Mordred

If you understood the math all of the above is accounted for. That's why I provided the links to help you understand the math. This is a good one one expansion. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies

Your last post tells me you have some misconceptions. First off the Singlarity of the BB is merely a point in time where the conditions become indescribable. Too many infinities. Not a point like singularity. Secondly we don't know the size of the entire universe it could be infinite. The point like beginning you see often expressed is our region of shared causality. (Observable universe) not the entire universe.

We've been waiting. You've yet to show a single calculation So what if there is 10* the amount of Dark matter than baryonic matter. The mass distribution is FAR MORE UNIFORM.

Why would you even think there would be a Significant difference of Dark matter from one star/BH in a binary system. Do you not know the meaning of the term HALO? As you stated Dark matter doesn't clump. (No strong force) (no electromagnetic force) It's average distribution around ANY binary system is roughly uniform. It would be too miniscule to cause a Significant time dilation than the other object.

I never could figure out why those new to cosmology always figure a model is wrong because it doesn't match their "opinions" This is a good example, after all why shouldn't the Universe expand or contract? It's actually nearly impossible to be "steady state" No matter how you calculate a steady state universe it will be unstable. @the OP. The links I supplied will provide a better direction than pop media learning. If your truly interested in learning Cosmology and can afford textbooks. I would suggest "Introductory to Cosmology" by Matt Roose Or by Barbera Ryden under the same title. Your wrong by the way that we don't incorperate mass. If you study the EFE and FLRW metric mass is included. Though you'll often hear it expressed as energy/mass density. See the last set of formulas above. [latex]\rho[/latex] is the symbol for mass density

Damp this is your model. Therefore it's your responsibility to supply the data to support it. NOT ours. I know that the DM halo in the region will not cause any difference neither will dark energy. I also know these two items are part of the EFE. But they won't come out and say this part is DM, this part DE. The reason is you require a completely different set of calculations to determine the average energy/density of a system. I'm am definitely not going to take you through an entire course. The most I will do is offer direction to assist someone but I won't do their work for them. The distribution profile for dark matter can be calculated (though this is done by LIGO in greater detail) Is to use the NFW profile. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro%E2%80%93Frenk%E2%80%93White_profile However as Swansort has mentioned it doesn't clump.

I believe your the first

Now in terms of expansion The acceleration equation is given as [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] This leads to [latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex] [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] The last formula shows how the average energy/density of each equation of state (matter, radiation and cosmological constant evolve over time) It's particularly handy as one can use that formula to calculate the rate of expansion as well as the average energy density of each contributor as a function of redshift. It helps to have a good understanding of GR. For that I can recommend a few articles. Training (textbook Style Articles) http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues 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 http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau The first two is an overview of cosmology. The third is a full textbook. The 4th has an excellent section on BB nucleosynthesis chapter 3 and 4 The Mathius Blau book will cover extensively GR then steps into the FLRW metric via the Einstein field equations in the later chapters.

No actually they aren't. Ever heard of the equivalence principle? After all the units for force of gravity is m/s^2. In other words acceleration. Ever looked at why the Einstein field equations has a stress energy/momentum term ? Perhaps you missed section IV. "We can construct two such families of observers: one in which each of the shifts is a Doppler shift, and one in which each is a gravitational shift. By reference to these families, we can interpret the observed shift as the accumulation of either many small Doppler shifts or many small gravitational shifts." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle [latex]z=\sqrt{\frac{1+\frac{v}{c}}{1-\frac{v}{c}}}+1[/latex] here is the principle of equivalence to Gravitational redshift relations. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html Here these relationships will help. [latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/latex] Doppler shift is [latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex] Gravitational redshift is [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex] The hyperphysics link covers the principle of equivalence with this formula. Cosmological redshift is [latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex] Now if you look at the relations you can see the similarities. Done correctly you can model cosmological redshift as either a Doppler shift or as a gravitational redshift. The Bunn and Hoggs paper describes the process. (Though the complexity greatly increases) Which makes sense as all three use the invariance of the speed of light As well as the equivalence principle.

Here this will help, as stated your redshift idea has been approached. Though not as a counter to expansion. The strongest evidence isn't due to redshift measurements, redshift alone can throw you off on distance measurements. We also use numerous other methods described as the Cosmic distance ladder. (Different methods for different distances, as no one method is truly reliable) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081 Bunn and Hogg's But even then distance measurements isn't the only piece of evidence. The major ones have already been mentioned.

Actually what you mentioned is covered by LCDM. However your forgetting the majority of the mass isn't baryonic (visible matter). Baryonic matter (stars, galaxies etc) is only 3% of the mass budget. In fact it's an extremely small player. There is three types of redshift. Doppler, gravitational and cosmological. They all have one characteristic in common and that is change in wavelength. What is different in each is the cause. In Doppler shift the emitter or observer must be moving. In gravitational redshift both objects can be stationary but at different gravitational potential. In cosmological redshift the objects do not gain inertia, the gravitational potential at any given time is uniform. Yet we get the redshift as the distances change over time. There have been professional attempts to model each as another aspect. Bunn and Hoggs tried modelling cosmological redshift as gravitational redshift, but this required numerous microdistance modelling greatly increasing the number of calculations. It's far easier to just use cosmological redshift as it's to a well tested good approximation. (All formulas are just to good approximation)

Lets give you a hint. There is little difference between power radiated from an antenna than a GW. At least not in principle one is dipole and the other is quadrupole. The latter also doesn't have charge. Yet many of the formulas of basic physics apply. This includes the terminology. If you didn't recognize that the energy of a wave is carried by the amplitude I would suggest googling basic electromagnetic terminology. Look at the definition and formulas relating frequency, cycle, wavelength, amplitude and polarity. This will help you understand the more complex aspects in GW waves. Keep in mind per individual wave the amplitude is the energy displacement. However a higher frequency via a shorter wavelength will increase the amount of energy per timelength. While the energy/amplitude is per individual wave. Essentially in a given time you receive more waves

Seriously? Are you not aware that the amount of energy carried by a wave is related to the amplitude of the wave. Those two formulas directly relate to the quoted posts.

Equation 42. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/homework/hw12.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiOxIOJltXLAhVNyGMKHZe_B68QFggVMAE&usg=AFQjCNE3vxs5w5K3hcpz963a_QhcGksc5w

Phi for all offered a suggestion to better encourage a good discussion. You weren't getting much of a discussion from your OP till I added the missing details. Which done well, you could have done in the first place as it took me less than five minutes to connect the dots. (Not everyone is aware of the latest news on a potential new planet, I just happened to be familiar with that bit of news) Ideally you want to supply enough information that even the most uninformed reader can participate.

The other piece of evidence already hinted at by Strange is BB nucleosynthesis, an expanding universe cools down. So In a far denser state various particles reach thermal equilibrium. Any reaction they have quickly dissociate. This particularly applies to elements. This aspect is extremely well studied, and allowed the BB model to accurately predict the correct % of hydrogen, lithium and deuterium at the CMB. The CMB itself is generated by particles dropping out of thermal equilibrium. When atoms start being able to form with stability, free electrons, protons and neutrons become bound within atoms. This is the surface of last scattering, prior to this light could not travel far as the opacity was too great. The mean free path of a photon was significantly less than a metre. Once the opacity clears the mean free path today is near limitless. None of the above is possible in a static universe. All of the above was predicted well in advance of detecting the CMB.

Not sure I follow your logic, You claim to have no problem with the EFE, yet at the same time don't understand that the ripples are geometric changes to the spacetime. Then you wish to add your own explanation of a time delay(Shapiro delay ) to a metric that already included time dilation effects. As Strange stated might help if you sit down and show the math. Secondly dark energy is of too low an energy density to cause any dilation effects (it is included in the EFE) So is dark matter As the EFE doesn't care which particles are involved. The EFE uses mass/energy density.

No you wouldn't get that effect. Do a little trigonometry, take two points place them day 1 million km apart. Then draw a line from each of those points over several billion km's. The angle between the two lines would be less than a degree, far less. If the system was close by then possibly but the sheer distance would make any significant angle impossible. Ever looked at a binary star system with a telescope? They appear to be almost on top of each other as a single star. The seperation angle is so miniscule that both light paths would suffer the same spacetime path around our sun. Or close enough to have immeasurable difference.

Yes the strength varies so does the Hx and H+ polarization, however the polarization doesn't mean that the gravity waves isn't in all directions. Just as it doesn't determine direction of an EM wave in an antenna. Your position to the wave can distinguish the alignment of the system by the differences between the h+ and hx polarizations.

About the only Part that made sense was planet x. Which comes up every time we discover a new planet/planetoid in our solar system. Though afaik the latest news isn't conclusive. http://m.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523 But Planet X was a popular Doomsday planet. (Nibiru) http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/planet-x-nibiru-headed-earth-doomsayers-article-1.2504846&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwia68GSsNPLAhWCKGMKHU9vCdIQFggZMAI&usg=AFQjCNEV9KHH-xLOBn6E1zh0E0HLmCxs_A No the conspiracy theories will never stop. As far as finding planets, it's not as easy as one thinks. Particularly at the distance this one is at. The amount of light from our sun being reflected would be so miniscule the planet would practically be invisible (Note we have not directly observed this planet yet)

I think you better study the term polarization. For example a star emits electromagnetic radiation in all directions but this has transverse polarization. "Polarization (also polarisation) is a property of waves that can oscillate with more than one orientation. Electromagnetic waves such as light exhibit polarization, as do some other types of wave, such as gravitational waves. Sound waves in a gas or liquid do not exhibit polarization, since the oscillation is always in the direction the wave travels" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(waves) Another good example may be a omnidirectional antenna. It emits the signal in all directions. The polarizations suuply the data.

That is different than Dan's proposal. However same problem is that all frequencies and polarization would have the same delay. Probably accounted for under redshift of the data. Let's ask a question... When you have two objects under each other's gravitational influence. Does not one affect the other and vise versa ?. How can you possibly have one BH change acceleration without some degree in change of acceleration in the other BH? You've studied enough orbits Did you forget the center of mass and barycenter aspects? You take two equivelent mass objects in orbit the center of mass lies halfway between them. Change one mass both orbits are effected.

Well you can't place magnetic points to gravity waves. There is certainly directional properties. Yes gravity waves decrease with distance. Gravity waves aren't part of Newtonian gravity

Yes it affects all signals equally which is the same as I stated. The constant velocity is describing systems that don't emit gravity waves. Not all objects in space will. it's not the objects itself emitting the waves. Its the spacetime region surrounding the objects where the waves are generating. The position of system orientation to the observer. This is why the equations on those pages have sine and cos functions. Note though the metrics don't care where each BH is located the system it is specifically described as a SUM of mass. In other words the BINARY SYSTEM orientation. An analogy is water surrounding a rock. Move the rock waves are generated.

I've already covered that no single BH generates the wave signal. Is that somehow to complex for you? The wave signal is generated by the spacetime curvature encompassing BOTH BH's. Come on Dan I even referred you to the correct pages and math You really need to stop making assumtions the math behind chirp frequency is included in the article I've continously reposted. Obviously you didn't even look at the math. Or understand it. If you did you would realize that there cannot be a Shapiro delay. Oh wait I forgot, the paper argues and counters your personal theory therefore it must be wrong Well fine PROVE thousands of professional physicists wrong ... SHOW the MATH supporting your argument