Mordred

When I get a chance later I'll post the proper distance formula, how Hubbles constant evolves with time. You can check my signature on the Cosmo calc. Which is all done to proper distance. If you look under advanced users the formulas are given though they are slightly modified to use Stretch. Which is the inverse of the scale factor.

The formulas for how to compare the imparted momentum change in 'velocity" are in the link. Try them for a change. Don't blame me if a metric developed by someone else doesn't work for you. Google the term the dust radiates the heat "isotropically". This means from the first image it radiates the heat in all directions. The advanced metrics under SR involve relativistic beaming. Here is a worked example. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200968/why-is-radiation-under-poynting-robertson-drag-anisotropic Now ask yourself the question " What does a spinning Sun have to do with the direction of radiation, when the radiation is moving at c? And in what direction? Away from the Sun in a straight line.....so how can this change with a fast spinning Sun? What path does light follow... Did you ever look at the distance radiation pressure works with the Poynting Robertson vector?? "The PoyntingRobertson effect applies to grain-size particles. From the perspective of a grain of dust circling the Sun, the Sun's radiation appears to be coming from a slightly forward direction (aberration of light). Therefore, the absorption of this radiation leads to a force with a component against the direction of movement. (The angle of aberration is extremely small since the radiation is moving at the speed of light while the dust grain is moving many orders of magnitude slower than that.) The result is a slow spiral of dust grains into the Sun. Over long periods of time this effect cleans out much of the dust in the Solar System. While rather small in comparison to other forces, the radiation pressure force is inexorable. Over long periods of time, the net effect of the force is substantial. Such feeble pressures are able to produce marked effects upon minute particles like gas ions and electrons, and are important in the theory of electron emission from the Sun, of cometary material, and so on. Because the ratio of surface area to volume (and thus mass) increases with decreasing particle size, dusty (micrometre-size) particles are susceptible to radiation pressure even in the outer solar system. For example, the evolution of the outer rings of Saturn is significantly influenced by radiation pressure" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure So what difference does a spinning Sun entail when the effect is the Entire solar system. ?????

Last link Robbitty if you want to model something based upon the metrics involved in a model. It's a good idea to work the formulas out and try some examples. The problem here is the metrics involved have nothing to do with the orbital speed of the sun. The metrics are specific to radiation pressure emitted by the Sun vs the orbital velocity of the particle. The most you can change with the Poynting vector metrics as designed is change orbits... Due to the SIZE of particles involved, A SPINNING Sun makes no difference. The particle will still radiate the heat gain in the SAME manner. This is the part you obviously keep missing. ITS the dust itself radiating the heat that causes DRAG. NOT the direction of radiation. This is the wrong theory to get the mechanism your seeking. The mechanism that does involve sun rotation rate is density waves with Limbart resonance. The other link I sent on pm On the other model all particle sizes are involved.

v is the orbital velocity, all you needed to is read the page I linked to you in PM. You won't reverse v. Its the relation between the force caused by the Poynting vector and force of gravity for changes in orbit...the link also explains the image you posted under how the two observers define the cause of motion change. From the perspective of the grain of dust circling a star (panel (a) of the figure), the star's radiation appears to be coming from a slightly forward direction (aberration of light). Therefore the absorption of this radiation leads to a force with a component against the direction of movement. The angle of aberration is extremely small since the radiation is moving at the speed of light while the dust grain is moving many orders of magnitude slower than that. From the perspective of the star (panel (b) of the figure), the dust grain absorbs sunlight entirely in a radial direction, thus the grain's angular momentum is not affected by it. But the re-emission of photons, which is isotropic in the frame of the grain (a), is no longer isotropic in the frame of the star (b). This anisotropic emission causes the photons to carry away angular momentum from the dust grain. Impact of the effect on dust orbitsEdit Particles with have radiation pressure at least half as strong as gravity, and will pass out of the Solar System on hyperbolic orbits.[3] For rocky dust particles, this corresponds to a diameter of less than 1 µm.[4] Particles with may spiral inwards or outwards depending on their size and initial velocity vector; they tend to stay in eccentric orbits. Particles with take around 10,000 years to spiral into the sun from a circular orbit at 1 AU. In this regime, inspiraling time and particle diameter are both roughly .[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting%E2%80%93Robertson_effect

No it's someone's personal theory that has never been peer reviewed and spammed over the internet in advertising efforts

It's in how your defining the system. There is a common misconception with pop media expansion rate they don't tell the full story properly. First off the rate of expansion today per Mpc is defined by Hubbles constant. Hubbles constant isn't constant. The value is only the same everywhere in the universe at the same time. (It's an historical term were stuck with, it's more accurately Hubbles parameter) Second recessive velocity isn't a real velocity.... its classed as an apparent velocity. The galaxies gain no inertia. Now as to your question. If you measure expansion as per Hubbles parameter km/s/Mpc the rate of expansion is slowing down. Since the CMB it's slowed down considerably. If however you measure expansion via the radius of the observable universe it's accelerating. This is because of the gained Mpc. Let's say expansion growth is 100% increase for each Mpc. measure radius. 1 2 4 8 16. But the rate per Mpc is still 100%. (Basically the two terms are due to seperation distance between measurement a and b.)

PR is calculated by radiation pressure. Essentially the radiation pressure heats up the smaller particles in an isotropic manner. (Due to small size). The particles themself release this gained heat this release causes loss of angular momentum (this is your drag in this instance) and subsequently orbit decay until the particle falls into the Sun. The closer the particle gets to the Sun the greater the angular momentum drag. The rotation of the Sun itself wouldn't really matter look at the sheer volume of the Sun compared to a speck of dust. Now place that speck day for example the orbit of Mercury. How could the suns rotation possibly matter. Not that the direction the radiation comes from would change anything. The key point is the dust speck is small enough 1 micron that no matter which direction it gets the radiation from, it's going to release the heat in every direction. This is the drag. (A good example is use a blowtorch to heat loose iron filings. Can you measure a heat difference from one side of the filing compared to any other surface point? The answer will be no, and as such it makes no difference what direction the blow torch flame is coming from.) Then it's orbit decay vs the Suns gravity and the dust particles angular momentum.

Yeah it's pretty much as I recalled. The dust particles involved are roughly 1 micron in size. It would be like trying to planet build with the dust on your computer screen. In the other posts you had I mentioned a few other processes though I can't recall the names atm. Those would be your main contribution models. PR is too minor an influence

Well the first problem is the force isn't similar to gravity. It's vector being radially outward opposite to the rotation of the Sun. So it's not a force keeping the planet in orbit. Now if the force was towards the Sun with frame dragging. Then it would match gravity. Good example the accretion disk of a BH. However it's the exact opposite. So the problem is simple. Use regular gravity equations. Then switch your vector in the opposite direction... Call it anti gravity. Other than that it impossible for this force to keep the planet in orbit. Not without a force whose vector is in the direction of attraction. Which the drawn force is not.

well thats the crux its your model. yes a human can lose height near he end of the day but after 8 hours rest can regain that height. As far as planets etc we already account for this. Under density. In space we model the critical density, average density of matter, average density of radiation, average density of the Cosmological constant. Which allows us to develop the curvature constant. [latex]w=\frac{rho}{p}[/latex] [latex]\rho_{crit}=\frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] [latex]\Omega_{total}=\Omega_{rad}+\Omega_{matter}+\Omega_\Lambda[/latex] [latex]\Omega=\frac{P_{total}}{P_{crit}}[/latex] these evolve according to this equation. Note the terms under the square root. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] this means in volume change matter and radiation energy/mass density change as [latex]\rho_{radiation}\propto R^{-4}[/latex] [latex]\rho_{matter}\propto R^{-3}[/latex] [latex]\rho_{\Lambda}=constant[/latex] [latex]a=\frac{R}{R_o}=\frac{1}{(1+z)}[/latex] [latex]\rho=\frac{\rho_{r,o}}{a^4}+\frac{\rho_{m,o}}{a^3}+\rho_\Lambda[/latex] Now how is the above relations defined.. Iehow is each equation of state determined.... First take the first law of thermodynamics. [latex]dU=dW=dQ[/latex] U is internal energy W =work. As we dont need heat transfer Q we write this as [latex]DW=Fdr=pdV[/latex] Which leads to [latex]dU=-pdV.[/latex]. Which is the first law of thermodynamics for an ideal gas. [latex]U=\rho V[/latex] [latex]\dot{U}=\dot{\rho}V+{\rho}\dot{V}=-p\dot{V}[/latex] [latex]V\propto r^3[/latex] [latex]\frac{\dot{V}}{V}=3\frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex] Which leads to [latex]\dot{\rho}=-3(\rho+p)\frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex] We will use the last formula for both radiation and matter. Assuming density of matter [latex]\rho=\frac{M}{\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3}[/latex] if matter doesn't follow this ratio as per what I understand in your model that alters This relation [latex]\rho=\frac{dp}{dr}\dot{r}=-3\rho \frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex] Using the above equation the pressure due to matter gives an Eos of Pressure=0. Which makes sense as matter doesn't exert a lot of kinetic energy/momentum. For radiation we will need some further formulas. Visualize a wavelength as a vibration on a string. [latex]L=\frac{N\lambda}{2}[/latex] As we're dealing with relativistic particles [latex]c=f\lambda=f\frac{2L}{N}[/latex] substitute [latex]f=\frac{n}{2L}c[/latex] into Plancks formula [latex]U=\hbar w=hf[/latex] [latex]U=\frac{Nhc}{2}\frac{1}{L}\propto V^{-\frac{1}{3}}[/latex] Using [latex]dU=-pdV[/latex] using [latex]p=-\frac{dU}{dV}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{U}{V}[/latex] As well as [latex]\rho=\frac{U}{V}[/latex] leads to [latex]p=1/3\rho[/latex] for ultra relativistic radiation. so you tell me hw to fit your idea in. From the FLRW metric your distance relation follow as [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2[/latex] [latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sin r/R & k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sin r/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex] So I'm not following how you can apply local relativity, as you define it. Relativity is already applied in every aspect of measurement in Cosmology applications. The FLRW metric is 100% compatible with the Einstein field equations. We look for observer influences via redshift, not only cosmological, but also Doppler and gravitational redshift. The Sache-Wolfe effect is an application of gravitational redshift.

no your wrong .. Please stop and actually crunch numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law then google spectography and consider each element and its spectral index. then stop and ask yourself what is Z how is z derived ? your little patch work fixes in redshift relations in your last post don't cut it. If you were actually crunching numbers as I asked you would have discovered one KEY aspect. Hubbles law means we have a Hubble Horizon. which is smaller than the cosmological Horizon V=Hd and proper distance relations changes above the Hubble horizon. The apparent recessive velocity exceeds c above the Hubble horizon. course if you crunched the numbers you would have relaized that your patchwork fixes on redshift z wouldnt work,..... But then your assumptions on luminosity distance is also incorrect. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&rct=j&q=high%20z%20apparent%20lumisosity%20increase&ved=0ahUKEwiF97uyk__KAhXGLmMKHeWQBSYQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fastro-ph%2F0505206&usg=AFQjCNE8qV8k1W7g3lt2Mw1ZgqLi5Z6E5g At high z there are corrections. This is why I have been stressing. "Don't assume your derived formulas are correct. Do the calculations over a good range and check" Compare those results to observation and calcs done by related metrics The other problem is your statements keep changing..... Read your posts in one post you stated the gravitational constant and Coulomb constant changes. The one value you gave for the gravitational constant was 100* current value. Then on your last post you state it doesn't change. I strongly suggest you rework your model be more clear on what changes and when. Then when you've tested your derivitaves post the results (with the actual numbers) Quite frankly there is too many changed statements for me to desire to decipher. The last point is your using the same prime and inprimed symbols used in relativity. We use relativity in all measurements for wavelength etc already. So which effects are a consequence of your model ie actual contraction. And which is the normal length contraction due to relativity? Try using different symbols to denote those specific to your model. If you have contraction whether or not its observer only or actual the measured temperature WILL CHANGE. That's why measured energy is also observer dependant. Aka REDSHIFT.... Now where does your model add further compression?????????????

Your not considering what is the emitter wavelength and peak. Just judging from the numbers your throwing in your making assumptions. Google Weins displacement law. You are modelling a compression of matter sufficient enough to cause an illusion of no cosmological constant. The cosmological constant has attributed to a huge volume change in expansion. You need to look at actual numbers those formulas apply to. You can't just assume the formulas will work without testing them. For example stars themselves will compress. They are made of matter. What happens to their blackbody temperature as a result of further compression? You can't tell me and expect me to believe that it will remain the same, nor that they won't heat up due to compression. In the FLRW, your changing the average density of matter. This will cause changes to the curvature constant. (You need to look at actual numbers and it's multimodel influence) ( so far I'm suggesting relatively easy formulas to consider. I haven't mentioned the Einstein field equations, Bose-Einstein statistics, Maxwell- Boltzmann statitstics. Let alone the Boltzmann constant.) Next point you need to clarify which particles compress. (What type of particles count as matter particles) What is the influence on quage theories. So(5)*So(3)*SO(2)*U(1) ? What is the influence on coupling constants? Ie coupling constant of the strong force and electromagnetic force,gravitational force? Believe me your just getting started. Stop and ask yourself "How many formulas use the gravitational constant? ". "How many formulas does a varying gravitational constant influence, in how many different fields of study"? (Speaking of gravitational constant...what tests have been performed to confirm the gravitational constant? How is it determined in the first place?) These are the types of questions you need to address when you suggest modifying something as fundamental to physics as the gravitational constant. ( then there is also the fine structure constant, which is also influenced by the Cosmological constant). "In the January 2007 issue of Science, Fixler et al. described a new measurement of the gravitational constant by atom interferometry, reporting a value of G = 6.693(34)×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2.[8] An improved cold atom measurement by Rosi et al. was published in 2014 of G = 6.67191(99)×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant Why do these tests not note a change in the gravitational constant?

the length contraction formulas I provided you work for particle to particle interactions as well as an observer. I also referred you to an example in Moun decay rates.

DanP relativity didn't stop with Einstein. The equations today are far more complex than his time. Perhaps if you actually read the material provided you might just learn something

The math is here about as simple as relativity gets. I also included two textbook links. The first link is extremely basic math

Z=1 proper distance now. (Using Planck 2013 values. Z=1 11064.707 Mly Z=2 17314.77 Mly Z=3 21225.6514 Mly Z=4 23933.6225 Mly Z=5 25943.908 Z=6 27510.4166 Z=7 28774.7706 Z=8 29822.8057 Z=9 30709.7325 Z=10 31472.9467 That should be enough to show the non linear relation. The problem is you need to compare what you would calculate and what the FLRW metric would calculate for the proper distance now and what the temperature and corresponding volume would be. Then you would also need to redefine the equations of state. Matter, radiation have different EoS values their density doesn't adjust at the same rate. Now I am mentioning these details as the FLRW metric works extremely well with relativity and thermodynamic relationships. I am pushing you in the direction of developing your model in the direction of that same rigor. Otherwise your model will fail. In order to do that you will need to compare your metric answers to the answers that the FLRW metric will get. The next problem is your going to need to address the distance to luminosity relations. As well as diameter distance measurement. Changing a few basic formulas is a bare minimal start. By the way radiation does have gravitational influence ( all energy/density does) even gravity waves The point you keep missing though is compression raises temperature, expansion lowers temperature. Your compressing matter, which will raise the temperature of matter. If you didn't recognize this formula then you haven't looked at the thermodynamic portion of the FLRW metric. [latex]a\propto\frac{1}{T}[/latex] If that's the case then I have to ask how will you account for BB nucleosynthesis? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) You should review the EoS Point being you can't assume your model will work with thermodynamics you must show it does

Sorry the last post doesn't make any sense. Your saying there is no expansion. Yet matter contracts sufficient enough to cause a redshift illusion of z=1100?. If matter contracted that much every planet would be ablaze due to the increase in its density. Sorry I'm not buying it. Especially since you don't require the Cosmological constant to have an expanding universe. Radiation can and has caused expansion as well. Not to mention you completely ignored the reference to the scale factor and temperature. [latex]a\propto\frac{1}{T}[/latex] Have you ever looked at z to distance values? Its not linear

Sorry but your description from earlier posts entails flows. This is where your going to need the math to show otherwise. You have energy entering and exitting a system. That's a flow. A flow has direction. It is not isotropic.

Yeah working it into the FLRW metric is definetely a needed step. For example at any value of a the scale factor I can give you the temperature. I can even calculate the number density of any elementary particle. (Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics) from that temperature. Secondly I don't see any relation that covers redshift and this is an extremely important aspect. The first portion of your equation doesn't have any significant influence upon the second portion until you hit roughly 10^25 meters using 67.9 km/s/Mpc. try it 67.9 km/s/Mpc *1 metre/c. Dang close to 1. What unit of measure do you draw the line between local to global? 1 metre, 1Mpc ?

Sounds to me your idea still needs some work. Part of the reason I mentioned thermodynamics is that one of the most commonly missed pieces of evidence is that the universe has cooled. The reason I chose to post the equation I did is two reasons. One the formula shows how the density of radiation, matter and the Cosmological constant vary as the volume changes. Note they don't change at the same rate. Secondly it shows that Hubbles constant changes over time. (Which in turn gives you a tool to check your model.) After all your equations need to work at every point in expansion. (Radiation, matter and Lambda dominant eras) Ive seen models before where you have contracting matter as opposed to expansion. The ones I recall fail to account for the thermodynamic aspects particularly on the global scale. The other aspect they had trouble with is redshift itself. (Which is also temperature influenced) As far as what you've shown I see a lot of maybe this or not sure statements. I'm also unclear how to test your math, M1 real and apparent M2 real and apparent, changing G etc.

It's a handy cross check on new formulas for sure. I don't think the formula is getting the desired results though. Maybe due to not knowing Hubbles constant varies increases as the observable universe gets smaller. I have run some calcs. For the calcs I have set M_1 and M_2 as 1 kg mass, radius size of observable universe at time of a specific value of z. To improve accuracy I'll use data from the Cosmo calc keeping the same degree of accuracy in units. So as the calc uses Gly I'll do the same. Z=1100 H/H_O=23257.146 radius 0.000619 Gly. H today 67.9 H then 67.9*23257.146. Result 4.11*10^-55 kg m/s^2. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-+540894979.6+km%2Fsec%2FMegaparsec*0.000619+Gly%2F+c+)(G*1kg*1+kg%2F0.000619+Gly%5E2) Observable today from calc data observable universe 14.399932 Gly. H =67.9 5.1*10^-62 kg/m/s^2 I could be misreading what your doing here. "2. Interaction delay term - If the matter contracts and changes the masses and gravitation constant of two bodies M1 and M2 , due to that the graviation effect travels at light velocity, there is a delay Tdelay = R/C in the gravitation interaction that causes transformation difference between real M1 and apparent M2 and real M2 and apparentM1 , and this cross interaction gives therefore there term L(0-Tdelay) > 1 in newtonian gravitation:" Oh you specified local so lets use 1 metre I set 1 metre for R. Run 67.9 km/s/Mpc. getting 6.67*10-11 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-+67.9++km%2Fsec%2FMegaparsec*+1+m%2F+c+)(+(-G*1kg*1kg)%2F1+m%5E2) For some reason wolframalpha links are parsing the full equation links However I'm still not seeing results that makes sense. Just noticed you specified G as 100* stronger but that still doesn't explain the numbers I'm getting.

Your right gravity doesn't have a polarity. This site here has probably one of the simpler explanation via math. http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/gwave.html

Yeah I found where I did my error I was about to correct my post.

How in the world can you have contraction that is not caused by any force? Secondly why are you not applying the thermodynamic laws? Is it because if you take any object and compress it you change the temperature? Which we don't see happening? It's great that your trying to use math to describe your model but your missing the key aspects in the FLRW metrics (that being the thermodynamic involvement) Now here is a problem I can immediately see wrong on your math. That being the Hubble constant itself. The Hubble constant is only constant throughout the observable universe at a specific moment in time. It's value changes these changes can be calculated. (Or measured). If you do the calculation you will find that Hubbles constant increases as you go back in time. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] You can use this formula to calculate the Hubbles constant then as opposed to now. For example at z=1100 CMB roughly Hubbles constant is. H today of 67.9 km/s/Mpc. Leads to ratio of H/H_O is 23257.149 multiplying this value by Hubbles constant today tells us H then 540894979.6 km/s/Mpc. how did you derive this equation? [latex] F_g = (1-\frac{HR}{c}) (\frac{-G M1m2}{R^2})[/latex] Why the minus sign for G? Either way the left hand side doesn't match the right hand side if you do a dimensional analysis.

My initial concern when I saw your age of the universe was "what was the blackbody temperature at this time." However if I've done my calculation correct the age corresponds to scale factor 0.006. Which will make the average temperature roughly 166 Kelvin.