Mordred

Ok the 6.0*10-10 value was a calculation done when it was believed H was 61 km/s/Mpc. This wouldn't have mattered if you simply plugged the numbers directly into the formula as Strange showed you. If you want to do the method your using (why I don't know lol but I'll play along.) You would get less risk of rounding errors by using the formula ah well. Using 67.9 into the formula gives you 7.78*10^-10 Now if you use 23257.149 instead of 23257 you get 540894979.6. By using the full values (or had you just plugged the numbers in to Wolfram as Strange did) You will end up at 0.421 j/m^3 At least your answer is in the right ballpark. Quite frankly the minor difference is negligible. Datasets vary depending on the latest results in particular fine tuning Hubbles constant. Most textbooks typically just use 100 km/s/Mpc. WMAP has a different value. 2013 WMAP H is 69.8 but if you use WMAP values H/H_0 is 22289.979 ( has different densities for radiation and matter) using the formula you get 0.4087 j/m^3

It's probably a misinterpreted singularity condition prior to 10-43 seconds. In this case the singularity condition is simply where our understanding of the physics of that time are inadequate and we get answers that make no sense.

Probably does, several models have suggested universe in a BH but those are not particularly well supported. For one thing you would need a parent universe, we have no evidence a multiverse exists. The BB model doesn't define how the universe started. It only describes how the universe evolves from 10^-43 seconds forward. Also we don't know if the universe is finite or infinite. A universe inside is... finite. It's also incredibly (but not impossible) to model a homogeneous and isotropic universe inside a BH. For example Google Poplowskii universe inside a white hole. He had to employ some interesting spin and torsion tricks to do so. Reason being blackholes typically rotate, so that would imply a rotating universe... measurements don't match a rotating universe a rotating universe is inherently inhomogeneous and anisotropic. Our measurement show a homogeneous and isotropic universe.

Nice if you guys think that tables neat the formula used to calculate that tables presents some other neat details. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] Take a closer look at the terms under the square root. Notice that the density of matter and the density of radiation change at a different rate this is due to having different equations of state. Side note the Cosmological constant doesn't change. David take note as that should indicate how matter and radiation evolve to calculate total density

Yes those pointed out by Imaatsfal for starters. However you also are still misunderstanding. H compared the H today.... This means H then is a multiple of H compared to H today. Today's H is 67.9 km/sec/Mpc H then is 67.9 km/s/Mpc* 23257.149 Now stop and think H is the "rate of expansion." In other words the universe is expanding at (67.9 km/s/Mpc*23257.149) at z=1100. So ask yourself why are you calculating the rate of expansion when you already have the rate of expansion? (67.9 km/s/Mpc*23257.149) at z=1100.

I have to ask "what is the system your trying to model? " your direction I've perceived is the Suns influence upon early planetary formation ( for this thread specifically). Please clarify Yes defining the stages of the Suns formation and individual formation stage influences apply. We can help better with the target goal in mind

pavelcherepan your doing an excellent job on this thread. I wanted to mention this as astronomy isn't my strongest suit lol. I'm more into cosmology and particle physics. I just wanted to thank you for your efforts and contribution to this forum. Rob from what little time I've dug into neutrinos in early star formation influence on the dust/availability on planetary formation I haven't located any significant influence including Poynting vectors. (Which was my primary initial search) Also as I've been watching your threads the last few days I can honestly say your hitting too many aspects to fully take in. Your jumping into too many deep pools. Study each aspect carefully, on another thread on speculation I mentioned density waves. Then included a variety of related models using... some of those models include Poynting vectors. Take some time to understand those references. You can't model build with accuracy overnight. (For example I'm now 6years into my own personal model on the Cosmological constant, I only have one problem to solve... how to keep it constant?) I would be surprised to solve that puzzle lol but it helps learn if taken in the right direction

Oh boy this thread is going in circles. DanP you admit you don't understand the math, so I have to ask how can you claim to have a better understanding of GR than those that do understand the math???? Let's look at an example I posted for another poster that figured he could fix GR... Lorentz transformation. First two postulates. 1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical 2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames. Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction. Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1. A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above in space time ds between two events is [latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex] Invoking speed of light postulate 2. [latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex] Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex] Time dilation dt=proper time ds=line element since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant. an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt. [latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex] so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation [latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex] So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] If your not using Lorentz then you need to define the coordinate transformation rules. Here is relativity of simultaneaty coordinate transformation in Lorentz. [latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex] [latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex] Note the mention of frames in postulate one. This means more accurately that both Alice and Bob are correct in their measurements and there is no preferred frame of reference. Now why did I include length contraction? The answer is... I'll leave to you (hint postulate 2) If you truly want to master SR and GR stop learning via pop media. I'll provide two useful textbooks. The first is written by a professor who has been on forums for years so he's used to common misconceptions such as those you've shown. Deals with SR primarily (best to start here) http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ The second is specifically GR the math level is considerably higher. The article specifically discusses many errors due to artifacts in coordinate misunderstandings in GR. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau Trying to argue against GR without knowledge of the math is like trying to kill a T rex with a spitball To yell once again lol FRAMES MATTER Now test question. Out of your several threads which experiment did you mention does these mathematics best describe? (Not that they aren't applicable to others by best describe I mean most commonly shown to model)

I can't answer the influence of Neutrinos on the disk dust till I do some digging. It's viable to have an influence but as neutrinos are so weakly interactive the question is how much and of what nature. Flying today I'll look into it later on

Unfortunately much of what your describing doesn't agree with measurements. In particular expansion. From your description on the last few paragraphs your describing flows into then out of our universe. The problem is if you take any number of objects measure the direction of expansion you won't find any direction. Other than further apart. Say you have three points in a triangle. The distance change between those three points will be identical with no change in angle involved. A flow will result in angle change. Take a balloon place dots on the balloon measure the distance and angles between dots now inflate it further. Measure the distance change and angles. You can find good coverage of the balloon analogy here 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 They are both low level math

The first detection of Neutrinos from the sun was in the 1960s and involved a chlorine Neutrino detector. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector. neutrinos being weakly interactive will escape the Suns core earlier than photons. I don't know the temperature contribition in the sun but I believe but will have to check in a paper entitled "Physics of the interstellar medium". As a Lepton it can be determined via the Fermi-Dirac statistics but I wouldn't know the chemical reaction value for that formula in the Suns interior. Let alone the decay rate influence.

Please include the link of the pages (obviously wiki in this case), when your doing a copy/paste. However the question still stands what did you want to discuss? This far you've only stated what other articles state. Do you have a particular question on those articles? Or are you asking us to check the math in your opening post?

Now just as a test question. You now know a volume change results in a change in density. What other factor will result in a density change (assuming the same number moles of particles) ? Here is some details to help with Hubbles constant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law "The value of the Hubble parameter changes over time, either increasing or decreasing depending on the value of the so-called deceleration parameter q, " Took me a bit to remember this formula to calculate the Hubble constant at a specific time using today's values. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] If you run this formula you will find per Mpc the rate of expansion is significantly higher than today. If you graph it you will see an inverted slope. Using Planck values at Z=1100 H=23257.149 H/H_O age 000368 Gy meaning H then compared to H today Z=774.038 H=13248.939 age 000659 Gy Z=484.919 H=6345.461 age 001410 Gy Z=303.652 H=3075.757 age 002966 Gy Z=190.095 H=1503.414 age 006162 Gy Z=105.56 H=619.028 age 001516 Gy Z=65.809 H=305.560 age 030908 Gy Z=28.513 H=89.233 age 0.106812 Gy Z=17.508 H=44.233 age 0.216042 Gy Z=5.472 H=9.170 age 1.047912 Gy Z=3.058 H=4.608 age 2.105181 Gy Z=1.014 H=1.790 age 5.805752 Gy Z=0(now) H=1.0 age 13.7872206 Gy should give you the curve if not use the Cosmo calc on my signature set number of steps to 100, S_upper to 1100 open column definitions select Age H/H_O and redshift. Press graph or chart then hit calculate. (Key note this is the compared rate of expansion then and now PER Mpc.) Not the rate of expansion from Earth to the Cosmological event horizon (observable universe). Which is accelerating. Reason being the increase rate of number of Mpc between Earth and the Cosmological event horizon.

No this doesn't determine if the universe expands or not. To determine that you must now use the acceleration equation. You also need to determine the appropriate equation of state. The set of equations you posted is used to determine when expansion takes over in terms of distance from a large scale structure or galaxy. TODAY. The 6.0*10-10 joules/m3 is the critical density of the universe TODAY not at the time of the CMB. One of the terms used in the critical density formula is Hubbles Constant. The value of Hubbles constant is only constant everywhere in the universe at a specific time. It's value can change with time but that change is uniform throughout the universe at that moment in time. If you want to calculate if the universe expands during CMB. You will need to recalculate the critical density and actual density of the universe at the specific time your calculating for. Don't mix values for the universe today with values for the universe then Think of it this way "what is density". It's the mass per unit volume. If you decrease the volume you increase the density. So naturally the average density will be higher in the past. However so is the critical density. To be fair though I should have specified that the 6.0*10-10 joules/m^3 is the critical density today.

Forgot to stress the hydrodynamic aspect. For example Google " nebula hydrodynamics". You will find a good collection of articles and related formulas. Those should take you from an isothermal sphere to protoplanetary disk, to density wave. In those articles look for key terminology. Write them down then study each separately (including formulas). That's how you develop your research and tools to model build. Just like programming break complex operations down into manageable portions.

I can't recall if that aspect is covered under Nebular theory. I'd have to check on that. Nebulae theory being the most popular planetetary formation theories. I'll dig up some papers on density waves later on It's been a while since I last studied planetary formation theories. One other aspect currently on the table is differential Linblad torques. Protoplanetary Disk Resonances and Type I Migration. http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4069 I've seen several papers on this aspect. Usually with migration theory. (Key note I am providing key word searches when I name a theory) a good researcher can dig from those. ( Now here is a home experiment to help) take a large bowl of water. The add semi buoyant particles of varying mass. Add an impellar, slowly turn. Note the distribution of those particles (including mass.) The mathematics describing this distribution is density wave theory. I should add it's also a key aspect in spiral galaxy formation. (There are several aspects and adaptation models ) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1945-5100.1996.tb02037.x/pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103583711711 Now another key theory is disk-planet interaction theory. Here http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjtksblgujKAhUM_mMKHelODeAQFggeMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1203.1184&usg=AFQjCNHrgn8KXCOGo8BusKjddMj5jTk0mw for the mathematical side, the key math to focus on is hydrodynamic fluids and naturally gravity.

As part of your research in regards to asteroid belts I would include density wave theory. Which does a good job in describing the rings of Saturn. As far as planetary formation. One major contributing factor is the density of materials. Much like a centrifuge different density materials will accumulate at a different radius. Heavier metals will typically accumulate closer to the sun. There is a certain range where water accumulation will commence depending on the mass of the star for similar reasons. (Without transport via comets etc).

Using galaxies to average the mass of the universe won't give you a good estimate. The procedures are too lengthy to post but require numerous formulas. Those formulas include the Fermi-Dirac and Bose Einstein statistics. If you want a handy database of values don't rely on wiki. Try this. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf"The Cosmic energy inventory" coincidentally there is a thread where someone is trying to improve mass of the universe calculations. In the proper manner I might add. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86694-observable-universe-mass/page-1 As you can see the calcs are rather extensive. However the cosmic inventory is backed up by experimental evidence. A rough correlation is the mass of of the universe works out to roughly equivalent to 10^90 protons. One aspect you keep missing is the % of every type of particle changes due to temperature. For example prior to recombination there are no atoms. The temperature is too hot for atoms to be stable. This is the covered by studying big bang nucleosynthesis. The BB model did an excellent job predicting the observed % of elements in the CMB prior to actual measurement. The procedures are covered in chapter 3 and 4 here http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis This article has the same formulas and mannerisms as Scott Dodelson "Modern Cosmology 2nd edition" In all honesty I recommend looking through the materials on my website. It's designed to provide training aids in accordance to textbooks and teachings in Cosmology courses. Link is on my signature. One enjoyable article covering Freidmann is. http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1498 " The Waters I am Entering No One yet Has Crossed: Alexander Friedman and the Origins of Modern Cosmology" written by Ari Belenkiy It's well informative and will provide a decent explanation of the FLRW metric.

This statement alone tells me your getting thermal influence from the heat of your hands. Or are you stating your mind energy is flowing through your hands ? Which doesn't make any sense as to being easier. Not that much in this thread other than proper test procedures makes much sense. I noticed you haven't followed up on any of the recommendations on proper testing. Not too confident

As Ajb mentioned it's extremely tricky to decipher your model. I see one major flaw that he didn't mention. The way I read your model you have a home from some multiverse supplying (whatever) to our universe. Via possibly a white hole. Now here is the problem. Your model implies a point of origin. Then radiating outward as the Universe expands. Unfortunately there is no center of the universe, nor is there a flow from center outward. Expansion is homogeneous and isotropic. To understand what this means I suggest reading the "Cosmological Principle". http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89385-cosmological-principle/page-1 Secondly if your continously adding energy/particles to our universe and this results in expansion. The universe would not cool down. By the ideal gas laws our universe has roughly [latex]10^{90}[/latex] particles. As the Universe expands the average density drops. This results in a temperature drops. Google Ideal gas laws (Cosmology) or see some details on another post here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92918-universe-expansion/page-2

I should note Poplowski afaik has dropped the whitehole scenario

To add details to Strange answer you can calculate where expansion will overcome gravity. Step one calculate the strength of the cosmological constant. For this you use the critical density formula. [latex] \rho_c=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] If you calculate this out it will work out to roughly to [latex] 6.0 *10^{-10} joules/metre^3[/latex] or alternatively [latex]10^{-26} kg/m^3[/latex] Then you calculate the strength of gravity at a given radius from a mass. [latex]F=\frac{GM_1m_2}{r^2}[/latex] Convert newtons to joules. When the critical density becomes greater than the force of gravity. Expansion takes over. Now as far as the average mass density (gravity vs pressure) the calculation is done when you obtain the curvature constant. k. You then compare that value to the critical density. Critical density is the calculated value where the Universe stops expanding and starts contracting. (Prior to the discovery of the cosmological constant) Unfortunately calculating the curvature constant is a lengthy process.. However you can understand the relations via this article. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ In calculating the actual curvature constant you must consider every particle species and it's corresponding contribution to pressure as well as it's own self gravity. The FLRW metric has immensely simplified this for us by providing formulas where the numerous steps are already calculated. Mainly the acceleration equation Here is some details on critical density. "In earlier models, which did not include a cosmological constant term, critical density was initially defined as the watershed point between an expanding and a contracting Universe." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

Redshift is a means to measure the expansion history. It is a side effect of expansion not a cause of expansion. Strange covered the rest. I really don't think these formulas will help much. I truly wish your math skills were higher. I did this up in another thread though originally in that thread made a few errors typing from a phone etc. Expansion is due to how particles interact. That interaction correlates to the ideal gas laws and thermodynamic processes. Gravity causes contraction not expansion. Expansion occurs when the particle contributors to pressure overcome their self gravity. It is a balancing act, near large bodies of mass, gravity exceeds the pressure causing expansion. The energy/mass density to pressure relations are covered by their equations of state. I recall posting that info to you before. Those equations I posted above (acceleration equation.) Plots the rate of expansion. the two key values is energy/density and pressure. how one can calculate an equation of state is covered in this example Note the zero pressure due to matter.... Prior to the CMB we have the radiation dominant era. From the CMB to roughly universe age of 7.3 billion years we have the matter dominant era. During this time gravity was slowing the rate of expansion but not stopping expansion. Then the cosmological took over due to the volume. Now we are in the Lambda dominant era. ALL OF WHICH IS DUE to energy/density to pressure influences. I posted this example covering inflation and the radiation dominant era. I hope these examples help.

It's one of the most complicated and complex simulations ever done requiring several super computers. Lol cross posted with Strange on edit. I'll dig up the original simulation publication. Which also details that this simulation was able to accurately produce every galaxy type. Found the original links http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10 http://www.illustris-project.org/

Ok lets start first off at no time in the universe's history has it not been expanding. If you look at the CMB maps the hot regions are overdensity regions. Those region later on become galaxy clusters. However those regions also drift. So it will not be an exact position from one location to another from CMB to today. "However, the slight temperature variations of order a few parts in 100,000 are of enormous importance, for they essentially were early "seeds" from which all subsequent complex structures in the universe ultimately developed." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation. If you can follow arxiv quality articles I recommend. "Formation of large scale structure of the Universe" http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0371 Here is a YouTube based on one of the best simulations this simulation took all our known laws of physics and CMB data. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=74IsySs3RGU