Mordred

Lol no problem once you try to use the metrics or the math. Many of the ideas can be discounted I took the time to learn them. In this case I found my model didnt work with the FLRW metrics. Ialso tried adapting the Bose-Einstein distrributions and the Fermi-Dirac equations but found I could not get them to work with the observational thermodynamic history of the universe with my model

The cosmological constant has been a subject I've spent years trying to solve. In terms of pressure its easy to relate to. However the problem arises from why is it constant? And how to account for a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. My own model ideas to this day still do not work due to those two reasons. If you look at your diagram you will see that neither will your idea. A lower energy density region outside a higher energy density region will automatically lead to a preferred outward direction. This will not work with observational evidence. Much the same way my own model does not work. Which is essentially a natural dispersion of a high energy density to a lower density state. In this regards our two ideas are the same. However as stated this does not work with observational evidence nor does it work with the FLRW metrics. Unless conclusive evidence shows an outward preferred direction then neither your model nor mine will work. The same problem occurs in the rotating universe models. Or the universe from a blackhole or inside a BH. Many models have been discounted from not being homogeneous and isotropic. This is what observational evidence supports. So unless you can develop the metrics to show how your model can maintain those two conditions your model will not match observational evidence. To this day I still have nit published my ideas on the cosmological constant for the reasons I have just state. I can still disprove my own model due to not being homogeneous and isotropic nor can I keep the cosmological constant as a constant. A higher energy density region that expands will naturally decrease in pressure. However in the case of dark energy this does not occur. As far as the evidence shows it is in fact constant in time as well as location. Your model will suffer the same problems as the dark energy outer regions are by default a lower energy density region so as your bubble universes expands the average pressure will decrease leading to a slower expansion rate instead of an accelerating expansion rate.

I'll have to look them up could be intersting reading

True but this doesnt change the fact that any theory needs to be testable to gain validity beyond speculation. There is mire multiverse theories than I can count. None will gain validity unless they can find evidence of such existing. Yes a multiverse makes sense. However this doesnt mean one exists. Just a side note chaotic eternal inflation predicts multiple bubble universes arising from expanding anistropies. The seperation being shared causality. This process involves virtual particke production. Aka the cosmological constant. However it does not state each particle is a seperate universe. Merely that the cosmological constant can cause a dissimilar regions to expand at different rates causing a multiverse. True but this doesnt change the fact that any theory needs to be testable to gain validity beyond speculation. There is mire multiverse theories than I can count. None will gain validity unless they can find evidence of such existing. Yes a multiverse makes sense. However this doesnt mean one exists. Just a side note chaotic eternal inflation predicts multiple bubble universes arising from expanding anistropies. The seperation being shared causality. This process involves virtual particke production. Aka the cosmological constant. However it does not state each particle is a seperate universe. Merely that the cosmological constant can cause a dissimilar regions to expand at different rates causing a multiverse. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation the key note is the cosmological constant drives expansion from within our universe. Not from outside our universe the behavior of expansion would have a preferred direction if the cause was external to our universe.

Now what does the term universe mean? One way to define that is everything that is. So by that definition how can you have an outside? Anything we can see, measure either directly or indirectly is by definition part of our universe. Concepts such as what is outside our universe is then nonsense. If our universe is by the first definition there can be no outside. There is no universe wall seperating us from some void. What would it be made of? spacetime is a mathematical descriptive of space and time. Space itself is not a fabric or substance. It is merely geometric volume filled with the contents of the universe. The average energy density of intergalactic space including dark energy is roughly [latex]6.62*10^-23[/latex] joules per cubic metre. You can calculate this from the critical density formula.

indeed however the southern region turned out ti be a calibration error. It is in fact not cooler, however the next dataset may tell a different story. Our universe is simply expanding. It is not expanding into anything. I know this concept is hard to grasp however think of it this way. How can an infinite universe expand into something? We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite our data sets only tell us we are expanding. Anything beyond the observable is untestable. Therefore conjectural. There has been numerous tests for universe collisions with the CMB however nothing conclusive has been found.

If you work out the metrics in the scenario you posted the universes would have a preferred outward direction from a central point. Unfortunately we know expansion is homogeneous and isotropic. In your scenario the central regions would have a higher energy density than the outer regions. In our universe the average energy density and rate of expansion are the same regardless of location. There is no preferred location or direction either. Dark energy of vacuum energy is constant regardless of location within our universe. We also do not know if our universe is finite or infinite. Nor do we know if a multiverse even exists. For all intesive purposes there is no outside our universe. We can only determine our observable portion. Anything beyond the observable universe is mere speculation

Intetesting paper. Not sure I agree with the superluminal light aspects. They do show how it can occur without violating causality but I'm still studying it. However some of the metrics in it are handy irregardless. Thanks for posting it

Charge is an electromagnetic interaction in this case it has no net charge even though it does interact with the electromagnetic force

The sterile neutrino is based on the SO(10) standard particle model more info can be found there http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

Explosion is the wrong way of thinking of expansion and inflation, the term explosion implies a preferred direction and location. Inflation and expansion measurements show no preferred location or direction.. This is referred to as the cosmological principle. Our universe is homogeneous and isotropic, (no preferred location or direction) . Expansion is sometimes referred to as an explosion in space, however its important to recognize it as a rapid expansion in all directions and locations, not from an original point like object. We do not know how big the universe was at 10-43 seconds, it could have been finite or infinite.

lets clarify a few details on Hawking's radiation, first off Hawking's radiation occurs outside the event horizon not within it When the particle pairs form the negative particle falls into the BH causing a loss of mass, the positive particle escapes, Secondly Hawking's radiation only occurs if the blackbody temperature of the universe is lower than the blackbody temperature of the BH. Otherwise the BH absorbs the heat from the surrounding universe and gains energy-mass. Now the other problem is that if BH's were creating universes those universes would not be homogeneous and isotropic, there would be preferred directions and locations involved. Observations do not support and anistropic and inhomogeneous universe here is a handy article on BH's and the various processes involved http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself. wiki isn't the greatest on the subject however it does support this in its reference 11 "A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#cite_note-kumar2012-11

maybe your universe does but one of the strongest tenets of observations is that the universe is indeed homogeneous and isotropic at scales of 120Mpc. This is been a well documented and testable observation. More attempts and theories than I can name have tried to fight against this fact. However the PLANCK and WMAP data supports the homogeneous and isotropic universe. However this doesn't change the detail you missed. Recessive velocity is a distance dependant measurement. Yes there have been challenges to the homogeneous and isotropic universe, however in most cases its in regards to the scale of 120 Mpc or higher needed. A few years ago it was accepted to be 100 Mpc, now its more accepted as 120 Mpc. If you can supply peer reviewed and professional data that supports a preferred axis I would be more than happy to look at it. Until then, well lets just say your model will never match observation and therefore is not a practical model except to describe a toy universe expansion measurements show that if you take 3 or more galaxies they expand away from each other equally and away from each other without a change in angles, its pretty easy to measure a preferred direction, even in the slow rotating universe theory (Godel Universe) this however was shown to be inaccurate by observations. After years of studying cosmology I lost track of how many models have been discounted due to not being homogeneous and isotropic models. Both the Einstein field equations and the FLRW metric require the cosmological principle, in order to work the LCDM model is 100% compatible with both those metrics and they do indeed match observational data, this is constantly being retested and challenged, no attempts have thus far succeeded

in some regards your diagram has some basis but not in the way you think. recessive velocity aka expansion is a distance dependant observation based on Hubbles law. the greater th distance the greater the recessive velocity. [latex]V_{recessive}=Hd[/latex] in other words past the Hubbles sphere you can have an apparent recessive velocity in excess of c, at the furthest reaches we have a recessive velocity of 3.1c. however this is due to the distance of measurement not on the actual rate of expansion per unit volume. expansion is homogeneous and isotropic its rate is approximately 67 km/s/Mpc. In other words if you measure that rate of expansion here at Earth to a nearby object, then teleport to the futhest reaches of our observable universe, re-measure the same distance you would get the same rate of expansion. ie from Earth measure 1 Mpc it will increase at 67 km/s then teleport to new location measure 1 Mpc your measure will be 67 km/s the difference in recessive velocity is your adding all the individual Mpc's up to the total distance so naturally the rate of recessive velocity will increase at an exponential rate. say you measure 10 Mpc well this is 67+67+67+67+67+67+67+67+67+67 km/s get the picture? its a common misconception thanks to pop media not looking or understanding the math. further details can be found here http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell keep in mind Hubble's constant is constant everywhere not gravitationally bound, at the same point in time only

one of the strongest candidates for what dark matter is is sterile right hand neutrinos, (anti neutrino) here is the technical papers on it "Detection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 and "An unidentified line in X-ray spectra of the Andromeda galaxy and Perseus galaxy cluster" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 Next decade of sterile neutrino studies http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 further info can be found in the standard model SO(10) particles,

your still missing a few details, everywhere in the universe the rate of expansion is the same as far as we know, (outside of gravitationally bound system) that rate of expansion is 69 km/s/Mpc.(Hubble constant,-constant everywhere at a point in tike only) the faster than light rate of expansion simply means that to an observer looking past his Hubble horizon the recessive velocity Appears to be faster than light. It is not as it is a math relation of separation distance. There is no mutual horizons, everyone's Hubble horizon or cosmological event horizon or particle horizon all depends on their location. No inertia is imparted to objects receeding from us, so they do not have speed due to expansion the term recessive velocity is a misnomer, (a consequence of Hubble not knowing why objects are moving from us). Were simply stuck with the term. The equations are part of the FLRW metrics, Hubbles law equations are covered in the second article I posted. the other equations can be found in the advanced section tutorial of this calc (in terms of proper distance(distance today)) http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7/LightCone.html they are based from this article Fundamental Aspects of the Expansion of the Universe and Cosmic Horizons (technical 154 page article excellent though) http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0402278v1.pdf%5B/url the important part to keep in mind is no object has an inertia greater than c, the greater than c velocity depends on a large separation distance not an actual rate objects are moving (observer dependent, location of observer included)

particles aren't are not moving at c at the Hubble sphere nor the cosmological event horizon. recessive velocity is an apparent velocity that depends on separation distance. Hubble's law states the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity. [latex]v_{recessive}=H_0d[/latex]. what this means is that if you could magically teleport to the Hubble sphere you measured from Earth, you would find the same expansion rate as you would here on Earth. The Hubble sphere is also not the edge of the observable universe. The cosmological event horizon is. We measure recessive velocities of 3c at the further edges of the observable universe. This is not the same as the event horizon due to a BH as its not based on acceleration. In expansion the recessive velocity imparts no inertia upon objects. The space between galaxies simply increases. There was a paper at one time on Unruh radiation due to observer horizons as one particle will fall out of the ability to be measured, but this isn't the same as the event horizon of the BH's Hawking-Hartle radiation. Though very similar. The balloon analogy will help better understand expansion, the second article will cover recessive velocity confusion. 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

you obviously didn't open the link I provided energy and momentum +Lorentz transformations, ah well, I won't waste my time if your not going to bother looking at the references. All particles have set properties, spin, momentum, rest mass (except the photon), and energy. Nothing unusual by that, all particles not just the photon can gain energy and become relativistic at high enough temperatures. Though a particle with rest mass will never =c. Why should the photon be any different? e=mc2 is a mass equivalency to energy. see the link for the full formula with the momentum term. http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html and no this principle has been tested, numerous times. So I don't find anything unusual about it. If you do then you aren't looking at the research of others. Or the advise of others that have, if you think about it they test this principle every single day in particle accelerators. "is that a particle's effective mass increases as it approaches the speed of light. The relativistic mass is related to the rest mass by see equation 2.33 page 29 of 82." "Principles of Charged Particle Acceleration" http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/aceleradores1.pdf what that section boils down to is that as the particle gains relativistic mass (using the same terminology as the article) it takes more energy to continue to accelerate it. They can measure the energy requirement increase

true I find it a challenge myself, as frustrating as it is

np problem mate our job is to teach the mainstream, though that does get frustrating lol. if they cannot accept the mainstream teachings more often than not that is their loss not ours. As long as we are satisfied that we have provided the most accurate answer then how they accept that answer is up to them and their loss not ours. quite frankly it would be wrong to change our answers to conform to the OPS thinking (deviations from mainstream textbook answers), that being said its often difficult to convince others the main stream is correct. However if I can convince 1 person out of 20 to learn the main stream then I'm happy. I accomplished something as they say fight the battles you can win and don't give a second thought to those you cannot your answer is correct, its up to the OP to understand it

roflmao, by the way your post on the math relations is excellent as well as Janus post. Unfortunately not everyone can relate to math sad but true none the less. After 10+years answering questions on various forums a certain amount of patience is required

to add details to studiot's post chargers are not just voltage and current, they use a type of circuit called pulse width modulation, the amount of load the circuit can support is specifically designed for the load application. A PWM circuit can provide for a higher load however this requires a change in its duty cycle, Ideally the duty cycle is 50% higher current loads than the designed specs require a higher duty cycle which leads to faster component failure. A good example is a PC power supply. Yes a 300 watt power supply can supply higher wattage but its lifetime decreases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation the circuit for usb voltage and current levels is also a PWM signal the circuit here is a type of pwm controller http://www.electroschematics.com/4983/usb-mobile-charger/

unless I missed some details I can find no correlation between these papers http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.2933v1.pdf (OP paper) papers I posted as a conjecture "Detection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 and "An unidentified line in X-ray spectra of the Andromeda galaxy and Perseus galaxy cluster" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 the details between the papers simply do not match up from what I can tell, granted I'm restricted by knowledge and a calculator and scilab (similar to mathlab) so I my have missed something in my home calc's However I doubt that is the case (though it is possible lol) ah well it was a fun try always fun to test your abilities with datasets lol

fair enough you don't know the math involved, however it should still be a consideration when the US courts refuse to reinstate his patent. Doesn't take a mathematician to understand the degree of criteria for that to occur. The US courts essentially confirmed the idea does not conform to physics

you might want to look up the different types of mass photons have no rest mass but they do have a mass equivalence Mass-Energy measures the total amount of energy contained within a body, using E=mc² this formula however isn't complete for total energy, or rather the full detail isn't presented in this form http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html "mass of a photon is really all K.E. mass" e=cp