Mordred

Don't recall seeing any papers on that particular aspect. Though Its certainly feasible.

Not really it just means that early formation may be faster than suspected. Might hint for an earlier stage of anistrophies. There is variations in data sets for the exact age of the universe. That link for example didn't use the Planck age. 13.8 as opposed to 13.7.

Every observer today at rest will see an observable universe of 46 Gly We don't know if the entirety of the universe is finite or infinite The rate of expansion today is the same everywhere. Roughly 70 km/s/Mpc, as mentioned recessive velocity is an apparent measurement. Here is a good paper on it. 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 I included the balloon analogy as an aid

They do have quakes, those quakes release gamma radiation. The frequency of quakes is roughly 1 every decade or so in some stars examined. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starquake_(astrophysics)#Starquake

Looks like I'm close according to Ned Wright's redshift calculator 1.055 sec is z=5*10^9http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

Imatfaal I'm not sure I trust my calculations but I'm getting roughly z= 6*10^9 for neutrino background based on 1MeV decoupling.

Thanks String was in a hurry lol

Universe expansion, as the light travels to us the space behind and ahead of the light path expands Yes 92 billion light years is the radius. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

The universe is our laboratory, we test the above formula with various methods such as parallax distance calculations. This includes gravity well influences from light crossing bodies. Redshift is extremely important. In distance measures, as such it is continously tested and studied. Here is a handy 191 slide coverage of the cosmic distance ladder which allows us to validate and test redshift in cosmological uses http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fterrytao.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fcosmic-distance-ladder.pdf&rct=j&q=cosmic%20distance%20ladder%20pdf&ei=7GAxVZDYEsrVoATezYCgDQ&usg=AFQjCNE2Ja92G14PtyiIChUBDCfDwTlNvw&sig2=iQdeqwFggpyD24XnBvAF2A&bvm=bv.91071109,d.cGU As you can see from that slide we don't rely on just one method

Not completely all but a huge factor is. Take the background temperature, then use the Fermi Dirac equation for combined species of neutrinos. This will give the neutrino temperature. Today with blackbody temperature 2.7 k the neutrino temperature is roughly 1.9 k. The other problem is the standard cosmological redshift formula needs corrections. If your after the redshift of neutrinos, this is due to two phase ,matter dominant and radiation dominant eras. These two eras have influence upon redshift due to the different expansion rates, temp and pressure via the equations of state. Probably easier to just backward extrapolate the distance via the acceleration equation. Here is one related paper probably help http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.5632 The result should be roughly at a distance near 45 to 46 billion light years. As the cosmological event horizon is also the region of shared causality. However I just ran across this article the massive neutrinos will travel slower. http://physics.aps.org/story/v24/st15 Confuses the issue further. Currently looking at this thesis paper http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CDgQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-library.desy.de%2Fpreparch%2Fdesy%2Fthesis%2Fdesy-thesis-05-024.pdf&rct=j&q=distance%20to%20cosmic%20neutrino%20background%20&ei=WDIxVYvRFcWvyAScjIDgBw&usg=AFQjCNG5luClDfbtS6eRi-7q9Or7Xsj90Q&sig2=2lEDhxKO1o67-M0giXG4zw (I'll have more time later today to look at the calcs in greater detail) Located Dodelsons paper in regards to the second link. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CBoQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0907.2887&rct=j&q=distance%20to%20cosmic%20neutrino%20background&ei=e0AxVdqKFYT6yASXoIHwCA&usg=AFQjCNHrxyfLWo_WV4Wr6ZOSOZXOLsDxZw&sig2=TCOdofb7-k195qXYtUFCfQ

Roughly 1 second after BB, which is later than inflation. So you still won't be able to directly detect inflation.

There is the means via [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex]

Let me get back to you on how to do this in terms similar to assymtotic freedom. (Death in family, wrong frame atm)

C'mon mate seriously, why is the properties of a photon (quanta) so fundamental in your oscilloscope ?. Photons are the force carrier of the electromagnetic force. This includes protons and electrons. Every equipment we use to measure wavelength and radiation light etc all require conversions of the frequency and electromagnetic force (photons). The biggest mistake I always see in your posts is thinking you can simply replace units and variables without showing how a leads to b Ever see this relation ?? Y=mx+b =linear What is the laplase transform for a sine wave? Your root mean square. RMS measure requires the conversions I mentioned. In point of frequency vs current look at PWM circuits, higher digital frequency is higher current. Not lower. Don't trust me goto Rockwell knowledgebase download drives.pdf Ive designed xray inspection systems, exacting motion controls systems,(hydyaulics, pneumatics). As well as 30 years studying physics. All these fields require physics. Differential geometry, calculus. To that end I have 4 degrees in various fields. (I only make a living from one, lol even though my deep understanding of particle physics it's not my stock and trade) (Several posters on your threads make their daily living in physics fields. All accredited. I have 2 accredited directly physics degrees. Rest are in engineering).(professional geek hrrm 40+ physics books bought and studied. Think that quailifies) So trust me you need a greater understanding in energy conversion and differential geometry.

In all honesty you need to step back and look at unit conversions. This is a fundamental understanding in physics. You cannot simply take MeV and drop the e term. Look at your conversion tables. MeV is 1 million ELECTRON volts. 938 MeV does not equal 938 Mv. It's great to see particles in terms of frequency and wavelength. This is an extremely important property of particles. Particles have both point like and Frequency properties. I highly suggest studying unit conversions of energy. Learn it to convert electron volts to joules and to hertz. There are other conversions but these will help with your model specifically. Then look at coulombs and the Planck units. QM is extremely good at dealing with frequency relations. QED,AFT etc all incorporate QM wavelength mathematics. Side note, increase in frequency is higher energy not decrease

A 100,000 years is negligable in change of overall density. The key your missing is the gravitational potential on entrance and the gravitational potential at exit of the well. The change in density on entering and exit, is the only way you can have a change. Think of it this way. Redshift isn't linear it has a curve on the redshift scale. The range of redshift is 0 to 1100 z over 13.8 billion years. What's a mere 100,000 years Ps you can use the calculator in my signature to see the rate of change.

Lol yeah oops

No your incorrect, gravity works at all energy scales. BBN and expansion is a natural particle accelerator. We cannot even begin to create energy levels prior to the CMB nor what occurs in the accretion disk of a BH. Protons form with stability just prior to the formation of the CMB. Prior to that any reaction that can form a proton, decays into its constituents. Our current LHC's don't come close to these temperatures. Study the term thermodynamic equilibrium. And chronology of the universe. You keep basing your model on a composite particle (proton). It's made up of other particles. (Proven) I even showed you the first second and third generation of leptons muon. Tau and electron in your other thread. Give it up protons are NOT fundamental, nor do they define gravity. GRAVITY EXISTS BEFORE PROTONS EXIST. On the standard model of particles Do you see the proton???:? No you don't that's because all other particles are made up of the standard model particles, which MUST drop out of thermal equilibrium prior to the composite particles.

An old trick , to teach the math USE a compass and a ruler. Take 9.8 metres/cm^2. Draw a line 90 degrees,measuring 9.8 cm. Now add another vector force. Use the bottom end of the above line. Draw that line according to its direction and acceleration. Then connect the top of the first line (gravity). With the end of the second line( random vector acceleration). Measure the angle and distance . You now have the Vector sum. Let's start with an object on a flat surface. I push left 1 Newton and push right two Newton of force. The vector sum is 1 Newton in the right direction.When you want to ad vector angles the ruler compass trick helps.

Yep your getting it change in momentum requires an imbalance of net forces upon an object.

I concur on Caroll's lecture notes. Here is a factor to remember gravity is the weakest of the four forces. It's influence upon wave functions at the particle level is immeasurable. In point of detail it is a accumulation of many particles before it's influence is known. Makes GUT theories or rather TOE theories near impossible at our current measurable possibilities. While we can calculate the influence of gravity upon a particle deciding its wave function is conjectural. From my studies the best I can offer is gravity is at best guess spin 2 in angular momentum. Most papers I've studied agree on this value. As a boson (graviton). ( Key note all force carriers are of integer spin)

I've already explained why you can't explain gravity by displaced electromagnetic force. In very simple non mathematical terms. Not every particle is influenced by the electromagnetic force. PERIOD. Photons are the force carrier of the electromagnetic force. Yet photons are influenced by space time curvature. I've studied the math of relativity, QFT,QED,quantum geometrodynamics, quantum flavor dynamics, particle physics, quantum chromodynamics etc. I've provided the papers showing how each relate to each other. Far too lengthy to post. So I gave you guidance into looking at the differences in the stress energy tensor and the electromagnetic tensor. I also informed you that protons and neutrons did not always exist stability. At high enough temperatures they are unstable. At even higher temperatures the weak, strong and electromagnetic force is indistinguishable from one another. Yet gravity still exists without change. If you studied this for 18 years you should have learned more math than you have shown. This includes Maxwell's equations. Too bad you wasted all that time ( by the way you have no idea how many ppl state they studied something over 10 to 30 years yet never studied the math). Always results the same, NOTHING. You cannot make a model without the math no excuse the math can and does describe everything you posted. Including layer to layer density. (Stress energy tensor) If you want to learn how particle physics work buy "Introduction to particle physics by Griffith. All his books are good I own every one. Another good book is Quarks and Leptons Too bad you just hand wave every thing stated away. This probably means this thread will be locked. (Mods decision on that) At least I provided you some study material to learn from. Your choice By the way your formula doesn't account for mass. Just radius, density is mass per unit volume Wow looky looky were back to stress energy tensor.. I imagine that. Here is another relation. [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] [latex]SO(3.1)=SO(2)\otimes SO(2)\backslash Z_2[/latex] what the above correlates to is the 4*4 matrix (coordinates) correlates to the 4*4 observer coordinates via the Z integer group ( particle angular momentum (spin). electron is 1/2 spin, photon spin 1, gravity falls under spin 2 not part of the Z group. (May be another integer spin, i.e. -2 cannot be 1\2 or 1 or zero) loses symnetry (Side note The letter group designations can have several meanings in lie algebra, there is a subset just on electromagnetic) This above is the poincare group which the Lorentz group is a subset of equates to [latex]g_{\mu v}=\Lambda_{\rho\mu}\Lambda{\sigma v}_g{\rho \sigma}[/latex] This equates to [latex]G_{\mu v}=\Lambda g_{\mu v}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu v}[/latex] With the above you describe shear stress energy density and Lorentz boosts according to conservation of energy momentum. The above is the math your competing against with no math..... get the picture???? The only way to get your model listened to in seriousness is with math at the level above Let's look at Einteins field equations. Let's start with the metric tensor. [latex]G_{\mu v}[/latex] "In general relativity, the metric tensor (or simply, the metric) is the fundamental object of study. It may loosely be thought of as a generalization of the gravitational potential familiar from Newtonian gravitation. The metric captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as distance, volume, curvature, angle, future and past" Then the stress energy tensor... [latex]T_{\mu v}[/latex] "The stress energy tensor (sometimes stress energy momentum tensor or energy momentum tensor) is a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, generalizing the stress tensor of Newtonian physics. It is an attribute of matter, radiation, and non-gravitational force fields. The stress energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity." Now the Ricci tensor [latex]R_{\mu v}[/latex] In relativity theory, the Ricci tensor is the part of the curvature of space-time that determines the degree to which matter will tend to converge or diverge in time (via the Raychaudhuri equation). It is related to the matter content of the universe by means of the Einstein field equation. In differential geometry, lower bounds on the Ricci tensor on a Riemannian manifold allow one to extract global geometric and topological information by comparison (cf. comparison theorem) with the geometry of a constant curvature space form. If the Ricci tensor satisfies the vacuum Einstein equation, then the manifold is an Einstein manifold, which have been extensively studied (cf. Besse 1987). In this connection, the Ricci flow equation governs the evolution of a given metric to an Einstein metric; the precise manner in which this occurs ultimately leads to the solution of the Poincaré conjecture. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_curvature Do you honestly believe your lack of math model competes with the above, WITHOUT showing that math??????? Please fools we are not

Key word NET.

Still wrong you must look at the problem of time dilation in terms of 4d geometry change. Here is a key line. "In studying relativity, one must be willing to adopt different points of view--that is, different reference frames. The physical phenomena dont change, but our description of them does change." Another key line the equivalence principle. Gravitational potential is the same as an inertial frame. this tells you gravitational redshift is the same as Doppler redshift. Change in gravitational potential is exactly the same as a change in inertia. The workshop clearly shows BOTH time dilation and Frequency change. Not one or the other. EVERY example and article we posted shows BOTH. Not one or the other. The metrics are there, look at the geometry change due to relativity. The speed of light is constant, invariant. As the time dilation change occurs the frequency of light (energy) also changes. Energy is also an observed property . Inertial mass. Photons have no rest mass but via its frequency can gain inertial mass. Relativity has three simultaneous effects. Length contraction, time dilation, and change in inertial mass. These CANNOT be separated from each other in real world applications. We can merely model each seperately. However we must keep in mind they are a combined and inseparable effect. same with time dilation and Frequency change This is shown in the first pages of the workshop, look at the graphs and rocket A couple of key aspects to study in further detail. Proper time and coordinate time and Lorentz boost Take this one step further the cosmological redshift. In this case the frequency change is due to a change in geometry (expansion). Time dilation is also a change in geometry. The two are related. When you get deep enough into the math, you realize Doppler, gravitational redshift and cosmological redshift are all the same. The difference between them us which coordinate change is occurring and what causes the coordinate change. Frequency and particle interactions are also described by geometry. ( if you truly want to understand nearly EVERY formula used in physics, study differential geometry). Makes it incredibly easier to understand the most technical of papers. This includes Symmetry in particle physics and string theory for that matter

When light crosses a gravity well we have the blueshift as it falls in. When it climbs back out it redshifts the same amount unless the gravity well density changes prior to exit. We look for these anomolies, it's commonly called the Sachs Wolfe effect. One common time period where this occurs is the CMB. The change in density is due to the thermodynamic processes at the time. With galaxies etc the change in potential/per time is too insignificant compared to the travel time of light passing a galaxy. So the blueshift/redshift will negate each other resulting in the emitter frequency. Cosmological redshift is over an extremely large amount of time. The light cone link in my signature will allow you to see the rate of change over time/expansion.