Mordred

Ah I gotcha, the article you wrote provided some good clarity. Well written. Follows what I've been stating this thread but in far greater mathematical detail This particular line is an excellent example. "A good example of the use of a torsor is the potential difference in electromagnetism. When you measure a voltage, you in fact measure the difference of some voltage relative to some other fixed voltage. In practice one takes the ground to be zero, but this is a choice" I just never heard the term before in regards to bundles and lie algebra groups.

I agree, just never heard the term atm I'm looking at the The term for a homogeneous space G and the stabilizer subgroup. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsor_(algebraic_geometry) quite detailed it will take a bit lol

Grr I know I never heard the the term torsor before. Thanks for that lol. No worries I can find the needed material myself lol. Ps surprised I hadn't seen the term in my lie algebra studies lol most likely missed it though lol

Kerr metric is appropriate for a rotating body. Although there are artifacts of metrics in any metric. So far I'm impressed by the amount of diligence you've shown. Recognizing your still working on the model I've chosen not to interfere. For the equations of state inside a star the best reference I can think of is "physics of the interstellar medium" It is a textbook, it is extremely detailed in details such as temperature absorbtion of different elements etc Not my area of expertise. On this forum probably the best member I can think of is Sensei. He is far more adept at nuclear processes than I My suggestion is post a seperate thread on internal star processes. Sometimes in order to find the details on a forum a new thread on specific aspects will get the attention of the right people. (Key note I may not agree with your idea, but I refuse to interfere with your diligent study)

Your arguing a fallacy based on a fallacy argument. Do you even understand the relation between 0+-5 and 0-5 is? When you add a negative it's the same as subtracting that number. When you multiply a negative number your multiplying the amount of subtraction. This is Mathematics not philosophy. Of course I will argue pure Mathematics in regards to science. Science is the language of mathematical relations. You ask me to use your false Mathematics? To explain relations from condition A to condition B. Not going to happen.

Your welcome, I hope the materials I provided you will study. The textbooks I mentioned would be better, but I can't buy them for you lol. Trust me I was once in your position. Those three books fixed a lot of my misunderstandings.

No your doubling the scale to the left hand side of zero. Your not doubling the temperature. Your doubling the units BELOW ZERO. Get your math right. When you multiply -5 * 2 your stating it is twice as COLD. Not hot.

If your trying to double the temperature why would you use incorrect Mathematics?

Your not alone in the majority of posters. Very few ppl truly understand LCDM. Those same people don't understand the math. A smart person shouldn't try to fix something they don't understand. They just make themselves look foolish. Instead it's better to ask specific questions as to why a model works the way it does. The three textbooks that describes Cosmology with a low math level required is. The First three minutes by Weinberg. introductory to Cosmology by Barbera Ryden And Introductory to Cosmology by Matt Roose. Any of these three books is an excellent start that will put you ahead of 75% of the posters on this forum.

Well the only way to fully understand why the professionals show and understand differently is to study the history and math involved. Without the math I can't explain these things in proper detail. It's incredibly limiting. There is no particle that has the right characteristics for dark matter. The closest is sterile neutrinos. However even then that's debatable. There is no thermodynamic process that keeps the cosmological constant constant. (Other than possibly Higgs inflation). QMs quantum fluctuations had too much energy. Would you even recognize SO(10) GUT. Grand unification theory, or what the terms coupling constants mean? So how can I describe the differences between SO(5) nucleosynthesis from SO(10) nucleosynthesis? Let alone baryogeneses and leptogenesis. Terms like vaccuum expectation value would be meaningless to you. Part of the reason I supplied the links I did.

I think you have a misunderstanding of LCDM. The Full LCDM is a huge collection of theories. It doesn't involve just the EFE, or the FLRW metric. It also involved whatever particle physics GUT theory is being used. As well as thermodynamics. The thing is the BB model aka LCDM evolves in complexity and accuracy as new data is discovered. It's a model that continously evolves as research becomes available. Prior to WMAP and Planck prior to the Cosmological constant and dark energy the Freidmann equations had a different form. The equations you see today are the extended FLRW metric. This is why the model is so robust. It encompasses the body of our understanding of physics in its entirety. Yes we can describe how the Universe evolves by 6 parameters but those 6 paraneters involve dozens of related formulas and principles. Quite frankly in the 1980s LCDM was first being formulated. Alternatives were Quintessence, Wdm, CDM, LHDM LWDM, MOND, etc. Variations were due to Is dark matter, hot(relativistic),warm or cold. Do we include the Cosmological constant or not? Is there a geometry other than positive, negative curvature of flat? The numerous Blackhole universe related models such as Poplowskii spin and Torsion. Are we in a deSitter or anti desitter universe? The list goes on. Even inflation has well over 70+ viable models. Nowadays you still have numerous variations such as Ads/cft, and LQC. Ads/cft (antidesitter/conformal field theory). LQC loop quantum gravity. A lot of papers on F® gravity etc. Alternatives still abound.

Yes -5 * 2 is identical to -5 +-5. What of it. When you multiply a number you essentially adding that number by its multiple number of times. Why would you expect the number to increase? Sounds to me like your using the sliding scale wrong. Take your abacus or sliding scale Count -5 units then count -5 units again. Answer -10 units. Better yet use a sliding ruler as such ....-10,-9,-8,-7,-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10... Add -5 slide left. Add +5 slide right. Done. Zero can be wherever you set it. If for example I have a system in one state ie an average temperature, pressure or energy level I set zero to the average. Then shift the slide rule according to the deviation from that average. Same works with coordinates. You have coordinates outside an object. So you set zero as the center of the coordinates then describe the objects dimensions on either side of its center. -x,x,-y,y-z,z. This works particularly well with a circle. Mathematically you can describe a circle by its radius. Makes having the coordinate 0,0,0 at the center extremely convenient. Ever wonder why relativity is based upon coordinate change in particular Polar coordinates? (Sphere) All interactions are described in a coordinate system. This is why differential geometry is a required field in physics.

he isn't arguing a varying. Gravitational constant. Another poster is doing that on another thread lol. Also there have been and is still ongoing studies on varying gravitational constant. As well as the fine structure constant. At least in the other thread the OP is learning the math and trying to properly model such. CMB was discovered in 1964. However the first measurements of the elements didn't come till later. Via the Cobe satellite in 1989. Prior to that we could only hear the static via radio waves. As far as I know Hoyle wasn't involved. Ralph Alpherin, George Gamow and Robert Herman. First predicted Cmb nucleosynthesis in 1948. Tired light was the other possible explanation for Redshift at this time. Later proven to be false Hoyle later worked on an alternative to BB, using quasi steady state model. Which boils down to numerous regions expanding at different rates to explain the CMB. Mathematically it works but never gained popularity. He died never agreeing with BB itself but recognized that there is expansion.

The baseline is essentially where ever choose to set. The multiplication/division doesn't change this. Take for example the Celsius scale. We choose to set zero degrees at the temperature water freezes. Doesn't stop you from adding, subtracting, multiplying or deviding a degree.

The baseline in QM is zero point energy. Which isn't zero energy. Like I said this is mathematics your comparing one value to another. Doesn't matter what scale you set or value you use as the origin. It is value a compared to b

Absolute zero is an impossible value. Your argument there is pointless and incorrect. You can set zero at any value you want as the baseline.

What's mathematically wrong with a negative value compared to a baseline value? Take pressure for example. You can have negative pressure compared to a different pressure. Same with velocity. If your describing a change in velocity or the resultant velocity you can easily describe the new velocity as negative compared to the original.

No your wrong again. Any anisotropy will grow over time. Regardless of how small. Here is one related article. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0112551 "Large-Scale Structure of the Universe and Cosmological Perturbation Theory F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztanaga, R. Scoccimarro Careful though it's over 300 pages of math intensity.

We can't see the very beginning we can only see as far back as the CMB. Prior to the CMB, light couldn't travel more than a metre due to the opacity. Too many free particles not bound in atoms. Believe me you wouldn't understand the math involved in the particle physics aspects of nucleosynthesis. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis If you want to study it these two articles are introductory.

That is the key point. Just because you don't see it you assume others can't. There has been thousands of papers, over the last 100 years of study on just expansion as well as redshift. For every theory there is competing theories, no one accepts any formula as gospel. EVER. LCDM is a time tested model, that had tons of competition since it first started developing. It is so far the best model that describes what we observe. Is it the only one. No of course not. LQC (loop quantum gravity is still competitive) LCDM is far easier to learn though.

The question you posed is "is there another cause of cosmological redshift other than expansion". The answer is no. How can you state that if you don't understand the math? Do you know how a geodesic relates to the principle of least action?

Hence those fancy geodesic equations.

(Note I didn't need redshift to show the Universe expanded) Yes I know, but the visualization you used has already been considered and accounted for

Fair enough. Lets look at the simplest possible formula. Pv=nRt. P is pressure, v is volume , n is number of particles, R is radius, t is temperature. Lets say the Universe contains 10^90 particles. Exactly what composition is unimportant. Particles move, vibrate etc, they have kinetic energy. That kinetic energy exerts pressure. Kinetic energy is related to temperature. If the number of particles is constant the only way to reduce the temperature is to increase the radius. Welcome to thermodynamic evidence of expansion.

It's impossible for us to answer you, if you can't be clear in what your stating.