Mordred

Not completely there is a point where the z rate of change has a sharper curve. If only I could post the lightcone results on my signature.http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0402278v1.pdf[/url The results of the calculator will match the graph on page 26 of the above article As well as the redshift graph on page 40 As you can see it's not a linear but a curved relation Due to the formulas used Don't quote me on this but if I recall the distance to luminosity relations is also part of the reason Which is also why the common redshift formula everyone knows is only valid for close distances. This is mentioned in the distance measures article in my previous post by Hoggs http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CCsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fastro-ph%2F9905116&rct=j&q=proper%20time%20cosmology&ei=o4uhVOe8EpOnyATs6ICYAw&usg=AFQjCNENt8vXuRz1vhm6vF3-TawOcXsUcA&sig2=_FVL77t2rD6gMvWYoBTx7A

You have a lot of independant questions here. So rather than try to fully answer them all I'm going to post a handy tutorial website. However the page I will post is specific to your redshift. Look at the curvature of the worldlines. The applicable relations and reasons are on this site. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm it's a good idea to read the entire tutorial. For an intro tutorial its excellent. photon and particle counts is per the same time period. It's rather complex to explain without getting extremely intense into the ideal gas laws and thermodynamics. But you do the estimates at a specific time period using the average temperature of that time period. The two statistic equations I mentioned are used. I'll dig up an example I'll try to find a simplified example. Bose Eintein statistics is a bit advanced. This is a good training but lengthy article on statistical mathematics. http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/poisson/research/spii.pdf I'm still looking for a simpler example Here is about one of the simpler examples http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CB8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astronomy.ohio-state.edu%2F~dhw%2FA873%2Fnotes4.pdf&rct=j&q=number%20of%20photon%20in%20the%20universe%20calculations%20%20pdf&ei=BpKlVIP1A8P3yQSVuYCoAw&usg=AFQjCNHU4o_AumJDNrn44y-WnpRazIWKuQ&sig2=M3kWLon30HDv8WewHqOhDQ

To add to this I've read several of Wilcezs puplished papers. His work in the field of QCD is masterful. I particularly enjoyed his lattice lattice gauge symmetry paper. As far as assymptotic freedom his mathematics definetely does not even hint at an ether. Specifically it involves quark color interactions. His Crystal time models are also specific to symmetry time reversal breaking. However as you mentioned asymptotic freedom here is his paper on it. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0502113 One should never rely on pop media literature even if it is presented by the author of a theory. Too often it has been "Dummie'd down so the public can read it. This often leads to misrepresentation of the actual model. I've read numerous of his papers on various aspects of QCD and QFT never had I seen any indication of anything remotely resembling an aether theory. Just good employment of virtual particle production, zero point energy and lattice configurations to explain particle symmetries.

The answer to that is contained in the distance measures article I posted earlier. We calculate the proper and commoving distance from the redshift. Those are the two terms you need to grasp. Commoving distance includes expansion along line of site. As Hubbles constant is only constant everywhere at a moment in time. Proper distance is the calculated distance at a point in time such as now. Now as far as expansion is concerned tests are regularly done to look for variations in the expansion rate. These variations would cause anidtropies. As well as lead to a variating cosmological constant. The cosmological constant however is constant. So the reason we say expansion is accelerating is due to the increase in volume. Similar to this number exercise. Lets assume expansion is 100% of a given volume just for simplicity. So start with two objects one Mpc apart. In one second they are now two Mpc apart, then 4 then 8,16,32,64,128,256 ... there you have accelerating expansion between two objects. However per Mpc it isn't accelerating it is still 100%. Now expansion is far less than 100% it's 70 km/s/Mpc it's still constant per Mpc, but just as the 100% value it Is an exponential seperation between the same two points. Your main problem seems to stem from the time aspects and the possibility of changing conditions. In this we have a unique advantage . In that we can look into the past to look for those variations. We can see how the universe evolves using the objects spotted in a given time period.) Unfortunately we cannot see now everywhere. However unless we can detect or determine a change in dynamics we can safely assume it's the same as it's been for the last several billion years. Or since the CMB. (Taking into consideration temperature dropping since due to an increase in volume). Which the ideal gas laws allow us to predict.) In terms of the major influences to expansion. Baryonic matter such as stars and galaxies influence little. In fact the two major influences is dark matter and the cosmological constant.

That's my point the differences are incorperated into the equations. In the case of the various particle species. The number of photons per era can be determined from understanding the photons properties such as spin. Number of degrees of freedom, entropy density , etc and with use of Bose-Einstein mechanical statistics. Which covers the bosons. The Fermi-Dirac statistics covers the fermions. In each case the properties of the particles in question must be understood. Chapter 3 of Early Universe particle physics covers how to apply those two formulas. In order for them to work however you also have to consider the contributions of other particles at the time period as well as consider chemical reactions. This thermodynamic calculation process took centuries of research to develop. It's methods is well tested. One could however calculate the number of photons using Gibbs law however the method above is more precise. Thermodynamics is a huge and vital field in understanding our universe. The FLRW metric includes the ideal gas laws for that reason. 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 I've already posted the articles describing proper distance commoving distance and explained conformal and commoving time These different distances and time relations is a part of all cosmology based calculations The problem is most people don't realize these details as they seldom look deep enough . The best way to learn is of course thru a course. However barring that it is buying and studying good textbooks. Learning via the internet alone misses too many of the essential details. This is the reason for my site. To help fill those oft missed details As far as textbooks go out of the 30 some odd I own. The easiest to learn cosmology from with under grad calculus is Barbara Rydens "Introductory to Cosmology". The best book on taking the complexity out of the mathematics "Roads to Reality" by Sir Roger Penrose. (The last is non model specific as he covers a wide variety of fields including string theory and ADS/CFT and QFT as well as the classical models

To help explain redshift and expansion as well as what is referred as Universe geometry. Rather than post articles with difficult metrics. I will instead post two articles I wrote with some assistance. Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion The above is a quick breakdown of the 3 types of redshift as well as a FAQ article in regards to expansion and BB model. Included is an explaination on why expansion does not occur in gravity influenced areas such as large scale structures. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 of the above article is here. The last article covers universe geometry included is a breakdown of the FLRW metric in terms of distance in the positive, negative and flat geometry (basically energy density relations) in 2d,3d and 4d. I posted the critical density calc in post 18 of this thread. This is the average energy density per cubic meter. Of which only a % is dark energy. Recall I mentioned that dark energy is only 6.0*10^-10 joules per cubic meter. This small amount is locally easily overpowered by gravity as well as the strong force. However this article though more technical is also useful http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052"In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano

Look at the model. The grid points are the particles the grid lines are the geometric regions of influence. These grid lines can be warped and twisted much like in GR. However in his case he employs the Higgs field as one possibility his model is the interactions of energy in virtually empty space. http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2008/09/24/4351586-the-grid-we-live-in Here read this descriptive http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=16&ved=0CCoQFjAFOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.symmetrymagazine.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Flegacy%2Fpdfs%2F200511%2Fcomputing_the_quarks.pdf&rct=j&q=frank%20wilczek%20the%20grid%20pdf&ei=7AKjVJDsMIiuyQStmYCYAw&usg=AFQjCNFVBAqXJCWc1geB8UnWS7V6keFGvg&sig2=Z784zwzvhjhOczBKR5zBag&bvm=bv.82001339,d.aWw It shows the advantages in terms of its computative power However as mentioned this isn't the Ops model so should be a seperate discussion

Think of the term grid model. You still have empty space between the grid connection points and grid lines

There is one significant difference between fields and the model presented. There is space between the particles and fields. This isn't really for the laymen as it's lengthy and technical but it's handy nonetheless http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205: "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields

Lol I keep forgetting about that model.

Epochs and eras are chronological points in the universes history where there are significant changes in the dynamics. The major ones after inflation is the radiation dominent era which includes BB inflation and surface of last scattering (CMB). This is followed by the matter dominent era CMB till the universe is roughly 7.3 billion years old. At this time the cosmological constant becomes the dominent influence so we call this era the lambda dominent.

[latex]T=\frac{T_o}{\sqrt{1-\frac {2GM}{Rc^2}}}[/latex] Grr out of practice with the latex formula is here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c4 Ah got it was missing a } Google gravitational time dilation equation for more details

Blocky is the wrong word but 4 frames per second is rather slow in video. I'm no video expert but formats I'm familiar with are 24 to 75 frames per second Flickering is the more apropriate word.

I didn't take your question as specific to the mars rover Obviously there is no camera watching the rover land or on the surface. However looking at the wiki link below it took color images at a rate of 4 frames per second during its descent. Using the Mardi camera http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover) 4 frames per sec would be rather blocky so I would imagine some CGI was used to add intermediate images

You can infer from this article even the data is computer processed You asked why computer graphics are needed I didn't explain redshift it is simply one of the reasons. Look at the types of sensors used.

The majority of research does not use visual based telescopes. How can it, take a star for example that is emitting light in the visual frequencies. Then redshift that light till it's just barely detectable in the infra red spectrum. Redshift is merely one aspect of visual limitation. We also have the limitation of sheer distance. Those stars and planets we find are mere dots in some cases. For that matter some galaxies are barely detectable. So we don't rely on the visible frequencies. Instead we look for signals in the entire range of the electronagnetic spectrum. Then when a signal is found you need to determine its distance (Google cosmic distance ladder for a variety of methods as no one method works at all distance scales). Once the distance is known then you need to compensate for the redshift and possible blueshift to those detected frequencies. Rarely will those frequencies fall into the visual spectrum of light. More oft than not they will fall into the infrared spectrum. Particularly the further away said object is. The majority of research does not use visual based telescopes. How can it, take a star for example that is emitting light in the visual frequencies. Then redshift that light till it's just barely detectable in the infra red spectrum. Redshift is merely one aspect of visual limitation. We also have the limitation of sheer distance. Those stars and planets we find are mere dots in some cases. For that matter some galaxies are barely detectable. So we don't rely on the visible frequencies. Instead we look for signals in the entire range of the electronagnetic spectrum. Then when a signal is found you need to determine its distance (Google cosmic distance ladder for a variety of methods as no one method works at all distance scales). Once the distance is known then you need to compensate for the redshift and possible blueshift to those detected frequencies. Rarely will those frequencies fall into the visual spectrum of light. More oft than not they will fall into the infrared spectrum. Particularly the further away said object is. Here is one of the better articles on the cosmic distance ladder http://terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/cosmic-distance-ladder1.pdf Forgot to mention you also have to filter out all the gas and plasma interferance in order to find objects. Our galaxy has lots of plasma that prevent visual spotting of objects Let's look at the Hubble satellite for example its sensors detect ultra violet visual and near infra red light. However not at the same time. See link below http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/hubble_essentials/

They do. In cosmology calculations we have, conformal time and cosmological time. Of which any calculation can be converted between the 3. The lightcone calculator in my signature uses proper time. Cosmic (cosmological time) is often referred to as look back time http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_time Conformal time coincides with the particle horizon http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_horizon Then we have as well different types of distance. Proper distance conformal distance and commoving distance. This article covers these in detail http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CCsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fastro-ph%2F9905116&rct=j&q=proper%20time%20cosmology&ei=o4uhVOe8EpOnyATs6ICYAw&usg=AFQjCNENt8vXuRz1vhm6vF3-TawOcXsUcA&sig2=_FVL77t2rD6gMvWYoBTx7A "Distance measures in cosmology" David Hogg Grr I ya modified your last post while I was typing mine. Lol Tar we can calculate how many photons are in the universe using the blackbody temperature of the universe and the Bose-Einstein statistics. We also know how that radiation affects expansion and universe geometry using the equation of state for radiation http://www.google.ca/search?site=&source=hp&ei=io-hVIehAc35yQT-koDYCg&q=equation+of+state+cosmology&oq=eq&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.41j0l4.2472.2918.0.4678.3.3.0.1.1.0.239.608.0j1j2.3.0.msedr...0...1c.1.60.mobile-gws-hp..0.3.429.3.u--EvSC4PwU See particle physics of the Early universe under my signature chapter 3 for how to use the Bose-Eintien statistics in regards to photons However the answers on how much of any contributor to the universes energy budget can be found here http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf"The Cosmic energy inventory You really need to sit back and understand what we can and do calculate both in the how and why. The cosmic inventory should give you quick OMG we can calculate all of that?!!?. My signature has the books and articles to assist you in learning how Ah it wasn't a change in post just an earlier one lol. The first part of my post is in regards to how time and distance is calculated to include how it evolves

Ps my link has some historical articles as well my personal fav is the great debate Have a good night mate late for myself as well

Several centuries of research oft wrong. At first the Earth didn't move. This is where philosophy interfered with true science. Empirical evidence showed otherwise. Much like the topic at hand. Study the evidence before formulating a theory. Study current models before you state they are wrong.

Those metrics are not specific to the aether theory. The first is the speed of a wave in a continuum. The second is equation of drag in a continuum. Your theory by your words is a continuum. Therefore those metrics apply to your model.

You have zero empty space just as per the metrics posted here. It's the same problem no matter how you shake it It's the same thing as everything you posted you have a continous medium precisely as the aether theory does. It's metrics and associative problems are identical

This covers the aether problem read it carefully

It has everything to do with it you simply don't understand why it does.

Look at the properties he mentioned they conflict with each other that is the problem he wants your solution for

Nice post +1 from me good descriptive