Mordred

Your fundamental particles quarks gluons I electrons and photons are considered present at the beginning however the temp was so high they are all in thermal equilibrium. As such they are essentially indistinguishable from one another. These two links has a good solid coverage. One is a free textbook though the other is also textbook length and style 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

Ask yourself this question. Do so in all honesty. ,"If you were a scientist reading these calculations and articles. That same scientist tests Newtons first law." Do you honestly believe that one or two basic calculations and a smattering of random articles constitutes sufficient evidence to overthrow a fundamental physics law???? That has Been tested over and over again for 400 years? To accomplish what you are attempting will require a several thousand page dissertation style article rift with the calculations of numerous examples and applications in a huge range of experiments. It never stops amazing me how many people think they have solved the mysteries of the universe. However always fail to supply conclusive mathematics and evidence. They almost always make numerous mistakes misguided concepts in your post. If you want to get this proposal seriously looked at. You are going to need to do much much better than what you have presented For example show the mathematical 3 dimension change in force acting upon a satellite in every single and possible position in your dark flow image. Hint it will be a formula involving trigonometric functions for coordinates x,y and z. Key word and I cannot stress this enough. "Formula" In other words pretend your a highly recognized scientist who is interested in your model. He will want to use that formula to perform his own tests and calculations using your EXACT formula. Are you aware a dark flow would also affect the FLRW metric and more importantly the Einstien field equation? Are you aware dark flow models has been proposed and overthrown by the science community? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow Both WMAP and Planck datasets proved the dark flow theory incorrect http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23340-blow-for-dark-flow-in-plancks-new-view-of-the-cosmos.html#.VIQmQ3NrYTQ When I get back home next week if you like I can post the lengthy highly technical article overturning dark flow. I believe I still have a copy of it. Though I'm not positive if I saved it or not. (37 gigabytes of pdf files to sort through on physics and cosmology Yes I know your dark flow model is different than the recognized and overturned model. Your model will fail for the exact same reason the other one did. Both PLANCK and WMAP observational data supports an isotropic universe. (No preferred direction ). The Planck data set can measure the accoustic and temperature of the observable universe with a precision far surpassing your mathematical examples.

Space is merely volume filled with the energy density of the universe. Despite pop media literature you find on the internet. It is not a substance. The term spacetime is any mathematical model of space that includes the time component in its geometric dimensions. When they describe spacetime warping stretching etc what they really mean is the gravitational influence influence upon other particles can be described as being warped or stretched. GR never stated spacetime is a substance. That is a common misunderstanding presented by pop media articles. To truly understand the difference I would study the special relativity textbook I posted in your other thread. Or read and study General relativity by Mathius Blah in my signature. Again it's a free distributed textbook. As far as the rest of it goes I'm with Swansort prove it by showing the math not by numerous and random articles. Show us your knowledge specifically. After all it's your model you are presenting no one elses Linear accelerators are very impressive on the exact timing controls. I would love to get a look at the control software for the electromagnetic timing. Its a bit off topic but it is extremely impressive when you think about how many individual magnets that must be turned off and on at just the right instance

Newtons laws including the first law is fundamental in far more physics applications that are tested daily to even name them all. Your basing your understanding on how Newton developed his laws. In the last few centuries that law has passed so many rigorous tests in everyday applications that it would require a huge body of evidence and tests to overthrow. Good luck with that. It's a fundamental law in conservation of momentum. Used in particle physics. Used in engineering used in any application involving force. Including everyday machinery. We have numerous machines running whose energy to power calculations and tests of efficiency rely on Newtons first law. If those laws were as you described it would have Been noticed long ago. We measure the amount of energy needed to run machinery everyday. As such Newtons law is one of the MOST tested theories in physics. It's tests are done in everyday applications it is not restricted to just science tests. Forgot to mention its even tested in particle accelerators. You have no comprehension of just how often Newtons first law has been and is being tested. Yes it does affect relativity. The math of relativity is based upon Newtons laws. The formulas of relativity would not work if Newtons laws were incorrect.

I read through most of this post. My only advise pick up some physics books and learn why our current models exist. This post argues against far too many established and well tested theories to even name them all. The major ones being Newtons laws. Keplers laws. Our understanding of relativity. As well as LCDM. Yet I see zero math support.

Roflmao

Thank you for the accolade I do my best to post solid articles and resources usable by anyone without misleading them from the textbook concordance teachings on that site. I rarely use video references as they typically tend to mislead and miss inform due to over symplification. However I can post a free to use entry math level textbook on relavity. The author has given me permission to add a reference link to my site. Currently building a second page of reference links. Anyways the author is also an experienced forum member on another forum so his book is also geared to common misconceptions in relativity. It's also why he sticks to the basic Minkowskii math forms. Download is free http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ I'm surprised I didn't think of this example of photons vs conservation of energy and momentum before but one of the better examples of its applications is to look at Compton scattering. As Compton scattering is a direct application of photon interactions and the two conservation laws. Here is a link to a quick low math level coverage. http://khuntersscience.blogspot.ca/2012/07/using-energy-and-momentum-conservation.html?m=1 it's a good example of how momentum is imparted onto other particles

Sorry mate I've been studying cosmology since Allen Guthrie first proposed false vacuum . Back when the arguments of Universe geometry was still unknown and the words Higgs dark energy and dark matter was met with scorn. This was also before WMAP which determined the universe geometry question. LCDM is a result of WMAP data. Prior to WMAP they were still debating hot or warm or cold dark matter and quintessence and MOND over LCDM. So your understanding of the importance of the WMAP is in error. As far as photons and conservation of momentum is conserved. We have supplied enough data to show that it is. It's up to the OP to prove that it isn't. In any process conservation of momentum is conserved. If you like I could show you an article where virtual particle production affects the angular momentum of a blackhole. Yes in the form of virtual photons. See my signature look for the black hole accretion disk article. I would post it but you have more important articles to study. That article is highly technical. Also over 900 pages.

Your understanding of relativity is in error. The fact that a photon has no perspective does not mean that the photon has no time or distance. The photon has no valid frame of reference. There has been numerous posts explaining that in the relativity forum. So let's leave that for that forum. The WMAP data strongly supports LCDM model which is the big bang with cold dark matter and the cosmological constant. However the big bang model does not attempt to predict how the universe began. It states nothing prior to 10^-43 seconds. It's only premise is that from that point forward it began with a hot dense state. It does not attempt to state how the universe began as the physics and mathematics reaches a nonsensical state prior to that point in time. As to the photon. A photon does not gain or lose momentum. It's momentum c is invarient. It's speed is always c. It can gain or lose energy but not momentum. If it had any other momentum other than c. Then it isn't a photon. I fail to see why you have such difficulty with photons exerting a force. Everyone posted numerous examples of everyday numerous and practical applications as well as tests that photons exert a force due to its momentum. Any time a force is exerted an equal and opposite force is also in effect. Newtons laws tells you that. Experiments showing that a photon can exert a force has been tested numerous times it's been around in our understanding since Maxwell. We have had plenty of time to disprove it. Instead of discounting the answers you were given. (Particularly since several of the repliers hold various physics degrees). Perhaps you should take the time to study the data provided. You might find your understanding is misguided and learn from it. What is truly amusing is the fact that the photon is the electromagnetic FORCE carrier. It is the boson responsible for transferring the electromagnetic FORCE from one particle to another. Anything that can exert a force can also exert a pressure. PS the electromagnetic FORCE includes heat.

As others have mentioned photons exert a force as photons have momentum. There is a couple other areas where this is considered and applied. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure when we launch probes and satellites at different planets they calculate the radiation pressure due to the sun emitting various spectrums of light. See link above. In cosmology radiation including photons has an equation of state that correlates its energy density to its pressure influence. Google equations of state (cosmology) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Photons can and do exert a force. Just as the others have been telling you. See the equations on that page under ultra relativistic matter note it includes radiation.

Pretty bright light..ouch that's hot Lol

The thanks is enough

Ah I see well the balloon analogy itself is meant to merely model a 2d representation of how galaxies seperate. Nothing more than that. There is a few details left out in that thread. Mainly that per m^3 the energy density of the cosmological constant is extremely weak. Roughly [latex]6.0 *10^{-10}[/latex] joules per cubic meter. This weak energy density per cubic meter is easily overpowered by local gravity as well as the strong force

Have you looked at the balloon analogy? Take a balloon draw some dots on it. Then inflate it. Don't concern yourself with what is inside or outside the balloon. Were only concerned with how the dots move. Notice how they seperate with evenly from each other with no change in angle between any of the dots. How galaxies move from each other works the same way as those dots.

Lol my post got split up by the other relevant comments guess we have some active members on this thread

By the way higher density is a requirement of a smaller universe in the past than it is today. This conforms to the thermodynamic laws. Google the term "ideal gas laws in Cosmology". If you wish further detail outside the material I provided. The links contain everything stated on this thread. Take the time to learn it. "I don't understand it" therefore don't accept it is plain wrong. Read the material and post specific questions on it. Include the article and page we can easily step you through it if you truly want to learn. It would be a pleasure. After all that is the only reason why I visit forums. To help others learn. I never ask questions. Why is simply due to buying and studying over 40 textbooks. As well as spending 15 years of self study. I come here to help others only... so please feel free to show us a willingness to learn. I would be more than happy to help with that proven willingness

If you want to understand it then take the time to read the material provided. The first section of links is no math or little math needed. In all honesty most of the material provided is entry cosmology level.

Well I'm glad to see the cosmic inventory included in your links. It's rather extensive and detailed. Judging by your calcs and what I recall its in the right range. For an approximation Though I am still unclear what you are presenting that is new.

As Strange mentioned the FLRW metric is an exact solution to the Eintein field equations. However showing how is a rather complex matter. The best article is a 995 page technical article. Unfortunately advanced. Outside of textbooks and the other articles on my free non profit website it is the best I can offer. The problem is this particular text requires a good understanding of math and differential geometry. Some of the other articles on my site less so however this is the one that answers specifically the GR to FLRW relation. It will take time to study I would recommend the FAQ Strange posted as well as working downward the links in my Sig prior to reading this link if you cannot afford a textbook. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf If you have a strong interest the best intro textbook I ever read out of 27 of them is Barbers Rydens "Introductory to Cosmology" followed by "Modern Cosmology" by Scott Dodelson to simplify the math Roads to Reality by Sir Roger Penrose. (This is a non specific model math breakdown at high school level text) This last part needs addressing as it is vital. First off we have to cover a few aspects. 1 expansion is homogeneous and isotropic. (No preferred location or direction. In other words uniform) Now the FLRW metric also includes the ideal gas laws. Treat every energy density contributor as a gas with a pressure contribution according to its equation of state (cosmology) Link added at the end. Now as expansion is uniform pressure exerts An equal uniform force upon those galaxies in all directions equally. So the galaxies themselves experience no greater force in a particular direction. Therefore they themselves gain no intertia or kinetic energy. Instead the cosmological constant aka dark energy can only affect the regions between galaxies or gravitationally bound objects. Sounds counter intuitive but it helps to think of energy density as pressure and the universe as an ideal gas. ,(this is how the FLRW metric is designed with GR added.) As stated start with the link Strange posted earlier. The tutorial on that site is excellent. Then read downward the links on my site. The articles were chosen to teach textbook cosmology for those that cannot buy textbooks http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Forgot to add one key concept to understand is that no galaxy gains inertia due to expansion. Instead the volume of space between galaxies simply increased so GR is not violated. Also as mentioned recessive velocity required a huge distance measurement between observer and object measured to show a distance dependant recessive velocity in excess of c. (Past Hubbled sphere)

[latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline R_{0} (Gly) & R_{\infty} (Gly) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/tex] [tex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline a=1/S&S&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&V_{now} (c)&V_{then} (c) \\ \hline 0.001&1090.000&0.0004&0.0006&45.332&0.042&0.057&3.15&66.18\\ \hline 0.003&339.773&0.0025&0.0040&44.184&0.130&0.179&3.07&32.87\\ \hline 0.009&105.913&0.0153&0.0235&42.012&0.397&0.552&2.92&16.90\\ \hline 0.030&33.015&0.0902&0.1363&38.052&1.153&1.652&2.64&8.45\\ \hline 0.097&10.291&0.5223&0.7851&30.918&3.004&4.606&2.15&3.83\\ \hline 0.312&3.208&2.9777&4.3736&18.248&5.688&10.827&1.27&1.30\\ \hline 1.000&1.000&13.7872&14.3999&0.000&0.000&16.472&0.00&0.00\\ \hline 3.208&0.312&32.8849&17.1849&11.118&35.666&17.225&0.77&2.08\\ \hline 7.580&0.132&47.7251&17.2911&14.219&107.786&17.291&0.99&6.23\\ \hline 17.911&0.056&62.5981&17.2993&15.536&278.256&17.299&1.08&16.08\\ \hline 42.321&0.024&77.4737&17.2998&16.093&681.061&17.300&1.12&39.37\\ \hline 100.000&0.010&92.3494&17.2999&16.328&1632.838&17.300&1.13&94.38\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] See if this works here Nope guess not tried posting the cosmocalc in my Sig... works on other forums just not this one

Same here I would also take the time to study why a model states what it does before discounting it.

That is not what you are measuring. When we look further back in time we see a higher density. We see the thermodynamic laws that form the basis of big bang nucleosynthesis. We see the predicted quantities of elements in particular hydrogen and lithium. We see different stars type 1a that can only form as a result of a higher density. We see the CMB which is a prediction of the big bang model. We see a higher number of quasars which is a result of a higher energy density in the past. We see the redshift of the light from those objects. We SEE plenty of evidence that supports an expanding universe. You choose to ignore all of that evidence. You fail to take the time to study the tools that will teach you why we know the universe is expanding. Google Hubble for example. Remember he observed and measured galaxies moving away from each other. If you refuse to look at the info provided then believe whatever unicorns suit your fancy

It's amazing though I and others post numerous articles including peer reviews. My signature also contains free peer reviewed textbooks. As well as provides An expansion and redshift calculator. Yet you choose to ignore this wealth of information . The LCDM (hot big bang model with cold dark matter and the cosmological constant.). Is a model that is continously being tested by observations. That data set and model gets tested with every observation made every single day that provides new data. As mentioned there is also redshift. I already provided an article explaining in simple terms what that means. Please take the time to read the links I provided. Especially the one titled. "What we have learned from Observational evidence" http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446

You also aren't considering that the CMB is measured accurately. At 3000 Kelvin in the past. Then consider how the ideal gas laws work. A higher density means a higher temperature.

Think of it this way the further we look the more dense the universe becomes. Thus the universe also becomes hotter. Ie the CMB at 3000 Kelvin. Galaxies included. Remember baryonic matter is only a small contributor to the energy budget of the universe. The term recessive velocity and its superluminal measurement is very misleading. We're stuck with it but it's far more misleading than what it is worth. The term accelerating expansion is a result of recessive velocity. It is based on geometry. Take that 10 cm ruler. Let's apply simple numbers. Say there is a galaxy at each centimeter dividend. Now increase the distance between each galaxy by 1mm (10% the total volume) So second two has a total volume of 11 cm to start now add 10% for new total of 12.1 cm. Then add 10 % of that the next second and so forth. See how it has an accelerating exponential expansion. However per 1" divident the change remains 1mm per second per inch. Or 10% of each centimeter. Hope this helps. Keep in mind the space between each of the original coordinates all change equally in every direction. Ie if you did the same thing with two rulers to represent 2d or 3 rulers to represent ,3d with no change of angles between any of the galaxies or rulers Notice the rate of change remains 10% per volume. This is the same as Hubbles constant 70 km/sec/Mpc. However the rate of change in the recessive velocity will be accelerating. By 10% of the total volume between any two galaxies of the previous second.