread to Speculations where it rightly belongs. I would recommend you look directly at the vector relations under vector commutation rules that directly apply to the quadrupole tensor Here is some of the key aspects of that tensor https://web.pa.msu.edu/people/stump/EM/chap3/3ex3.pdf Try and resolve that without applying mathematics as your involving coordinates of the transverse and longitudinal components resolved under Cartesian coordinates see link for the mathematical process 
How can time possibly experience time ? Why would you even think time must also experience time this makes no sense Time is simply a measure of rate of change, it is a property not some substance. Why do you feel you need to combine SR to GR ? SR is a special set of solutions under GR. They both use the Lorentz transforms the main significant difference is in GR all frames are inertial for example the Newton approximation [latex] g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}[/latex] this GR statement employs the Minkowskii tensor of SR

You probably do not realize that the relativistic Doppler shift involves the Lorentz transforms so by using Relativistic Doppler you are using length contraction and time dilation of the Lorentz transforms.

Calculating (fixing) Hubble's Constant precisely at 70.98047
Mordred replied to David Hine's topic in Speculations
The Hubble Parameter is decreasing gradually over time, this involves the evolution of matter, radiation and cosmological mass density. For example at z=1090 the Hubble parameter is 22,916 times greater than it is today. It is a consequence of expansion and its influence upon density of the aforementioned contributors. You can see its evolution in the H_o/H column here [latex]{\small\begin{array}{cccccc}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr} \hline S&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 1090.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&21.023&22915.263\\ \hline 608.566&0.000979&0.001594&44.853035&0.073703&0.100794&14.843&9032.833\\ \hline 339.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&10.712&3639.803\\ \hline 189.701&0.006228&0.009680&43.263304&0.228060&0.314971&7.842&1487.678\\ \hline 105.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&5.791&613.344\\ \hline 59.133&0.037266&0.056657&40.323472&0.681908&0.960718&4.298&254.163\\ \hline 33.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&3.200&105.633\\ \hline 18.433&0.217283&0.327417&35.002842&1.898930&2.793361&2.386&43.981\\ \hline 10.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.782&18.342\\ \hline 5.746&1.252327&1.874042&25.458852&4.430801&7.300157&1.337&7.684\\ \hline 3.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&1.026&3.292\\ \hline 1.791&6.817286&9.184553&9.242569&5.160286&14.365254&0.875&1.568\\ \hline 1.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&1.000&1.000\\ \hline 0.558&22.979870&16.668843&6.932899&12.417487&17.112278&1.547&0.864\\ \hline 0.338&31.510659&17.154169&10.671781&31.602098&17.220415&2.486&0.839\\ \hline 0.204&40.170941&17.267296&12.969607&63.498868&17.267296&4.083&0.834\\ \hline 0.124&48.860612&17.292739&14.364429&116.275356&17.292739&6.741&0.833\\ \hline 0.075&57.557046&17.298283&15.208769&203.541746&17.298283&11.141&0.832\\ \hline 0.045&66.254768&17.299620&15.719539&347.823873&17.299620&18.418&0.832\\ \hline 0.027&74.952986&17.299815&16.028491&586.370846&17.299815&30.451&0.832\\ \hline 0.017&83.651102&17.299968&16.215356&980.768127&17.299968&50.345&0.832\\ \hline 0.010&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&83.237&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] At the S=1.000 is the value today in normalized to 1 unit, the calculator is setup for a previous dataset from Planck I didn't bother changing the input parameters as I am simply demonstrating how Hubble constant evolves over time. The parameters in the left box is what determines the value of the Hubble constant. The [latex]H=\dot{a}{a}[/latex] of commoving volumes is merely an approximation. Not the methodology that is used by Planck or WMAP. I will get the more accurate formula later on after work. 
we have energy to describe how much work a system or state can perform. Which is the definition of energy. (The ability to perform work). It takes work to change from a 1 to a zero on a computer for example.

GW waves can be used to gather information in much the same manner as EM radiation. The advantage is every object or particle in spacetime is affected, unlike EM which some particles do not interact with. It provides another resource of measurable interactions on all objects in our universe.

You wouldn't have a reference time to measure at so rather meaningless when comparing geometry change. The minute you choose a time to take a measurement it becomes a finite point in time. Obviously time is never ending under physics. The finite time is when you take a measurement.

How are galaxies expanding along with space time?
Mordred replied to Quantum321's topic in Speculations
I also use both depending on moods 
Could gravitational waves reveal how fast our universe is expanding?
Mordred replied to beecee's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
Its one of many theories however not one I follow, I prefer LCDM and support the evidence of DE and DM in accordance. However as mentioned until proven otherwise... 
Could gravitational waves reveal how fast our universe is expanding?
Mordred replied to beecee's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
There is two ways to describe a BB, the most common application is at 10^43 seconds. However under chaotic eternal inflation you can get Hubble Bubbles that can be thought of as originating from their own BB events and treated as separate universes via causality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation "Eternal inflation is a hypothetical inflationary universe model, which is itself an outgrowth or extension of the Big Bang theory. According to eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever throughout most of the universe. Because the regions expand exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating. Eternal inflation, therefore, produces a hypothetically infinite multiverse, in which only an insignificant fractal volume ends inflation." Myself I always preferred Higg's inflation however that is simply my opinion. Chaotic eternal is just as possible. It was originally designed to cover Runaway inflation (once inflation stops in the early treatments there was no way to turn it off.) however in modern terms this is handled through slow roll. However in science all viable theories are valid till proven invalid. 
Theory about general relativity and quantum physics
Mordred replied to Edgard Neuman's topic in Speculations
Curvature has a specific relation that is tricky to explain. Its not curvature as shape per se, but curvature of the geodesics of spacelike and timelike geodesics. Null geodesics which is the geodesic of massless particles which define a worldline forms the ds^2 line element. A flat worldline the parallel transport of two light rays will remain parallel. With curvature those lightpaths will either converge or diverge. It is literally the curve of geodesics which is called spacetime curvature. In order to calculate the curvature you must look at how the fluid equations under the FRW metric affectnull geodesics or under GR the energy momentum stress tensor. (curvature requires a non zero tensor.). It would be pointless to apply a fractal to the possible paths of least resistance involved in worldliness unless you also plan on adding the weighted probability of the likelihood of probable paths. Certainly not via looking at shapes instead of world line curve fitting. Unless you are dealing directly with how it applies to the principle vectors such an example is as follows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowskiâ€“Bouligand_dimension