Mordred

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you include the cosmological event horizon ( if I was a fresh brand new reader, I would immediately think this model is outdated, as the older models used to think the universe was restricted by the Hubble sphere)(we now know this isn't true), which brings me to the next problem how does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 Your going to need to apply correct correlations to today's cosmological understanding not the outdated older definitions.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.

40 pages would be troublesome to copy paste lol, you have obviously placed a lot of time and effort into it. I look forward to being able to read it if you click more reply options you should see the attachments icon, assuming the file is less than 1.9 MB. If you can't see the option then you may need to have more posts to enable the feature. I can't recall the number needed but I think you should have enough. I can only open pdf not doc extensions. A handy converter is pdf995 http://www.pdf995.com/ its basically a printer emulator to convert any software doc/program that has a printer option into a pdf file. extremely handy. if the file size is too big you might have to place it on a webpage then link it. I use wikidot for that, see signature. Its handy for the large file size articles and also gives me a means to keep track of handy help teach articles. You upload to wikidot then post a link on a page you make. Or optionally you can also set your article onto it page for page, its latex is easy to use. http://www.wikidot.com/

I know what it means I'm not the one with the problem understanding SR. You are, how many people and textbooks articles etc is it going to take to teach you that you cannot apply the same rules to a photon as an observer? You even type that you understand it but at the same time try to apply it. Here I thought you were finally understanding that the photon is not a valid reference frame when you wrote your rules in the opening post, I was actually giving you a compliment, "well at least some of your statements are getting closer to the truth. so some progress is being made" then you post this statement you keep trying to treat the photon as an observer, its not your rule two already defines that 2)the observer never travels at velocity c so why did you type the above statement???????? you can never have an observer with t=0 and no coordinates the Lorentz transformation requires coordinates. So you will never have an observer measure light at a speed other than C. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? the other post is over 5 pages long of us repeatedly telling you that the photon is not an observer frame of reference, the photon has no viewpoint. The photon cannot observe etc etc etc etc. if you won't believe us or the textbook I posted in that thread what will you believe???? http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ here is a free SR book. page 55 Kinemetics "Our universe does, however, contain ingredients such as light rays, gluons, and gravitational waves that travel at c, so we might wonder whether these things could be put together to form observers who do move at c.But this is not possible according to special relativity, because if we let v approach infinity ,extrapolation of figure d on p.54 shows that the Lorentz transformation would compress all of spacetime onto the lightcone,reducing its number of dimensions by 1.Distinct points would be merged, which would make it impossible to use this frame to describe the same phenomena that a subluminal observer could describe.That is,the transformation would not be one-to-one,and this is unacceptable physically."

lightning has electromagnetic radiation I think you may have to define what type of radiation specifically

well at least some of your statements are getting closer to the truth. so some progress is being made. First off lets ignore that garbage pop media video you now know its garbage from your descriptive above. "Special Relativity: The speed of light in a vacuum is always C, regardless of the velocity of the observer. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. These two statements indicate that C (speed of light) does not follow the same laws of physics as the observer. 1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. 2. The observer never travels at the velocity C. 3. The laws of physics are the same for anything that never travels at the velocity C. 4. The laws of physics are not the same for anything that does travel at the velocity C" this means that video you posted is garbage, and this above is accurate although it would be better to word it the "observed laws of physic" "In the Lorentz transformation, if you calculate for the velocity of light the math is no longer possible to do. Indicating that it is not possible to use that law of physics" inaccurate, any subluminal observer can use the Lorentz transformations, only v=c non existent observers have the issue with the lorentz transformions, but your rules already preclude that as being an observer. rules 1,2, 3 and 4 "Assume that "space time" is a prison. In the prison there are guards and inmates. Everyone in the prison follows rules" as the only prisoners are observers, then light as an observer isn't in jail to follow those rules the rest of your jail analogy is pointless "The laws of physics for any observer include laws that define the behavior of time. The entire system of physics for all observers then, is inherently based on the existence of time, and time is one of the defining features of the "existence" or "reality" that all observers occupy. It is the presence of time that allows an observer's laws of physics to establish a frame of reference. Because all observers follow exactly the same list of rules" correct "However, the laws of physics for "light" or "the speed of light", do not recognize the existence of time. The entire system of physics for "light", is inherently without time," incorrect, the photon cannot observe so it cannot observe time, however it does have time. Time is not stopped here is the part you keep missing, time moves normal for relative observer A looking at his own watch... however when he looks at someone else's watch (observer looking at another watch then he see's the time dilation. time dilation is always relative to something else. hence the name special RELATIVITY. time moves normal in the observers own frame of reference, its when he compares his frame of reference to another frame of reference that you have time dilation. Lets put it this way the Lorentz tranformation's only occur between A and B it does not occur when A or B observes itself or any other object in its own reference frame

I already agreed with that do you accept that the an observer at v=c is not valid or not? your argument on being able to stop light is pointless to the topic of this thread a photon is never an observer, the only valid observers are subluminal that's what this whole argument has been about is your refusal to accept that understanding we are subluminal observers and we can observe and measure light. we can see, we can measure its influences, enough to attempt to distinquish if its a particle or a wave, so obviously we can make make measurements on it. However this means we are OBSERVERS that are SUBLUMINAL. an observer at c is not an observer period here is the trillion sec camera taking images of light http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/ here is a non destructive means http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2013/11/nondestructive-photon-detection.html none of this is to the point of whether you can have an observer at c quite frankly if you haven't figured it out with all the details and answers we've already provided then were just wasting our time... live under whatever misconceptions and illusions you want

this is an earlier statement you made "It would require an infinite amount of energy to reduce the speed of the photon enough for any observer to observe it." all your doing is showing where your wrong in that statement and proving our case. What your posting is basic science there is no argument that we can measure light except for your statement here maybe this will help http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ here is a free SR book. page 55 Kinemetics "Our universe does, however, contain ingredients such as light rays, gluons, and gravitational waves that travel at c, so we might wonder whether these things could be put together to form observers who do move at c.But this is not possible according to special relativity, because if we let v approach infinity ,extrapolation of figure d on p.54 shows that the Lorentz transformation would compress all of spacetime onto the lightcone,reducing its number of dimensions by 1.Distinct points would be merged, which would make it impossible to use this frame to describe the same phenomena that a subluminal observer could describe.That is,the transformation would not be one-to-one,and this is unacceptable physically." there is your straight our of a textbook answer, which is exactly what we have been telling you all along. (this textbook is written by a PH.D instructor) see the list of the institutions that support it (one of the main reasons is its far simpler to understand than say Wald's general relativity by design this one is an introductory level book where Wald's is more advanced and yes I own copy, excellent book one of my favourites) http://www.lightandmatter.com/books.html#adoptions_sr http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau here is a free one for GR

good article thanks for posting it wouldn't mind reading the arxiv paper on the experiment. Not sure why you posted it here considering no one is arguing wave-particle duality. the topic is whether a photon can have an observer reference frame the answer is no it can't

well there is certainly models with variable constants with variable G out there, several I've studied in the past. So its not a dumb idea by any means, the question is does the model conform with observations. Under the precepts of a toy model development its simply good practice to try modelling a system and see then what observational evidence would be needed to validate or invalidate the model. here is a couple Can a variable gravitational constant resolve the Faint Young Sun Paradox ? http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1405.4369?context=astro-ph.CO this one covers a couple of models and using data discounts them The variation of the gravitational constant inferred from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0512164 also mentions the large number hypothesis LNH and the details you wrote earlier, so you may have already read this article. this is however one set of findings that your going to have to work against, here is other constraints Observational constraints on models of the Universe with time variable Gravitational and Cosmological constants along MOG http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0081 this paper looks interesting but I haven't completed reading it 155 pages lol might provide some insight as its on the same subject matter http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2011-2/download/lrr-2011-2Color.pdf models are certainly available to show varying constants, the problem is addressing the observational constraints

the speculations section is relaxed enough for us to work on a toy universe. the form I gave above is one in some books but I should give the more well known form [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex]

and your point is what,? all observations of particles is an interaction measurement, this does nothing to solve your problem with photons having an observation frame of reference. your worried and fighting a problem that isn't one, you can never have an observer at c so why do you feel this is a problem? your worried to death over an impossibility. The metrics works for any valid observer reference frame, v=c is not a valid reference frame simple as that

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/162289-light-stopped-completely-for-a-minute-inside-a-crystal-the-basis-of-quantum-memory done light is only c in a vacuum, we've been slowing light down for a while with the use of supercooled mediums and this method just a side note here is a single photon detector http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html here is the single photon LED http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotonled.html

the workaround to that is to use Office and type it all out first then copy paste, keep the formulas in how the latex would be typed as we are talking a personal model this forum has a useful speculations section that is more open to personal models. this site prefers to stay with the concordance answers in this sub forum. So as this is admittedly a non concordance model or peer reviewed then it would be more appropriate in the speculation sub forum where the rules on personal model idea's are more relaxed

the model would not only conflict with LCDM it will also conflict with thermodyanics. a constant density will mean a constant temperature. As the universe expands the average energy=density lowers thus the temperature drops. We see this with observations. So if your model has an average constant density its temperature will always remain the same. also observations show us that we can have objects with recessive velocity of 3c at z=1090 so lets agree this is a toy universe for the time being, in which case go ahead and present your idea's it will be easier to follow if you can latex the same latex rules follow as PF but you need to type latex instead of tex this site is also more susceptible to spacing so there is a few syntax differences to get used to

NO see the example I posted and try to understand that example. the photon cannot OBSERVE if it had a mythical watch in its own mythical reference frame time is normal, it would not be able to observe anyone else's time