Mordred

Don't bother, I just read the paper its utter garbage. Its a measly 4 pages and uses extremely basic formulas. He didnt include observer affect on energy via redshift. However posted one basic thermodynamic equation without proper correlation. An average high school student could write a better paper. For one thing he never mentioned is the Observer influence is detailed in the stress-momentum tensor of the Einstein field equations. including the pressure term.

I don't care about your postulates I'm answering your errors in the posts here. I also read your other threads. My replies still stand Relativity uses the Lorentzian transformations. So how do you propose to use non Lorentzian but still use relativity? In a statement earlier This thread you stated the equipment compensates. Being made up of atoms etc. Explain how the Fizeou and Sagnac equipment compensate? That was what I was replying to earlier. Ps the Maxwell equations you mentioned earlier also uses the Lorentz transformation rules.

Thanks for the terminology clarifications above. Have you tried testing the formulas through proper distance calculations? I still don't see how a homogeneous and isotropic condition can be maintained with the two coordinate system your adapting. Though I realize your still working on the math. by matter I assume your referring to fermions.? Your going to need to clarify this term usage. bosons don't count as matter particles only fermions do. This is based on the Pauli exclusion principle. The next question is "How will your model work during the radiation dominant era? The % of matter is much smaller with the % of radiation being much higher leading to a higher rate of expansion per Mpc. Higher value for Hubbles constant. (not per size of universe).

Sounds like a topic for a seperate thread so we don't hijack this thread from the OP.

read what he's trying to model.

a static universe wouldn't match the thermodynamic history that we can and have measured. Even if matter compresses. Why would you think the FLRW metric uses rigid coordinates? you can have a conformal or commoving coordinates in the FLRW metric these aren't rigid the only goemetric starting point is the fundamental observer. This isnt however a preferred location.

To add some details the FLRW metric models the Universe in terms of a fundamental observer Ned Wright has a decent coverage. https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peacock/Peacock3_1.html. Essentially we take our local conditions into consideration. Now in the Einstein field equations the Universe is modelled as an ideal gas. So each contributor has an equation of state. The equation of state for the Cosmological constant being w=-1. Expansion occurs when the kinetic energy of each contributor overcomes its self gravity. You don't need the cosmological constant to have expansion. Its only needed to explain the added rate of expansion. Essentially it's a placeholder until we can determine the process of the added expansion rate.

O/T means off topic so the moderators moved those posts to another thread. If you click the link in the modnote you can see the off topic posts.

Look at the equipment setup in the Fizou experiments. The equipment itself doesn't suffer from relativistic influence. Neither does the equipment in the Sagnac experiments. Or rather the experimentor is in the same frame of reference as the equipment. Looks like your still having trouble with frames of reference. If you have two observers Alice and Bob. Each with their own clock calibrated to each other. Alice being stationary for simplicity. Bob being inertial. Alice looks at her clock sees nothing out of the ordinary, when she looks at Bob's clock she sees the time dilation. However Bob looks at his clock sees nothing but when he looks at Alice's clock he sees the same dilation. In the Fizeou and Sacnac experiments the observer is in the same reference frame as the equipment.

Why would you think I would agree with you. You have yet to show any math to show how you can account for these experiments via Newtonian physics at the same degree of accuracy as those covered by relativity. If you honestly believe you can change a physicists mind about something without applying math and experimentation your deluding yourself. Measuring equipment doesn't compensate for measurements that are non linear. In particular the equipment used in those experiments. Your postulates is incorrect

You don't seem to be willing to understand. Sure you can use Newtonian physics where There is miniscule relativistic effects. However it will not be as accurate. For example there is a measurable time dilation experiment where two clocks were a measly 12" apart. Yes the effect is extremely small but nonetheless it is present. As far as theories based on postulates. Well most theories start out as postulates then the math is developed, then experimental evidence is gathered to see if they are correct. If the evidence doesn't show then the postulates are shown to be wrong. Happens more often than people realize.

As far as others involving blackholes with universe creation etc. There is no lack of similar threads. Seems to be a common first misunderstanding.

Its great you desire to learn, and your not precisely pushing your own idea. As Strange mentioned there is no center. Expansion data shows no preferred direction or location (center) to expansion. This is described by the cosmological principle. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic. To better understand these terms here is two useful articles. http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

You know I've watched your threads for sometime now. I've yet to see any mathematics beyond a few basic formula manipulations of which Swansort has pointed out errors within. I've been wondering "How long will it take for you to realize, you need a good understanding of the current model before reformulating your own???" The math level I read in all your threads amount to pure gibberish.

I would suggest looking at electron spectography. In spectography there is unique signatures each element emits (this includes electron orbitals.). When we examine a plasma cloud we can determine the cloud composition via its spectrograph (accounting for redshift) When googling don't worry about the colors, the detail is the frequencies. Spectrographs don't show colors they show frequencies. ( Google typically shows the color spectrum, due to how spectrogaphy was developed) Here is an extremely basic coverage http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Spectroscopy/Photoelectron_Spectroscopy/Photoelectron_Spectroscopy%3A_Theory See figure 5

It's a thesis paper on geometrodynamics covering numerous metrics since Wheeler first started modelling gravity by the action formulism. Which in its simplest terms means according to its momentum influence. Loop quantum gravity follows similar metrics of action. One thing to realize is you can create a successful model simply by its influence not necessarily the mechanism (particle to particle energy exchange). For example spacetime geodesics uses the principle of least action. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action The Hamilton's principle follows from langrenes (metrics used in the above principle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%27s_principle These metrics don't require particle to particle exchange and neither does relativity. The reason being is your measuring the influence it has on what you can measure. Ie the standard model multiparticle system. To put this into perspective. This paper calculates the detection requirements for a graviton. At a reasonable detection rate you would need a detector the mass of Jupiter near a primordial blackhole as the emitter. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&rct=j&q=graviton%20pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjfk9KRvZ7LAhVFymMKHW3hDyMQFggfMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fgr-qc%2F0601043&usg=AFQjCNG-bFQ_8lCsID-bXmAceGsHTeX1Fg good luck doing that in an Earth bound lab lol

No at the individual particle level the effects of gravity is well beyond our ability to quantize. This is the underlying problem that quantum gravity faces. We can only measure gravity at sufficient mass levels to have any measurable effects. Unfortunately bosons being the heaviest of the standard model particles( total energy/mass not rest mass itself). Means they also take the higher energy levels to create. This is particularly troublesome for the graviton. The mass expectations would require energy levels far beyond our particle accelerators. We would actually have a better chance creating all the supersymmetric particles predicted by SUSY, than a graviton. (Though we have good predictions that the graviton would need to be spin 2) A good field of study on the graviton is geometrodynamics. Which is the QFT branch dealing specifically with gravity (though it specifically tries to model spacetime without the graviton ,originally lol) http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&rct=j&q=geometrodynamics&ved=0ahUKEwj54MfwrZ7LAhUE-mMKHSGUBxoQFggfMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fgrqc%2F0409123&usg=AFQjCNHpAx0QWeJxPddqyC0p1PsHCYJeSQ

David if the conservation of energy/mass holds true for the Universe as a whole then the postulates you posted would be accurate. However energy/mass of the universe as the system state may or may not hold true. (There is no right or wrong answer, not with our current understanding) Now consider the following problem sets. the paper I showed you where the author showed both conserved and not conserved metrics. (Should have been an indicator that it depends on how you model the system). The author felt mass is created. Now consider the following questions. 1) What is mass? 2) How does observer affect how we measure mass and energy? 3) In one calc on that paper he included the Planck epock. 3a) how much influence does the Higgs field have at 10^16 Gev in a thermodynamic equilibrium Quark/gluon plasma soup? (Don't try to calculate it, just consider it) today the Higgs field accounts to roughly 1% the mass in a proton. 3b) did the author account for a varying Higgs field ? Or even the Higgs field itself? 3c) did he account for varying % of different elementary particles (ie those not bound in atoms ) The point being here is that paper was only 11 pages, it made numerous assumptions. The other problem is we can only theorize conditions prior to the CMB. We can only apply what we understand today to understand those conditions. We simply can't observe far enough. (The mean free path of photons was too short)

You've got the wrong idea about how the zero gravity facility works. It's a 132 metre drop in a vaccuum it's a similar principle to using a plane in a descent. It's not creating zero gravity via the plates. Here http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&rct=j&q=zero%20gravity%20facility&ved=0ahUKEwi-5-rU05TLAhUMyGMKHe_qDOoQFggiMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffacilities.grc.nasa.gov%2Fdocuments%2FTOPS%2FTopZERO.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGPhISDtv1JDrwjsF-q5OzV20Xjzw

The problem is gravity is so weak, it's extremely difficult to distinguish a gravity wave from background interference. A mere vibration from any source can I interfere. (Vibration etc)

No problem, however one has to understand the challenge presented to the mods on a forum. Take a new poster, he feels there is a mistake on an understanding. That poster takes it upon himself to solve that mistake, yet more often than not fails to back it with effort. By effort I mean supportive posts or effort into the math. Without mentioning specific posts currently I can point to three active posts that follow the rules on speculations that have been allowed. The mods allow the effort, after all any diligence into an effort has its rewards, provided the poster listens to advise being offered against his ideas. After all the job of us professionals on a particular field is to poke holes onto a model or theory. This done and accounted for strengthens that model or theory. The job of a moderator is extremely challenging. One they do so voluntarily. They must look at the wide variety of ideas, determine which has scientific merit or which is based upon misconceptions. (Not including other factors such as rules violations). As one that has moderated on a PLC (programmable logic controller website) for 2 Years not an easy task

Lol I recall a few private messages where you and I tried to find a scientific direction on a thread, including conversations on how to best guide a poster into a more informed direction. To describe it as hard is in some cases an understatement My wife has often heard me yell "how can he be so blind".

Dynamically the two are both modelled as a scalar field. So is the Higgs field. The equation of state that is used is [latex]w = \frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 - V(\phi)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 + V(\phi)}[/latex] In the case of the cosmological constant w=-1. This in thermodynamics equates to an incompressable fluid with a vanishing kinetic energy. quantum fluctuations via the Heisenberg uncertainty principles and zero point energy which is the theoretical lowest energy state [latex]e=\frac{\hbar v}{2}[/latex] was at one time proposed to the cosmological constant. However calculations later showed this lead to an error of 120 orders of magnitude too much energy. We're still trying to solve baryogenises on why our universe is currently comprised of matter vs antimatter balance. There is some hope in the SO(10) supersymmetric models but only time will tell. ! Moderator Note I see no reason as to why this thread should remain in the speculations forum. The OP is asking legitimate questions concerning a fundamental problem in Cosmology in terms of the conservation laws. At no point in the discussion has a single speculative argument been raised. Rather it's clear the OP is asking for information relating to the topic. The information within this thread is better suited in the Astronomy and Cosmology forum. For these reasons I'm going to move the thread where it belongs.

That statement is more accurate. Thanks

Now this post I like as it's a good description of properly researching a subject.