Mordred

Then you should be careful what you type on the first. Power requirements isn't a mere detail in practicality.

Before you worry about DDE specifically I would run through the Doppler shift calcs. Get a feel on those equations. Also run the calcs for Weins displacement law, convert wavelength to Blackbody temperature and back a few times. For PR, a preliminary is luminosity, key note play with brightness and surface area of the emitter. (This is based on the confusions you've had on this thread) One bite of the Apple at a time as they say

Normally I would use excel and scilab. (Similar to matlab). Except I have to replace my laptop. So lately I do the calcs by hand or on Wolfram.

Umm no. Definitely not even close to reality. First off gravity doesn't travel faster than c. Secondly the sheer power requirements to manipulate spacetime is immense. (Google the theoretical Alcubierre drive) coincidencally requires exotic materials. The sheer power requirements vs the lack of gain. (Not faster than electromagnetic). Makes gravity completely impractical for communication. Remember gravity is the weakest of the 4 forces. The strong and weak force are too limitted in range. Electromagnetic has the best range/power ratio. Best part is were already using it

I type all my latex in, its easy with a little practice on the syntax

Lol now I'm curious how many times I mentioned that useful hydrodynamic concept on this forum lol

Here is a list of latex symbols for various characters. When you do latex, type the word latex at the beginning and surround that word with [l.tex ] then type latex at the end surround it with [/l.tex ] use the forward slash in front of latex. (Replace the dot with the letter a) If you quote this post look at this demo. ( I'll do a greek character and fraction combo) [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex]

have you ever looked at how far a radio signal progogates through space before it gets effectively washed out and indiscernable from the background radiation? Have you ever considered how far the nearest star is from us and how long it takes light to reach us? let alone the nearest known Earth like planet in the habitable zone were aware of ? How long does it take for a planet to develop a technologically advanced enough race for space travel? How many extinction events ocur in our hazardous universe from Comets, meteors Planetary collisions etc?? the question your asking cannot be determined from a timeline based on a sim no matter how accurate the sim may be. These types of questions were not even involved in the sim.

yeah I can give you a hand later on, currently working 12 hour days in the field this week so my time scedule is tight.

mankind certainly isnt 3.5 Billion years old, and our spaceflight technology is less than 100 years. Some things take a logical amount of time to develop the necessary technology. Would a 3.5 billion year ago microbe care if life is on another planet??? would it even be able to percieve such? the quoted argument in my opinion is poorly thought out. Not by you but by Tegmarks

it depends on how you define the system your describing. I think Sean Carroll has an appropriate expression. "There’s nothing incorrect about that way of thinking about it; it’s a choice that one can make or not, as long as you’re clear on what your definitions are" you can choose either choice conserved or not. depending on how your modelling the system. If your modelling just the thermodynamic aspects you'll conclude more often than not that it is conserved, but if your modelling the system via an evolving spacetime, with GR its not. this is one of those cases where there isn't a wrong answer, the answer will depend on the system state your modelling. as far as the cosmological constant vs the Higgs field here is a non technical article. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24043-dark-energy-could-be-the-offspring-of-the-higgs-boson/

As Strange showed there is some debate whether energy is conserved or not. It's rather an open question. It gets rather confusing, particularly for the laymen. In GR it's considered that energy isn't a conserved quantity. This implies neither does the FLRW metric. However it's not quite that simple, if you read Cosmology textbooks that deal primarily with the particle aspects its considered conserved. On Cosmology textbooks that covers more heavily on the GR aspects its not. Sean Carroll's article has a half decent explanation. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ though he adds yet another dimension lol

Good article its written in a good clear format, it essentially conforms to what Ive been explaining to you. Good study aid, I'll probably add it to my database. you can treat it as a rotating frame of reference

The problem isn't that a particle wouldn't be affected by DDE. The problem was thinking the Suns spin would be affected. The sun emits an average wavelength regardless of its spin. DDE effects won't change its spin rate as from the reference frame of the Sun as the emitter there is no DDE effect. From the particle it's a different story. Frequency relates to energy, so a shorter wavelength will add more energy to the particle. However as I mentioned the peak average wavelength is 500 nm on the 11 year cycle average. The DDE effect is plus or minus 0.00395 nm. The ratio difference between 500nm and 0.00395 nm is 1265822.78481. Comparitively the 0.00395 nm would be a miniscule factor.

Not quite correct. Part one is correct, Part 2 not so much.. Recall the energy-density of matter and radiation changes at different rates but the cosmological constant stays constant. Matter and radiation interchange is easy to understand. A lot of the relations we can lab test on Earth. The problem is the Cosmological constant per m^3 is so extremely close to zero we require immense volume just to measure it. It's so close to zero we can't even determine if it's coming from the current mass or radiation density. This is why we can't tell with certainty if it obeys the conservation of energy. There was one post where I also stated that the universe energy equated to roughly 10^90 protons (equivalent). That's still true today as it was as early as we can measure the total energy/density. The part I was trying to get you to understand was matter, radiation and the Cosmological constant energy?density changes at different rates as the universe expands. Matter has a lower kinetic energy than radiation does. So when you took values today and compared them at a smaller volume, The ratio change would be different than if you used the formula I provided

Well I'll admit the paper itself is interesting, but the pop media Scientific America hype does it zero justice. First off the paper doesn't state life doesn't exist on other planets. It states that galaxies such as our own may have a smaller %. This is the as the paper puts it "mild Copernican violation". Key word on mild. The paper also bases it's study with look back time in mind . Meaning the further we look back the further into the past we see. This is part of the error bar. The only thing special they actually refer to is the conditions of Earth like planets developing in our local group up to a specific z value. Not too surprising a result. When you consider all the criteria for a planet with liquid water, right mix of elements via metalicity. That's about the only indication that the Earth is special, The problem is we can't measure "Now" everywhere so our datasets are limiited by that factor. It places a higher probability of life sustaining planets in other galaxy types.

Yeah I just noticed the arxiv file I'll retract the modtip. Reading the arxiv file atm

It's a modtip, It's more a message to avoid insulting tones in your posts. Also this thread has numerous information showing the Earth isn't a special place. The laws of physics is the same here than anywhere else.

Because your not listening. Instead your assuming I'm wrong simply because you don't understand it. No I'm a resident expert, that grants me certain moderator leeway.

Roflmao... Our own motion relative to the CMB causes a dipole anisotropy to the CMB temperature measurements. Does that mean the universe is hotter in the direction of our motion? Man spend a little time studying and less jumping to misguided conclusions. Thats like saying I can burn you up by measuring the frequency your emitting and flying fast enough toward you while I measure your temperature.

Read my last post. With all the time Youve Bern on this forum. One would have thought you would have learned how Doppler effect or gravitational and Cosmological redshift works. Me too

Take a vehicle or any object. Measure its speed via the formula I showed you. It's used in radar guns. Light only travels at c. As the object approaches you the wavelength contracts. As it moves away it's wavelength expands. The same effect occurs whether or not the vehicle is sitting still or if the radar gun is the object moving. This is the same thing with the Sun. The measured wavelength change is a result of its motion relative to your reference frame not the wavelength it is emitting.

Your own motion can affect redshift measurement. If you fly away from the sun the entire Sun will measure a different wavelength. Does that mean the entire Sun has cooled off?

The proof in the blooming equation. Yeesh the equation follows conforms to GR. The two terms EMITTER, OBSERVER should be sufficient proof. Change the observer position you get a different result, have the observer move. Does that mean the Sun actually changes temperature because your moving? Measure a static object you are the observer with inertia. Did the temperature of the object change or did your observation of that measurement change? Come on man use a little common sense.

I've already read the article your understanding of it is incorrect... The Universe is huge, we have evidence that life can exist on meteors (microbes) and survive. We haven't been able to leave our solar system and we've only explored an extremely small % via telescopes which can barely detect the planets let alone determine if there is life on it or not. It's not like our telescopes can stare down on a planet several million light years away and spot an alien eating dinner. Use a little common sense