Mordred

Have you thought to look into the safe threshhold limits on radiative power in RF frequency ranges? Being near 25 watt antennas at RF frequencies is dangerous enough. Your talking about using a similar process at potentially higher wattage from space. You might want to consider those hazards not just to humans but to insects birds etc. Lol not to mention your talking about radiating a signal on a steady stream through the atmosphere. That would have the additional side effect of temperature changes in that area. Depending on frequency and transmission power. Might want to consider potential climate effects. Let alone any political concerns on a nearby population. We are dealing with a regulated body. Every country has its frequency control regulations.

Well I can't really state a 5d dimension is impossible. There has been similar ideas though they refer to them as Branes. Aka a version of string theory. In the case I'm thinking of is the Ekpyrotic universe. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0103239v3.pdf I should however note the Planck dataset measurements specifically state the observations do not support this model. I'm sure there is other possible alternates.

Let's use your pizza example. At the first radius your have an RPM. As the pizza increases in volume that RPM will slow down unless you add inertia to the rotation. In other words as the radius increases you need to supply energy to maintain the same rate of rotation. Take your single speed skater as an example. Start with her arms tucked in. When she extends her arms her spin slows down and vise versa. This is covered under conservation of angular momentum.

No prob it was an interesting discussion. Though word of advise on forum rules. Any details outside of mainstream science belongs in speculations forum. So if you like to propose alternative ideas that's the place to do so. The forum mods gave us considerable leniancy in this thread. Modelling toy universes however can be fun lol A great deal of mainstream science can be learned via toy universe conjectures. For example Barbera Rydens " Introductory to Cosmology" has specific mathematics to the following. (All assuming flat geometry) Matter only Radiation only Lambda only Combinations of the above. The value is this teaches how each affects the universe specifically. However all these models must conform to the conservation and thermodynamic laws.

Sorry conservation laws don't work that way. The object rotates due to the amount of force applied to it on its first rotation. In a frictionless system it will continue rotating at the same RPM. Until additional force/energy is applied. Newtons three laws of inertia apply. However this does nothing to describe how a universe would form. Honestly look at basic physics before trying to solve a problem thousands of professional scientists haven't been able to answer lol.

What supplied the energy to increase Rotation speed? Objects don't change rotation speed without energy being supplied Google conservation of angular momentum. See a problem here. Let's look at the conservation laws and universe creation theories. 1) universe from nothing models cannot define where the energy to create matter/universe came from 2) bounce or cyclic universe models amount to "turtles all the way down" They cannot answer how the first universe started. Any universe beginning model suffers those two problems. The BB model doesn't try to answer that question. It simply deals with how our universe evolves from 10-43 seconds forward. Despite pop media shows of some cataclysmic explosion which is ,100% wrong

This has definitely gone from mainstream to speculation. Model development is done in the speculation forum. The mods will probably move it there. There is a key detail your still missing your trying to describe the beginning of the universe from a finite point of origin. Expansion has no point of origin, we don't know the volume of the entire universe. We only know how our Observable portion today started in volume from 10^43 seconds forward. So your not going to find a formula that will work on this scenario. This scenario has a point of origin and rotation. The universe isn't rotating. That's why the Godel universe was proven wrong. So how did you increase the energy without violating conservation of energy laws to go from 0+ to over 10^16 GeV? Or 10^27 Kelvin? Energy isn't free. As far as zero point energy. You can use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle quantum harmonic oscillator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy Here perhaps you can use the Godel metrics though Godel himself admits this doesn't describe our universe. http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/15/1/013063/article

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Cosmos-Transformed-Understanding-Discoveries/dp/0393327000/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435631627&sr=1-2&refinements=p_lbr_one_browse-bin%3AMichio+Kaku

Lol his cosmology textbook isn't much clearer.

The closest you get is inflation. Ever stop and wonder why it includes a quasi particle ? The inflaton. This is because energy does not exist on its own. It is a property in this case of particles. Why would you need rotation ? A rotating universe is the Godel universe and its been proven wrong. Rotation has a center and a preferred direction. The universe is measured to have neither a preferred direction or center. It is homogeneous and isotropic. Here I wrote this a bit ago, but the material is also covered in the links I provided. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89385-cosmological-principal/page-2#entry871587 Have you heard of Lawrence Krauss "Universe from nothing" mathematically it works but it misses one key detail. It takes energy to form virtual particles. Another option is zero energy universe.. http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063 That's about as close as I've ever seen on original universe models without including a previous universe ie bounce or cyclic. The inherent problem is where does the energy come from without violating the conservation of energy laws As far as BH origin models. Probably the best one is a 5d star becoming a 4d BH which forms a 3d universe. Planck stars. http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562

Tell you what you tell us how a force of attraction only... Can dictate how objects separate without using vacuum pressure or radiation. It's obvious you seem to believe you have the answers despite the textbook and professional peer reviewed material developed by thousands of highly regarded professional scientists . So impressed me show the mathematics of how your expansion works based only on matter You claim to have studied astrophysics for 60 years and didn't know how expansion is properly described??:? Not did you understand what the relationship between critical density is to universe geometry. So impress me... show your mathematical model. By the way you even had the size of the observable universe wrong. It never ceases to amaze me just how many people assume established science is wrong simply because they can't understand or study how it works. The Planck datasets confirms the accuracy of the 6 parameter [latex]\Lambda CDM[/latex] model. The CMB is direct result of Big bang nucleosynthesis which involves thermodynamic laws, as well as particle physics. Those same laws conform to how the universe expands. Non relativistic matter has a negligible influence upon pressure. Radiation and relativistic radiation does. You can deny this all you like but those influences are fully tested. I showed you the energy momentum stress energy tensor. P is pressure [latex]\rho[/latex] is energy density. I've shown you the acceleration equations and the ideal gas law relations and provided peer reviewed papers to support my answers. Your turn to prove myself and the rest of science wrong I assume your aware that inflation in Allen Guth's original inflation model involves vacuum right? That's why it's called "False Vacuum.". Vacuum and pressure is the same entity. Currently there is still 70+ viable inflation models. False vacuum isn't one of them due to "runaway inflation" http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 Encyclopedia inflationaris. They are listed and tested here. Here is a relevant quote from that article. "In order to produce a phase of inflation within General Relativity, the matter content of the universe has to be dominated by a fluid with negative pressure. At very high energy, the correct description of matter is field theory, the prototypical example being a scalar field since it is compatible with the symmetries implied by the cosmological principle. Quite remarkably, if the potential of this scalar field is sufficiently flat (in fact, more precisely, its logarithm) so that the field moves slowly, then the corresponding pressure is negative."

Let me ask a simple question on that. "Do we count an albino as a different species"

Not really here Ned Wright's page shows the coordinate transformation http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll7.html You should note there is numerous calculations for R and r becomes infinite Should note that page covers the Schwartzchild Metric. The lecture notes link I provided shows other solutions such as the Kruskal coordinates ( these type of coordinate transformations isn't my strongest area, despite how long I've studied them)you'd be better off with the references than my attempts

This is incorrect, taking the speed of light* the age of the universe gives the Hubble Horizon. However we see objects past the Hubble Horizon. Those objects have an apparent recessive velocity greater than c. At the age of the CMB for example the recessive velocity is 3.1c at redshift z=1100.. We cannot see past the CMB. Not yet anyways not until we can measure and detect the cosmic neutrino background. You need to use the scale factor a. Not Hubble constant. Hubble constant is only constant in space not in time. Its one of those misleading terms. The rate of expansion is different prior to the CMB than it is today. There are 3 primary eras. Each has its own rate of expansion. Radiation dominant, matter dominant and Lambda (cosmological constant) dominant. Note inflation occured during the radiation dominant. The radiation dominant essentially stopped just prior to the CMB. Then gravity started to slow down expansion. But not stop it. This continued until the universe was 7.1 billion years old roughly. However as the universe was still expanding, the rate of expansion was gradually slowing down. Then the cosmological constant became dominant and as such the rate of expansion started to accelerate. The lineweaver and Davies article covers these details. The tangentspaces article simplifies the lineweaver and Davies article. The observable universe as Strange mentioned is 93 Gly in radius today. From our perspective on Earth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe The FLRW metric to distance formula is. [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] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) I should note if your reading textbooks older than roughly the year 2000 you will be learning the wrong FLRW metrics. Prior to WMAP the cosmological constant was not confirmed. So all distance formulas will be in conformal distance. Based on the Hubble sphere. Not on commoving distances. Which includes the cosmological constant. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9905116"Distance measures in cosmology" David W. Hogg This article has an excellent coverage Here is an article I wrote on redshift and expansion with some coverage on luminosity distance and the cosmic distance ladder. I originally intended it as a FAQ but it got too lengthy lol http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion This is garbage, the balloon analogy is only used to show how the dots move away from each other and how it's increase in distance between dots increase regardless of which dots you use, and the angles between any 2 or more dots do not change. The inside our outside the balloon is 100% meaningless. Flat does does represent the universes shape either. It is a differential geometry descriptive of the universes density to expansion/contraction rates. If the universes actual density =the calculated critical density the universe is flat. "The 'critical density' is the average density of matter required for the Universe to just halt its expansion, but only after an infinite time. A Universe with the critical density is said to be flat." However this is prior to the cosmological constant. The critical density formula is [latex]\rho_c=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}=10^{-29} grams/cm^3[/latex] http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Critical+Density

Your welcome as to the last point raised by Strange this set of articles cover how expansion works in terms of distance. The tangentspace link has excellent detail on superluminal expansion misconceptions. It's based on the li eweaver and Davies article. 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 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

No Newtonian physics is strictly Euclidean. Does not include curvature. While Newtons laws works great for everyday science, it doesn't have the lorentz coordinate transformations. Here is a good article specifically on Bh metrics https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phys.uu.nl%2F~thooft%2Flectures%2Fblackholes%2FBH_lecturenotes.pdf&rct=j&q=black%20holes%20pdf&ei=QkOQVf6BFIWrNtSRgaAN&usg=AFQjCNERag-FH9DCbw66GsxObohS8wEq9A&sig2=3_JOCHB5wqHkhJ__D5-ATQ Key note this doesn't mean Newtonian physics change, it means that the Newtonian physics doesn't cover spacetime curvature. Newtons three laws are still valid including escape velocity but you need to account for the coordinate changes.

Note the energy density to pressure relations. Expansion is not governed by gravity. Gravity leads to contraction. The energy density to pressure influences via radiation pressure is simply put greater that the gravitational force. I fully understand how the Planck data works. You must understand the Einstein field equations, the FLRW metric and the LCDM model intensely involves the ideal gas laws. Not just gravity As far as matter your right, but there is still radiation. Photons, quarks, gluons. Prior to the CMB there is also neutrinos. I've spent years studying BB nucleosynthesis. I also provided the references so you can study it as well. Expansion requires a force that force is pressure which is force per unit volume. You posted prior to my finishing off the other post. I provided the acceleration equation for the radiation dominant epock (PS kinetic energy doesn't exist on its own.) "In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy Now I imagine your thinking in terms of temperature. There is carrier particlez for transferring heat.Photons,phonons and electrons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer_physics All three have the same equation of state. Expansion due to inflation far exceeds the speed of light. It's roughly 60 e folds in less than one second.( There is no limit to volume change. Your not giving inertia to any objects due to expansion. The volume of space simply increases. It is not creating spacetime as per some mystical material.) Also side note Planck data cannot see the BB. It can only view the CMB. Roughly 380,000 years after the BB. Wrong inflation and expansion are pretty much the same, just different rates and possibly cause. (Though in some inflation models they are the same.... We also cannot come close to measuring outside or region of causality. Aka observable universe. Ever.... Google lightcone and worldlines. Inaccurate, you have to fully understand the ideal gas laws don't require container walls. In this case it's the pressure influence upon other particles within an adiabatic fluid contained within a region. The Google links and articles I posted should have shown you that pressure is indeed involved. This is textbook material not my own ideas. anytime you have sufficient energy density you have gravity. Enough photons can generate gravity. Gravity waves can also produce gravity. Please take the time to read the materials I provided. I specifically chosen those articles as they match textbooks. If you truly want to learn cosmology and can afford textbooks I recommend starting with "Introductory to Cosmology" by Barbera Ryden. Modern Cosmology by Scott Dodelson. ( Though he covers his own inflation model lol) Another good resource though old, I still like his simple down to Earth writing style is "First three minutes by Stephen Weinberg By the way you can see both energy density and pressure in the acceleration equation (Lambda dominant era, today) in this link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

You seem to be missing a key detail judging from your reply and the title of the post. First off we can't think of the singularity of a BH as being the same as the singularity conditions of the Big Bang. For one thing only our Observable portion originated at a finite point. We do not know the size of the entire universe. Only the observable portion. The entire universe could be infinite or finite. Secondly the BB model starts at 10^-43 seconds. Prior to that our understanding no longer accurately describes the conditions, too many infinities. Now inflation occurs at roughly 10^-36 seconds. However this doesn't mean there wasn't expansion between 10^-43 seconds to 10^-36 seconds. In point of detail there was. This expansion isn't due to gravity. It's due to relativistic radiation. Photons, quarks,gluons and electrons in a quark gluon plasma soup. However temperatures were so high, that all particle are in a thermal equilibrium state. So we can accurately model this period via photons and the ideal gas laws. Temperatures also high enough that one can deploy scalar modelling equations of state. Look on the ideal gas laws wiki link I provided. This will probably be to advanced but let's give it a shot. Take the Einstein field equation. [latex]G_{\mu\nu}=8\pi GT_{\mu\nu}[/latex] In the FLRW metric the non vanishing components are [latex]G_{ii}=(2\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}+\frac{\dot{R}^2}{R^2}+\frac{k}{R^2})g_{ii}[/latex] and [latex]G_{ii}=3\frac{\dot{R^2}}{R^2}+\frac{k}{R^2}[/latex] Consequently the energy momentum tensor of matter transforms to [latex]T_{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)u_{\mu}U_V=\rho G_{\mu\nu}[/latex] [latex] U_{\mu}[/latex] Is the four velocity field. Now I'm going to jump numerous calculations. The big bang at 10^-43 seconds can be described via the radiation equation of state. (We can safely ignore the curvature constant due to the extremely small size of the observable universe in this time era.). Makes absolutely no difference at these small scales. The equations of state for the FLRW metric becomes [latex]p=\frac{1}{3}\rho[/latex] [latex]\rho R^4=N[/latex] This leads to the FLRW metric in the form of the acceleration equation (radiation dominant) [latex]\frac{1}{2}R^2=\frac{4\pi GN}{R^2}-\frac{k}{2}+\frac{\Lambda}{6}R^2[/latex]

Evidently you didn't read the cosmology papers I posted. Granted though they are lengthy. You need a scale of roughly 100 Mpc to have a homogeneous and isotropic condition. This coincides with when one can start to describe the universe as flat. You also didn't look at how crtical density applies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_density_(cosmology)#Density_parameter Note on this link the influence of radiation, compared to matter. " Here is a relevant quote. Einstein's equations now relate the evolution of this scale factor to the pressure and energy of the matter in the universe. From FLRW metric we compute Christoffel symbols, then the Ricci tensor. With the stressenergy tensor for a perfect fluid, we substitute them into Einstein's field equations and the resulting equations are described below." The universe curvature constant k does not depend only upon gravity. It's gravity and pressure relations. (A universe without radiation, only gravity would be a collapsing universe. Which isn't flat.)

"However, neither elementary nor composite particles are spatially localized, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The particle wavepacket always occupies a nonzero volume. " The quote is from the wiki article. Side note for other readers any number of bosons can reside in the same space.

You should recall particles are both point like and wavelike. Wiki covers it fairly well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle Two electrons of the same quantum state.

Electrons being fermionic according to the Pauli exclusion principle do occupy space. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

There's a couple of points here that need clarifying. First gravity occurs anywhere there is an energy density. As far as universe geometry, it's really energy-density to pressure relations. This conforms to either the Einstein field equations, as well as the FLRW metric. A key detail to study is the ideal gas laws and the equations of state of each particle species. [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] Here are the equations of state relations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Here is a simplified article I wrote to help describe geometry. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ Here is a couple of non pop media papers on the subject. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues In the Einstein field equations the energy density/pressure relations are described via the energy-momentum stress energy tensor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor these articles will help understand particle physics in cosmology. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Here is a good book on GR, though heavy on math. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau Here is the stress energy/momentum tensor in Minkowskii metric. (Special relativity) [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] As far as black holes are concerned here is an excellent article. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phys.uu.nl%2F~thooft%2Flectures%2Fblackholes%2FBH_lecturenotes.pdf&rct=j&q=black%20holes%20pdf&ei=QkOQVf6BFIWrNtSRgaAN&usg=AFQjCNERag-FH9DCbw66GsxObohS8wEq9A&sig2=3_JOCHB5wqHkhJ__D5-ATQ This article does a good job describing the metrics with a review of SR,GR section.

Feel free, but word of advise. People tend to listen better when you present research, not just ideas.

It's too bad you apparently cannot use the Google search function to discover this is already under study. Here is one example paper. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Faaqr.org%2FVOL4_No1_July2004%2F7_AAQR-04-07-OA-0007_91-104.pdf&rct=j&q=ionizing%20co2%20in%20atmosphere&ei=5YWPVa2DG4ergwSi6oGgDQ&usg=AFQjCNHvTbclnzXAv9W5Ly9MYxIGxNWSmg&sig2=iqJZ9kMcyGGzQckVmXGyMQ you really need to actually study instead of making assumptions. I've mentioned several times now that CO2 is a major field of study. Including possible solutions. Maybe ,just maybe if you spend some time digging the internet. You might be able to present your ideas with greater rigor. This will also help keep your threads from being locked, as you will be presenting related and professional peer reviewed literature. That article took me less than 30 seconds to find Though one covering the cross section ionization is here. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=18&ved=0CEcQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnopr.niscair.res.in%2Fbitstream%2F123456789%2F10150%2F1%2FIJPAP%252048(9)%2520621-625.pdf&rct=j&q=ionizing%20co2%20in%20atmosphere&ei=-5ePVdCAKoTBggT-35iQDg&usg=AFQjCNEHlwr92PPnGDfN8dyYvZcJbF2ivg&sig2=slp9Hrswt0JKf4s90jsQ9g