Mordred

Cosmological principle the universe has no preferred location or direction Comprises two principle terms. Homogeneous no preferred location Isotropic no preferred direction. What this means is uniformity in overall energy density/mass distribution. Now the Einstein field equations and the FLRW metric are both interchangeable. They both involve the ideal gas laws. Cosmology describes the universe as a perfect fluid. pv=nRt Each contributor (particle etc) has an equation of state. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 in GR energy density corresponds to pressure via the stress energy tensor. [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p \eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] http://www.th.physik.uni-bonn.de/nilles/exercises/ss04/gr05.pdf http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor for the metric tensor portion above. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity) The full subject is too lengthy to post all the relationships. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity) I have numerous articles covering this under my signature for direct GR to cosmology chapter 9 covers this. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau However this book is rather advanced. I have some simplifications in these two articles. Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 FLRW distance to FLRW metric http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ these articles all cover the above the beginning chapters covering the Cosmological principle. Unfortunately the range of your questions require individual threads to properly answer each one even in narrative form Cosmological principle covered, Mass is resistance to inetia, you can have particles that are not matter with mass aka bosons. Elementary Matter particles are fermionic Google Pauli exclusion principle. Matter particles of the same state occupies space only one fermionic particle of the same state can occupy the same space. Any number of bosons can occupy a given volume. The entire universe is not being sucked into blackholes. Electrons go around the nucleus due to electromagnetic charge. Planets and moons is due to gravity. No one knows for sure past the event horizon. We can't measure it directly

Here is a couple good articles covering GUT. SO(10) is said to explain DE and DM more research is needed to confirm though. These two are primarily SO(5) 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 SO(10) http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdfThe Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 The thermodynamic article chapter 3 has an excellent coverage of nucleosynthesis. Including hydrogen, helium etc production.

The Higgs mechanism may or may not explain dark energy. It's influence is primarily through the vacuum equations of state. See scalar modelling this is usually used when particles are in thermal equilibrium and can be described as a thermodynamic vacuum state. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3239 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 If the seesaw mechanism is validated then the Higgs changes potential of influence via the seesaw Mexican hat potential. This could also explain inflation and possibly dark matter via the SO(10) standard particle model. As far as general relativity its influence would be involved in the stress energy tensor http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor The stress energy tensor correlates the energy density to pressure relations. Or in the FLRW [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex]

You don't one essential detail. The research for a preferred location (center) has been done. None is found. More models than I can count tried having a inhomogeneous and anisotropic universe. As such this has been extensively looked into by BOSS. Planck,WMAP etc. The cosmological principle is extremely well tested.

The Higgs field also doesn't for all the mass. The Higgs field affects only quarks, neutrinos, electrons and W bosons. It only accounts for less than 1% of mass. Take for example the proton. Proton has mass 1.67262178 × 10^-27 kilograms or 938.272 MEV/c^2 Made up of 2 up and 1 Down quark. Up quark mass roughly 2.3 Mev/c^2 Down quark mass roughly 4.8 Mev/c^2 Add those up 9.4 Mev/c^2 9.4/938*100=1%. The majority of the mass of the proton is the strong nuclear force

Cosmology is based on observational evidence. Not believability. All observational data shows a strong agreement with no center, no preferred direction and no preferred location. The latest Planck dataset places this to near 100% accuracy, or as close as any model gets to that accuracy they always allow for some % of error. Read this particular article as well, it was written by Brain Powell who has a PH.D in Cosmology. http://tangentspace....ocs/horizon.pdf:Inflationand the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell You'll note the same details in the Lineweaver and Davies articles

No prob mate, those are just good reviews on the cosmology from quantum potential paper.

Here is a decent coverage of it https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-two-big-bangs-1493194f5cd9 https://plus.google.com/100479352836033641546/posts/3wW3fNH7GMV Both articles cut through the pop media hype on Those papers

Truthfully as I understand what he's after which I may be off he's looking for a connection between the sunspots cycles to the planets movements. However that being said there really isn't a connection. I had to do some digging and the root cause is differential rotation which causes electromagnetic magnetic convection currents. The different convection currents has plasma interations that generate a charge. The cycle of the suns differential rotation is 22 years. Differential rotation is a property any spinning plasma gains, the complexity is simply greater due to the suns thermodynamic engine. For the OP here is a detailed analysis of the diffetential rotation in terms of the vorticity flows. http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0984 The coordinate choice makes little difference in the above, so it's more a sidelight conjecture. For further info on differential rotation and its connection to the sunspot cycle, googling "differential rotation pdf" pulls up the more reliable articles. Though your discussion on orbitals is good science, I do recommend continuing that discussion. Ps forgot to add the magnetic pole reversal is every 11 years, but the differential rotation cycle Is 22 years. The article I posted covers that Lol I forgot he had another thread should have posted this there. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87692-the-ever-changing-suns-magnetic-field/

http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0984 I posted this also in your other thread.

I'd say it's fair to stick with heliocentric coordinates for the topic at hand.

Yes the pressure wouldn't be affected by the hydrophobic walls. The pressure calculations don't care what the container walls are made out of. The different materials have different properties that may allow them to resist higher pressure. However that has nothing to do with what is causing the pressure.

The electromagnetic force follows the same rules as photons in a medium/vacuum. The force carrying boson is the photon. Both photons and any form of interaction/information is limitted to c in a vacuum

Lol yeah it was a gentle nudge hehe

Are you telling us you find the correct information in accordance to standard textbook (concordance) understanding insulting? The answers we provided is established science. Done by far greater minds than any of us over centuries of research and experimentation. Mass is defined as "Resistance to inertia." Within the proton the binding energy of the strong force provides that resistance. If you find that insulting I suggest reading the links and supporting papers we provided instead of ignoring them.

This article will help "The solar magnetic field." http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1008.0771&rct=j&q=the%20suns%20magnetic%20field%20dynamics%20pdf&ei=PS_aVJu6NYLpoASV3oKQDg&usg=AFQjCNFwGT1NwP4VpuhVFL7akBJ6ySIl6w&sig2=uqJmr75TsgalAv-DgyTJiQ

Bignose posted this excellent article in another thread. Has an extensive coverage of various tests of GR. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/

The universe BB model was not an explosion nor does the universe has a center. It is a rapid expansion of space. Not a kinetic type explosion. Here is some material please read the misconceptions of the big bang Lineweaver and Davies in particular. Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) 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 http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies The balloon analogy is also handy

It's stating the original analysis was wrong and gives the reasons why. You should read the entire article.

Here is a list of relativity tests. This site has a good list http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

The science. Measurements and observations agree with heliocentric models. Particularly since we have space craft and satellites.

Lol no prob discovering the Higgs boson was pretty significant. Placing that aside though, one of the best ways to avoid crackpot traps is to study the textbook concordance models. You'd be amazed once you understand the concordance models how easy it becomes to identify crackpot articles.

Sungenis can try to use this argument to support his wild claims but the CMB axis of evil has nothing to do with geocentric motion. If anything it argued for a deviation in thermodynamic processes which would have argued against homogeneous and isotropic uniformity. In particular uniformity in matter distributions. The CMB has nothing to do with rotations. However the latest findings show that the cosmological principle and LCDM (hot BB with cold dark matter) is incredibly accurate to observational data with less that 1% possibility of error. (Science never admits to 100% accuracy) two years after those findings we still find the cosmological principle is accurate. Even without the latest dataset. http://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/387566/425793/2015_SMICA_CMB/c8c4c802-4b76-49da-b80a-0fb8d02c62b7?t=1423083319437u Here is some of the latest images. by the way instead of listening to a non scientist who just happened to make a video, and who is obviously trying to disprove our models based on religious grounds. Might be advisable to listen to those that have replied here. Some of the people who replied have physics credentials of various levels. Some of them are working as professional physicists. My signature wikidot link has numerous textbooks and articles to help you learn the real science This one covers a bit on geocentric vs heliocentric. Nice visual slide show http://terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/cosmic-distance-ladder1.pdf

Becomes a single rho meson. Mesons have integer spin, they are bosonic and bosons do not follow the Pauli exclusion principle. Any number of bosons can occupy the same space.

On regard to the CMB anisotropy this has been corrected in the latest 2015 Planck data set. The latest images no longer show the anistropy