Mordred

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity Here is one test. http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/gravity/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077353/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/first-test-gravitys-speed-upholds-einstein/

Speed limit of all interactions is c. Gravity propogates at c in a vacuum same as the electromagnetic.

If you goto the original thread the links works there. When I did the copy paste from that thread it copied the scienceforum address.

Your still missing the key detail. Please look at how matter and radiation scales down. Your using values today and expecting the % to be the same in the past. This figure for example is the rest mass of the observable universe TODAY. 3 × 10^52 - Estimated mass (in kilograms) of the observable universe. The problem is in the past particles are more energetic (higher temperatures). There is fewer atoms then than today and more radiation then than today. So the rest mass then will be different than today. then you took this value without looking at which portion is matter which portion is radiation 4 × 10^69 - Estimated total mass-energy (in Joules) of the observable universe and tried scaling them back as a function of volume. However the % of matter and the % of radiation is different in the past than it is today. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] Notice the density parameter for matter changes as a function of z different than radiation. [latex]\Omega_m(1+z)^3[/latex] [latex]\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4[/latex] However the cosmological constant doesn't scale back it's average density remains constant. It's total energy changes as the volume changes. So today you have more total energy contribution from the cosmological constant today than you will in the past. [latex]\Omega_{\Lambda}[/latex] This is why the method your using is giving you the wrong answers.

I don't have a particular favorite. Here is the two articles I was thinking of. http://astro.berkele...y/kimura02a.pdf This one has Poynting vector as well but it's mainly the solar wind influence. http://www.ieap.uni-...ing/et2/et2.pdf. you may have read them before as I posted them in one of your older threads. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88734-can-anything-fall-into-the-sun/page-1

David you cannot directly take the mass density of the full universe and directly convert it to Joules then state that it will be the energy density in the past . You must apply the equations of state for each particle species matter changes in energy density at a different rate than radiation. The equations of state is in the link Strange posted. Shrink the universe enough and all particles become relativistic hence radiation.

Dan you really don't understand how gravity works with relativity. You also don't strike me as interested in learning how it works. Rather you use straw man arguments simply because it doesn't conform to your way of thinking. Believe whatever fallacies you wish. The information and tools to properly understand relativity is in the links I provided. There is plenty of evidence and tests showing relativity is accurate. For example your objection to a gravitational field. If you looked at the math of how a gravitational field is defined you would see it's no different than how QED defines an electromagnetic field. PS relativity is a classical field. If you want the quantum ( non classical) then you want quantum geometrodynamics. Or QFT The terminology you want is Newtonian vs relativity.

I already explained The errors wrong formula usage. This value for one is incorrect your scaling down density without including the equations of state for matter and radiation. 1.57 x 37.037 Joules/ m3 = 58.148 Joules/ m3 you didn't catch the hint from under the square root in this equation. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] Note matter and radiation density changes at different rates.

This full statement doesn't work... We have observable proof that expansion has happened, redshift alone tells you expansion occurs. However we don't rely on just redshift. The temperature change from CMB to now tells us expansion has occurred. Interstellar parallax and intergalactic parallax tells us expansion is occurring. Your misguided calculation tells us you can't do math... What part of the formulas your using, uses the expansion rate in those calculation don't you understand? Earlier this thread I provided the formula to calculate the rate 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] In other words your not using the right formulas. The rest of the math is moot because your using the wrong procedure and formulas This formula is a short cut method, it is derived from the last set of formulas (through many steps in particular the equations of state) [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] The advantage of the last derivitive is that were using already previously calculated and measurement confirmed values.

This example here is "if you take a probe fly it from a large scale structure in the universe today... The energy of expansion will overcome gravity from that large scale structure. The critical density formula uses the rate of expansion. Which is the value H. Hubbles constant. [latex]\Omega=\frac{\Omega_{total}}{\Omega_{critical}}[/latex] Does not determine the expansion rate of the universe but is used to determine the curvature constant

Not bad yes we proved spacetime can be curved to produce lenses. While gravity waves involve the same principle of distortion, this is the first time we have confirmed measurement of a distortion wave. So it's another piece of evidence, along with lenses that GR is correct

I don't know why you keeping saying the early universe can't expand especially since you and I both know it did. Especially since the equation we used above shows the expansion rate H/H_O Seriously you really need to realize your doing something wrong especially since the equation used the expansion rate at the time of the CMB. Seriously David... The early universe was 40Mly. The universe today is how big? Does it make sense to say the early universe can't expand. When the universe today is bigger than the universe then?????? Come on use a little common sense. Expansion rate at CMB is 540894979.6 km/s/Mpc. 67.9*H/H_O.

Lol no prob Mike. Similar question lol bad timing.

Yes depending on how fine tuned we can afford to measure and events to measure. The problem being how weak gravity is at the particle level. However even at this level, we can fine tune estimates. Granted more direct measurement goes a long ways... One missed property is it may allow us to find the most appropriate spin statistic to apply to gravity. The most popular being spin 2. However any bosonic spin hasn't Been ruled out afiak . Once we lock down it's spin we can narrow out it's temperature influence using the Bose- Einstien distribution formula. Which in turn can narrow out it's CMB influence. PS. How far into the future did I look lol... Any direct measurement advances all fields studying gravity.

Any datasets we can develop by measurement of gravities properties helps. Being able advance our understanding of its frequency and measure has numerous applications. The application of measurement beyond the electromagnetic for one, is viable. (Now we just need the moola lol) so yes it will help our understanding at the quantum level as well. (Via fine tuning by way of measurement data)

Nice SIM.

The question is mute, there is no real science behind astrology... minus the mapping of the stars itself...

It's been a few months since I looked directly at PR. I do recall having a good article on the subject. I'll dig it up as well as review the subject. The dust interactions If I recall only influences extremely minor size particles. It's influence is more upon the leftovers from other clearing processes. A later stage, As far as rate of spin and PR I need to review.

Ok first off I am not sure if it will cause VP separation. The closest analogy I can think of is Parker radiation. Which is an older VP pair production due to an expanding spacetime. (Was originally developed to attempt to explain DE.) However gravity waves wouldn't generate enough energy/mass to account for DM or dark energy. So let's just stick to seeing if separation is possible in the first place instead of following false lead garden paths. In all honesty though VP production at a wave is probable, but VP particles are typically extremely short lived.

One of the numerous experiments, key note radar guns use the same principle. Some of the other experiments are mentioned here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment

Time dilation also affect moving particles and their decay rates this should provide the clue you need. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/relativity_space_time

I just posted those mathematics did you not notice the resulting geometry change? I even stressed length contraction. Why do you think the terms Sapacetime geometry is so important? Speed of light is invariant to all observers. You can't have time dilation without a geometry change. Just like thermodynamics you can't change the pressure without resulting in a temperature change. Those mathematics is about as simple and straight forward as you get in GR. Here perhaps images will help. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Time_dilation_spacetime_diagram06.gif

Glancing over the article it looks very informative and a good study aid.

The mathematics show they should exist. Keep in mind I don't view spacetime as some fabric. ( I find the usage of the term misleading) I agree with ajb on his points.

Nice hopefully it's confirmed.