Mordred

in the block universe conjecture its meaningless to have a beginning or ending the flow of time is subjective not objective, as such the arrow of time has little meaning to the illusion of time, everyone is eternal. There is no change and there is no flow of time. this is more philosophy than science but there is some science to it in that its consistent with SR, these artices can probably describe it better than I http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mysterious_flow.asp here is a comment from a peer review paper "This block view is however an unrealistic picture because it does not take complex physics or biology seriously; and they do indeed exist in the real universe. The irreversible flow of time is one of the dominant features of biology, as well as of the physics of complex interactions and indeed our own human experience" http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0605/0605049.pdf personally I don't find the block universe or the arrow of time of any particular use to understanding cosmology or physics, quite frankly they are both too speculative and conjectural but you go ahead have fun with it. For me time is simply a measure of change or duration any attempt to try to place added meaning to it are just too speculative, and largely based more on philosophy than science, GR and SR can be understood without referring to the block universe

as to the first part its easier to just use an electric motor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor the advantage over a permanent magnet system is you have better control over the speed and you don't have to fight the force of permanent magnets to alter their position. in the latter case the rate is controllable with electromagnetic frequencies as to the second magnetic levitation is done often http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation

in the case of sterile neutrinos the paper I posted covers this, sterile neutrinos have a proposed photon interaction of The decay of sterile neutrino should produce a photon of E=ms/2 and an active neutrino. more info on sterile neutrinos can be found in the SO(10) particle physics model, which as far as I know is the only model that accounts for them. It is a predicted particle that is a consequence of the Higg's field and its seesaw mechanism. The Higg's boson has shown an instability in the TeV range which is also part of the seesaw mechanism. This is often referred to as (new physics). There is still a lot of speculations on its validity and further research is ongoing. However there is also some hope that this will provide answers to a few questions such as inflation, the cosmological constant and dark matter. Models have been shown using the seesaw mechanism that can simultaneously (potentially) solve all 3 problems. oh I should note there is variations of SO(10) the one I'm referring to is the standard model extension not the MSSM extension which has more particles (supersymmetric particles, and more Higg's bosons Higglets) the SO(10) is an extension to the SM model SO(10)*SU(3)*SU(2)*(U1) in the supersymmetric its SO(10)*SU(5)*SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1) the first uses just the 126 Gev Higg's and its antiparticle. where the latter has lighter Higg's bosons at higher temperatures (which adds more seesaw mechanisms seesaw 1 and seesaw 2 (seesaw has a mexican hat potential) hope this helps here is some related papers in this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83765-higgs-field-thermodynamic-research-cmb-and-now/

probably the easiest way to visualize Milne is an empty universe that expands at the speed of light, its a bottom up toy model. its handy to show the Dl-z relations here is one of my favourite papers on it http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0510/0510170.pdf

you might want to read physics of the intergalactic medium, detection of h2 is in the [latex]2.12 \mu m [/latex] band h3 is in the 3.89 and [latex]4.09 \mu m[/latex] band http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3358 spectral indexes uses the Rydberg formula, the [latex]ly\alpha[/latex] is part of the spectral index but not the only portion, there is other portions to the hydrogen spectral series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series here is a paper on detection of h3 on Uranus http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...405..761T this paper is more the case of the % detected and the associated thermodynamic influences at low redshift, it has no disagreement at high redshifts inferred by the paper this is a related paper as to what the posted paper means by METAGALACTIC IONIZING RADIATION FIELD http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9907123v1.pdf the paper is specifically discussing a possible discrepancy in the hydrogen photoionization rate. this line in particular is of note "background spectrum is strongly modified by absorption and re-emission" the posted paper is stating that there is an unaccountable amount of absorbtion and re-emission essentially that there is a reaction taking place that is not properly accounted for properly it could be the quantity or an unknown process. here is the related QSO absorbtion lines and what it means, note it is the amount of intervening material, not quasars themselves http://astro.berkeley.edu/~ay216/05/NOTES/Lecture15.pdf . this is a discrepancy at low redshift only. It is also not conclusive enough in the why the discrepancy to draw any conclusions z=6 when the universe is roughly 0.93 billion years old and forward to today which is the time period the paper discusses, its in agreement with the CMB data till that time. You can lock down exactly when z=6 with the light cone calculator in my signature which gives the value 0.9316 billion years old one of the possibilities is AGN active galactic nucleus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus in other words there could be more of them than we originally thought (also keep in mind this paper is based on its simulations, the simulations could also be in error)(although its discusses the errors in the HMO1 and HM12 but doesn't mention FG09 UVB (different UVB models) here is the charts on page 5 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7808.pdf this info should help everyone better understand the paper itself edit forgot to add there is also other models other than HM1 and HM12, there is also HM0.5, no UVB,optimally thin UVB,OTUV (optimally thick UVB). In essence the paper is discussing model errors in only 2 models HM1 and HM12, it doesn't discuss the errors in the other IGM models (I'll apologize in advance if this takes all the fun out of all the speculative solutions)

Not sure where you got the idea that Einstein stated time is eternal, or that all moments pre-exist, it would if the universe is eternal, however we know it has a finite beginning and potentially also has an end. the nothing is really there argument is also somewhat misleading, as the lowest energy state defined by QM is zero point energy which due to Heisnburg's uncertainty principle will still have some energy and virtual particle production e=1/2hv a state of maximum entropy is heat death, we haven't reached this state yet, and its also conjectural no one really knows how universes break down or if they do, do they reach heat death or do they recollapse to bounce back to expansion? no one knows for sure How universes form is also not known, LCDM and the hot big bang model only describes the universe from 10-43 seconds forward, prior to that our knowledge of physics breaks down. There is numerous conjectural models so no one can answer your questions with certainty

by definition heat death means there is no potential energy difference between particles to perform work. So even quantum processes will not be able to perform work. wiki has a decent writeup on heat death you might note the section that states that there is a difference between heath death and the vacuum state that is said to create the universe. In particular gravity itself is not in thermal equilibrium. Where in heat death it would be. Please keep in mind heat death is highly conjectural no one really knows the answers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe -virtual particle production in inflationary or expansion requires potential energy differences or anistropies from one region to another, the more uniform space becomes the less virtual particle production, how they become real is in situations where the particles cannot annihilate such as Unruh radiation with cosmological horizons ad Parker radiation which is different regions via quantum tunneling. keep in mind the virtual particle must also be able to gain enough energy to become real. The Hubble sphere is not the limit of our universe, the Hubble sphere is where recessive velocity =c, the observable universe has objects with recessive velocity of 3c, However recessive velocity depends on separation distance v=Hd here is a good article covering much of the confusions in regards to superluminal recessive velocities http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

particle accelerators themselves are not a particularly good example of the differences between ADL and GR, first off you need to define what type of accelerator. Secondly the forces applied are not consistent so are inherently jerky (be much the same as jerk and snap though on the forces themselves lol) well here is a quick slide on the differences. As well as how the magnetic forces relate to the mass and momentum for each type and how centrifugal for is applied. Most people tend to jump to the conclusion that constant energy is applied to increase a particle to relativistic speeds but this isn't necessarily true. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~zcapf71/Particlephysicsshow1.pdf fundamentally particle accelerators uses electromagnetic polarization. An increase of momentum is an increase in mass based on the total energy of the particle. http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html by the way if you use the term Abraham Lorentz force I will automatically think of the non relativistic forces, I hope your aware that Abraham Lorentz force is not valid for relativistic particles. For that you need to use the ADL Abraham Lorentz Dirac force. If you want to include quantum definitions then you need the Abraham–Lorentz–Dirac–Langevin equation. Lets keep the terminology specific to the examples shall we? (my memory on this model is fuzzy enough without adding confusion lol, been over a year since I last seriously studied it)(too busy in regards to the Higg's field, and SO(10) for my own research) by the way I'm not particularly interested in relearning ADL at present, my queries had to do with the math and book writing I mentioned in my last post. For the reasons I already mentioned.. I've already studied ADL my concern had to do with the book itself when you mentioned not knowing the math involved. Not the pros and cons of one model compared to the other, (I would have the same probllem if someone wrote a book on GR without knowing the math) you keep missing that point (its also something you should consider rectifying, ie study the math itself, you would be amazed at the insights) (it also helps prevents misunderstandings in articles that are poorly worded)

well your certainly correct we should keep the subject on topic.

No that's not quite correct (though its not far off), your explanation is missing several key details. The grey hole theorem has to do with the firewall conjecture and the ads/Cft correspondance. In this particular model there is two quantum entanglement processes going on the Unruh radiation and the Hartle Hawking radiation. Also he removes the event horizon with an apparent horizon. Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf I would love to read the technical paper to describe it properly the paper he published doesn't go into alot of detail however entangled particles lose their entangled properties quite easily, its fairly unstable.

I think you should read his paper these are his assumptions, the universe is not contracting and not expanding according to his paper and his model specifically states "with the proposed cosmological model which is based upon a Euclidean non-expanding universe" Please I would definitely be curious as to a Higg's model that shows a valid interaction. Considering how many models I've read on the Higg's field which happens to be my favorite area of research this would be of particular interest to me as far as assumptions go no I don't assume here is a brief coverage of the local guage violation with the U(1) term. and the photon So please feel free to post a reference showing otherwise http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/lsfrey/teaching/archiv/sose_09/rng/higgs_mechanism.pdf the other problem is that a flat universe is approximately Euclidean and it is expanding, A static universe is a positive curved and closed universe. Ours is a flat universe (approximately that may or may not be closed). Einstein’s static universe http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0706v2.pdf "The model is static, with positive spatial curvature (closed), therefore, spatially bound in other words, finite." please read how universe geometry affects light paths, this is well studied in cosmology http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 with the FLRW mtrics. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ if you prefer a more professional paper than my rundown http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues

I have no problem with a book written about the Abraham-Lorentz jolt, in and of itself my point is how does one write about something without understanding the math involved. That is my problem, as I said its not a main stay model so many of the standard cosmology teachings are different in this particular model. So if I buy a book on it I would want to see those math relations and have them explained in how they are derived. That is my point It would be like buying a textbook that describes the PID (proportional integral derivitive) equation used in pressure systems in engineering, that doesn't show how to use the PID equation. Or a book written in how to perform surgery when the author has never picked up a scalpel. "With regards to giving up the study of maths, I never had the opportunity to begin due to the privation inflicted by the great depression" this statement you posted above, does not give me any confidence in your book, simple as that. Quite frankly you can't fault me for wanting to know the author writing a book describing a mathematical model understands the math involved. The questions I asked are merely examples of the types of questions I would expect a good book to the model to explain and cover in detail ( in other words I shouldn't need to do my own research on the subject if the book already covers those details) as far as the questions above I already have coverage of those questions or at least I would if I can remember where i saved the files on it lol (too big a database of articles) the runaway acceleration has to do with the third order derivative in a ALD model, (if I remember it correctly) afiak there is no agreed upon solution for it I wanted to know which solution you preferred, but I guess I'll provide that answer for you "On radiation reaction and the Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac equation" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2203v1.pdf please note the conclusion "In this task the runaway instabilities appear and their elimination had not been attained" so even this paper does not completely solve the problem this iterates my point on writing a book on a mathematical model, without knowing the math

your model is based upon a Euclidean non-expanding and non contracting universe model. Ever hear of Olber's paradox? its in every introductory cosmology textbook, a static and non expanding universe is an infinite universe and would be completely bright "The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night." "After recalculating and plotting these cosmological distances from redshifts using the alternative model equations, there is no indication of universal expansion or the acceleration or deceleration of expansion of the universe based upon hypothetical dark energy" this statement is complete bunk if you have cosmological redshift you have expansion, so your statement of recalculation is a non existent calculation, it is the same thing as stating there is no redshift period a static universe, would not have a cosmological redshift to calculate, the only redshift you would have is Doppler redshift and gravitational redshift, gravitational redshift requires a gravity well and curved spacetime which you also state doesn't exist so you only have the doppler shift Wow I'm only on the second page of your article and I've found mistakes and incongruities, but I'm bored lets see how many others I can find. well before we go any further lets look at the numerous tests of general relativity which your paper doesn't mention How convenient...... how do you explain the deflection of light tests, your universe is Newtonian, and does not cover why light is deflected as it passes by a star, but I guess that's wrong too according to your model. Yeah right, considering the mountains of data and the mountains of tests of GR that your paper makes no mention of. oh yea you state the deflection of light is wrong.... by the way why didn't you mention stellar parallax methods your paper acts like the standard candles of supernova is the only measurement too that exists in the cosmic distance ladder, that is also plain wrong. The stellar parallax measurements can only be used up to a certain distance but that distance is sufficient to show that there is expansion. type 1a SNe is one type of standard candle a standard candle is any system whose properties are well understood enough to to be used. It is not restricted to type Sn1a supernova. there also the Tully Fisher relation, the The Faber Jackson relation, Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, spectroscopic parallax, Wilson–Bappu effect, D–σ relation, Your paper also cannot explain why the CMB temperature is higher then than the universe is now... a static universe would stay at the same temperature if not increase in temperature with all the stars emitting radiation. See Olber's paradox. the CMB temperature is 3000 degrees Kelvin, the universe today is 2.7 Kelvin the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics is another piece of evidence that the universe is expanding, that your paper forgets to mention. In an expanding volume the contents of the container will decrease in temperature, In this case the universe is our container, if the universe is static there would be no difference in the temperature of the CMB till now, how convenient that your paper fails to consider the ideal gas laws. Its also a piece of evidence of an expanding universe. "The proposal that the Hubble formula calculates distances inaccurately is not surprising or unique. Those who support the dark energy" The Hubble formula says nothing about dark energy, it merely shows the universe is expanding, if you use the Hubble formulas only you end up with a universe the size of the Hubble sphere where the observable universe is larger than the Hubble sphere... the added cosmological constant accounts for the cosmological event horizon, the Hubble sphere does not. the redshift formula that people generally know is only valid up to a certain distance that distance is the Hubble sphere, that's mentioned in this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9905116 "Distance measures in cosmology" David W. Hogg "The alternative cosmological model proposes that matter becomes smaller in size but proportionally greater in quantity as time progresses. In the past there would have been accordingly fewer individual units of matter than there is now, but over time the density of matter in space would remain the same" again this runs counter to thermodynamics, this is a steady state model, and a steady state model would not have temperature variations in a decreasing order. I don't have to go any further, your paper does not conform to observations, it does not conform to numerous research papers that in fact show the universe as expanding, those papers include but are not restricted to the luminosity functions. So your paper does not describe our universe yeah there have been some garbage models published it happens all the time, this doesn't not mean they are accurate models.. Publishing alone does not mean its accurate. a key note here is that redshift is not the only piece of evidence for an expanding universe, you also have the CMB temperature and the temperature of the universe today, the first generation stars which is a result of a higher density of material due to a higher density of hydrogen in the past. The CMB itself is evidence that the universe has a beginning and is the result of big bang nucleosynthesis, which your model does not consider. As such your model belongs in the speculation section on this forum and should not even be included in the topic of this thread, as it does not conform with the mountains of observational evidence against your paper, and is therefore not a model which accurately describes this universe

"is based upon a theory of matter diminution. Matter slowly getting smaller over time would generally appear the same as galaxies moving away from us and each other" "In both models, whether expanding space or matter getting smaller, additional gravity would seem to be needed to hold solar systems," are you kidding me do you honestly think a model that states that the universe isn't expanding instead matter is getting smaller is a peer reviewed paper?? nice try I'm no ones fool. This paper doesn't follow any of the accepted models of physics including particle physics, GR SR, LCDM etc its complete garbage

I didn't see this part previously, there is a term to define the seeming infinite photons generated by all the stars and why the universe is not all aglow. This is called Olber's paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox what it breaks down to is that the universe expands the energy-density of radiation decreases, where Olber's paradox is a static and infinite universe conjecture, this was one of the earlier indications that the universe was in fact not static and eternal. http://www2.astro.psu.edu/~niel/psiwa-2006-cosmology/notes-all.pdf photons have a range of wavelengths, in cosmology applications the wavelengths can vary due to gravitational redshift, cosmological redshift and Doppler redshift. this article will cover the 3 types as well as the redshift to wavelength formulas of each (basic generalized formulas) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion side note when you see different colors your seeing different wavelengths of visible light

a large part of my problem with this model is some of the terminology and definitions your using, for example false vacuum is a higher energy-density state than the true vacuum so when you use the term false vacuum one expects to see a correlation to the mexican hat potential of inflation. in this article Attached File Chapter III PP 55-57.pdf the use of pseudo space is well quite frankly meaningless, You limit the universe to the Hubble sphere where the universe is much larger than the Hubble sphere, then apply your metrics to Hubble sphere and state that anything beyond the Hubble sphere is unobservable, however this is incorrect. It would be better if you include the cosmological event horizon ( if I was a fresh brand new reader, I would immediately think this model is outdated, as the older models used to think the universe was restricted by the Hubble sphere)(we now know this isn't true), which brings me to the next problem how does your model with 3c recessive velocity? which is found at z=1090? Your going to need to apply correct correlations to today's cosmological understanding not the outdated older definitions. in all honesty you may get a better audience if you take the time to look at how your defining and writing your descriptive's. Just a side not It would I agree however as any model requires supportive evidence these are the types of papers and studies you will need to support your paper no theory is complete without outside datum. you haven't shown your full paper but if you look over any proposed alternative models they always include correlations to well known models in terms of comparison metrics, You never see a peer reviewed paper or at least I haven't without those comparisons. I'v studied more alternate models than I can reasonably estimate in all the time I've been interested in cosmology and reading peer reviewed papers. Such examples include MOND TEVES,Spin and torsion, Godel metric, Einstein cartan, F® gravity,Hl gravity etc, any of the peer reviewed papers always compare itself to the FLRW metrics and the Einstein field equations. In your case I would be interested in how you define the stress energy tenser of the Einstein field equations? in comparison to your model how is it different how do I adapt the Einstein field equations to your model?

you can't really tie down your definition of time to motion, as time is also a measure of duration, ie how long is it in that state, absolute zero is a temperature state. now there is a problem with absolute zero and it has to do with the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. The lowest vacuum energy is defined as [latex]e=\frac{1}{2}hv[/latex] this is called zero point energy in quantum mechanics, what this means is that absolute zero can never be fully reached. this wiki page mentions that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

excellent question The average energy density of space is extremely low, This value includes the density of photons, (radiation), dark matter and matter. as the universe is extremely close to flat we can use the critical dnsity formula for a good approximation. [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] this will give you and average energy-density of 10-26 kg/ m3 this corresponds to roughly 5 protons per m3 calculating the number of photons can be done via the temperature, using the Bose Einstein distribution distribution, I won't bore you with the formula however it will work out to roughly 410.5 photons per cm3 equation 32 page 76 however as this is a section of a larger article page 16 http://www.helsinki.fi/~hkurkisu/cosmology/Cosmo6.pdf different answers of similar orders of magnitude can result depending on what the average wavelength you use for the photon energy-density of photons overall average is roughly 4.641 *10-31 kg/m3 this is a decent average as it also correlates to the value given in numerous textbooks and the cosmic inventory http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf "The Cosmic energy inventory within the same orders of magnitude

lasers is one example, which you can only see via parts of the light hitting dust etc and being reflected to your eyes

Yes [latex]e=\frac{1}{2}hv[/latex]

There have been fractal universe models proposed the problem with them is that they are not Lorentz invariant. This is a major problem for fractal based models. "Despite the beautiful physics emerging from the HL picture, inspired by critical and condensed-matter systems, it potentially suffers from at least one major problem. Lorentz invariance, one of the best constrained symmetries of Nature, is surrendered at fundamental level." here is a review of HL gravity. "Quantum field theory, gravity and cosmology in a fractal universe" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0571.pdf due to the Lorentz invariance constraints this model is largely not well considered as well as the problems mentioned in this paper

ok I've looked over this paper and taking it from a similar view point to LNH and not LCDM. The problem I see is that I don't think it will fit within the measured constraints of varying G studies. Granted there are different values for a varying G, the numbers of each study is still a small change per year I'm basing my numbers of the Gong and Bison data. (keep in mind this data is also uncertain, and not strong enough to support a varying G) http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/498/2/871/pdf/0004-637X_498_2_871.pdf based on this test the variation is +or - 1.6*10-16 per year this is a tighter constraint than the supernova data paper I posted earlier G/G0 <8.0*10-12 per year however that paper shows the improved constraints at 10-14 I don't have time to do the full data set math, so this is what I would like to see from you. Take your model crunch together a data set and see if it falls within those constraints and post the results. ( you must admit that is about as open minded of a query as one could expect of a new model)

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 here is the two related papers I've posted them a few times, I haven't seen any other related papers though there probably is some.

this is well past the point of being tedious, its reached the point of impossible. Your proving quite well that you have no interest in learning the established science. You can never have an observer traveling at c, so you will never need to describe something that observes the rest of the universe when it is traveling at c. a particle traveling at c has inertia, to say that it has inertia but its inertia is zero is just plain nonsense. particle wave duality means that a particle has both particle and wavelight properties, we can measure both as subluminal observers. So stating that we can not observe the particle is wrong. I'll bet you didn't even bother looking at the textbook posted earlier, if you had you would understand how the Lorentz transformations work. We've wasted enough time trying to explain that the photon does travel at c in all observer frames of reference, and that the lorentz transformation only applies to subluminal observers. So the photon does not have an observer view point to worry about, it will never need to observe the rest of the universe. We will never travel at c so we will never need to describe the universe at c The mathematics of SR and GR works for any meaningful measurements that we need to worry about needing. We can describe the photon according to our everyday existence. We don't need to change those metrics to describe a situation we will never experience, you still fail to understand the different's between time within an observers frame of reference, and the time when he observes someone else's watch. Instead you choose to ignore that distinction. Rather you make incorrect statements due to ignoring that distinction

that's not how wave particle duality works they are not separated by time, The Heisenburg uncertainty principle tells us the more we know about a particles position the less we know about its energy and vice versa. This is due to interference when you take the measurement not with time.