Mordred

The evidence against that view show otherwise but as mentioned it's a rapid expansion not an explosion. I've spent 35 years examining the evidence and understanding the mathematics pertaining to Cosmology including any related SM particle processes in particular the universe evolution from 10^{'43} seconds to CMB. I too have credentials in physics in both Cosmology and particle physics. Higher credentials in Cosmology my study focus has always been early Universe processes. That includes nucleosynthesis which forms the CMB. Wait one of those pieces of evidence counter to your scientists claim ( scientist doesn't necessarily mean physicist ) or physicist directly involved in astrophysics or Cosmology. To electroweak symmetry breaking with regards to TOE. So when it comes to what's required for a theory of everything I can certainly show you the correct direction. Though you would need to understand the Euler Langrangian equations of the Standard model. If your willing to learn I can teach you the basics behind the FLRW metric it's actually quite a simple geometry to work with. One common misconception is LCDM is not just the FLRW metric. It's any mathematical method used to describe a homogeneous and isotropic expansion using the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics for a baryotropic (isentropic and adiabatic) expansion. This is done via the equations of state for matter, radiation and Lambda. LCDM employs a wide range of theories and mathematics. lets start with the geometry I stated above that we need a homogenous and isotropic expansion. The metric that satisfies this is the FLRW metric \[ds^2=-d\tau^2+a(\tau)^2[\frac{d\tau^2}{1-kr^2}+r^2(d\theta^2+si^2+sin^2\theta d\phi^2\] homogeneity and isotropy must satisfy the above equation. Now there is a different format where its easier to see the 3d space components from the proper time components and scale factor. \[ds^2=-d\tau^2+a^2(\tau)\begin{cases} d\psi^2+sin^2\psi(d\theta^2+sin^2\theta d\phi+sin^2\theta d\phi^2)\\ dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\\ d\psi^2+sinh^2\psi(d\theta^2+sin^2\theta (d\phi+sin^2\theta d\phi^2) \end {cases}\] on the far right you can see the 3 dimensional Euclidean geometries for the commoving volume. The top line is positive curvature, the second is flat spacetime, the latter is negative curvature for values k=1,0,-1 of the first equation. \(\tau\) being proper time (cosmological time to a commoving observer with expansion. This ties the observer to the scale factor \(a(\tau)\). however the above is just the geometry the Friedmann also include the acceleration equation determined by the equations of state. \[\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G_N}{3}(\rho+3p)\]

Yes towards the common barycenter though which is the effective center of mass. However the universe has no center of mass. Mass is uniformly distributed at sufficient large volumes 100 Mpc.

Your descriptive unfortunately is inaccurate . The static you get on radios is detecting the CMB. It was unwanted static that couldn't be eliminated that led to detection of the CMB. The CMB would not even exist if the universe wasn't expanding. ( I know you agree that it is from our discussions) Our Observable universe we on Earth are the observers and all observations are relative to the observer. So our Observable universe is defined by our observations. Region of shared causality is the literal meaning behind Observable universe. A different observer at another location will have a different region of shared causality. No location can any observer state his observations from any locale is more special or different than any observations made from a different location. (Homogeneous by definition) You apply vectors to all particle motion. There is no inherent direction such as radiating outward from a common point. Isotropy no preferred location. Combined this forms the Cosmological Principle. If you want an analogy picture an observer in the middle of an ocean. His limit of observation being the curvature of the Earth roughly 20 km to the horizon line. This is true no matter where on that ocean that observer is provided they are far enough from land. That's the case with cosmology. We do not know how big the entire universe is. It could be finite or infinite. We only know the Observable portion of our universe (region of shared causality). We know that isn't the entire universe so stating we're at the center of the universe would be inaccurate when we can't even state our entire Observable universe is at the center. We have no means of ever confirming our Observable universe location in the entire universe. Let alone ever getting measurements beyond the particle horizon. Another way to think of it we cannot point in any direction and state the BB happened in that direction we are inside the region described by the BB and with expansion that region is gaining volume.

That's a consequence of separation distance and Hubble law "the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity" However that isn't a kinetic based velocity hence doesn't violate GR with greater than c recessive velocity. The rate of expansion per Mpc is roughly 70 km/sec/Mpc PS this is described in the Brian Powell article I posted earlier.

Let me put it this way every professional physicist understands that a TOE describes precisely what I stated and any professional peer reviewed article will have the related mathematics involving running of the coupling constants. Nothing is random assertions in physics for the record even something as mass, energy, time has specific mathematical connotations. This goes as well for any privileged location such as a center of the universe. No location mathematically has any advantage

One problem I always see when I see a thread on theory of everything. A theory of everything must have all the applicable mathematics and unify all 4 forces (running of the coupling constants) in order for that to happen all 4 forces must be renormalizable. We can unify EM, strong and weak force we cannot unify nor renormalize gravity. Unless you can do the above it's not a theory of everything. There is no other viable alternative. That is the requirement.

Were not talking random velocities of galaxies in terms of expansion. Every object has its own inertia. When dealing with expansion your looking at the mean average separation distance. Any object gravitationally bound is not expanding for example you and I are not expanding nor is a local large scale structure such as our local group, galaxies themselves etc. Expansion arises from the voids between gravitationally bound objects and due to the effective energy densities.

There's plenty of proof of expansion that proof doesn't necessarily involve redshift either. Though that's the more commonly known. Another proof is the universe itself cooling down over time due to expansion and the thermodynamic laws in regards to an adiabatic and isentropic expansion. The calculator in my signature can perform all the major FLRW metric calculations in proper distance. It will even show that the Hubble constant is decreasing even though expansion is accelerating. After work I cam readily detail the mathematics but I have a couple of articles for you to read. ://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies The balloon analogy by Phinds is one of the better ones done in addressing common misconceptions with regards to balloon analogy. The Brian Powell article is from a Cosmologist (I personally know online when he used to visit another forum). The lineweaver and Davies paper is highly cited and part of their dissertation paper.

No expansion has no inherent direction all directions you measure expansion occurs equally. A 3d analogy is the raisin bread analogy.

It isn't an explosion it's a rapid expansion of spacetime. Think of a gas by analogy and with volume change lower the density. A center implies radiating outward from a common origin There is zero evidence of any directional component in expansion hence the Balloon analogy. A directional expansion center outward would have angles changing between any three or points of reference. Expansion none of the angles change and all distances change equally. The only way that can happen is a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. No preferred location nor direction. That is what all observational evidence shows.

DanP posted a link in another thread in Speculation DM that directly details the final parsec problem. https://www.livescience.com/space/black-holes/final-parsec-problem-supermassive-black-holes-impossible-solution Unfortunately I dont see the actual paper but at least the link supplies clues to what to look for Edit found a paper https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0212270&ved=2ahUKEwj0mrqn04iIAxVzIDQIHR0YJhUQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ZhRad7UA8MO8CMW

The final parsec problem came up in another thread but we didn't have a reference so thanks for the link.

Plausible if I recall the paper suggested its still sinking to our core.

This isn't true in terms of measurement for our Observable universe. That isn't the same as center of our universe which doesn't exist under the Cosmological principle. Velocity is always relative even in Newtonian physics to the observer. For Our Observable universe the center Earth. However an observer in some distant galaxy will have a different Observable universe.

Well I believe everyone agrees we need tighter constraints on the impact possibilities nothing is particularly conclusive at our stage of research.

Speed of the objects ie average velocity of galaxies or rate of expansion influence ? (Ie recessive velocity) ?

Well guesswork with known physics being applied. The simulations are very useful as one can further use them to look for other evidence. For example one simulation suggests we can find a significant portion of Theia below our crust though if I recall something on the order of 80 km. Which is one other issue "where are the remnants of Theia ?"

Well in terms of debris one might be surprised at what is shown under simulations. This is one example. Paper here https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01814 NASA website pop media coverage with the simulation https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/collision-may-have-formed-the-moon-in-mere-hours-simulations-reveal/ I've seen different simulations and searches the results can vary greatly on how debris gets applied.

The reason why standard candles are needed is that they must have a well understood repeating process in order to determine what the emitter frequencies would be prior to any redshifts. This naturally relates directly to spectography This is also why the local group calibrations are necessary as we can use other methods not involving luminosity (stellar parallax ) as a means of verification that are unfortunate impractical far field. The evolution history of our universe will also influence luminosity due to how the density of matter, radiation and the cosmological constant evolve over time. Though these factors are typically included in these papers. Using a galaxy as a distance measure is well put bluntly to varied in possible spectography spectrum to be useful.

The biggest problem with pop media coverage is they tend to be very misleading. They never tell the full story and typically strive to drive reading interest with sensationalist claims. What the pop media coverage fails to mention is just how truly difficult it is to calibrate for standard candles. Whenever more sensitive equipment is used, you will invariably encounter calibration issue. Specifically environmental calibration such as local group light pollution, peculiar local group velocities, etc etc. A great deal of research has been recently published in regards to using specific standard candles of our local group for benchmark calibration this then gets applied to the luminosity distance relations. This also is being applied to the Hubble contention between local group datasets give rise to a different Hubble constant than datasets using the CMB. A good example you may be familiar with was the calibration issues in regards to the axis of evil from the first Planck dataset. (Dipole anistrophy) The other issue of course being were not clear on just how long it takes for a galaxy to form in a much higher density past. The same goes for primordial black holes. Then there is detail that look back time used to determine the age of the Universe involves the cosmological parameters and Hubble constant. Any variation in two datasets concerning those will determine a different age for the universe. Though the difference typically isn't too significant. I've also seen later studies showing distance corrections to previous far field measured objects via filter calibration (filters for luminosity both hardware and software) in regards to JWST This paper I posted in another thread in this forum is a recent JWST study to determine the Hubble constant by the method I briefly described above is one example. It doesn't find any need for new physics in regards to Hubble parameter. Though this paper is in regards to the Hubble contention the studies It did on the cepheids it uses also get applied for far field measurements. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06153

It's all good if you keep posting in a decent manner such as you did on your return here. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/134508-the-moon-earths-little-sister/ Then any neg rep points will quickly disappear.

One significant difference the moon has no erosion while the Earth does. It's more likely the Earth was hit more frequently due to higher gravity but due to erosion the evidence has long been wiped out. +1 for the considerable improvement in thread quality.

How did we go from renewable energy to conservation of energy in regards to the Observable universe ?

No problem glad to help.

Not quite the router will have its own address but so does each device downstream. The router will rebroadcast the data included the IP address which is contained with each data packet. The device that has the correct address will then pick up the data. If you do not know the IP address on the CPU should be a MAC number. You can use the old DOS (ARP) command using the MAC Addy and return the IP address. Or change that IP address. There are utilities though available that does the same thing however I can't recall the name.