Mordred

this has to do with the actual metrics, movement requires a force, (newtons 3 laws of inertia) now there is no preferred direction to how galaxies expand away from each other, this means that whatever causes expansion is isotropic (no preferred direction) as there is also no preferred location (homogeneous) this means that whatever is causing expansion is uniform. now consider 1 galaxy, then apply a uniform force all around that galaxy, this means there is no greater force on any side of the galaxy, so the galaxy will not move. hrrm this presents a problem. If you do this to every galaxy then the galaxies themselves won't move. However what can be affected is the space between the galaxies. Think of the universe in terms of a perfect fluid, or ideal gas, space being the volume, the energy-density total exerts a pressure, that pressure causes expansion. It doesn't move the galaxies directly due to its uniformity, but it can cause the gas itself (space) to expand.(via the particle to particle interactions that reside in space,) (the FLRW metric and the Einstein field equations both uses the ideal gas laws, its part of them), keep in mind that in expansion the angles between 3 galaxies will not change, they move away from each other equally without a change in angle between any of them. (hence the balloon analogy to describe the metric relations)

critical density of the universe is the calculated value that will gradually halt expansion and then start to collapse, a critically dense universe is a perfectly fat universe in terms of energy-density to pressure relations. k=0 see these articles for more details. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 with the FRW metric portion. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ 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 http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis (this is covered in the preliminary review chapter 2)

roflmao good one

its not intended to represent the pressure relation, its meant to show the force of gravity, the stress energy tenser chapter 6 of Mathius Blau does in terms of general relativity. You might want to look up what pressure means. Pressure (symbol: p or P) is the ratio of force to the area over which that force is distributed. use newtons formula to calculate the force of gravity then you use this formula. Why do you think the weight of water has pressure??? [latex]p= \frac { f }{ A }[/latex] does the term pounds per square inch mean anything to you ? in order to have weight you need gravity. gravity can cause pressure because it exerts a force, pressure is force divided by area. Particles can also cause pressure through the force of their interactions in a given area, however for a solid the effective force of interactions is effectively zero in terms of pressure w=0. Atoms in a solid are in a set configuration so are considered as non interacting, Non interacting particles exerts zero force therefore no pressure. You've just proven to me that you don't know basic physics if you don't know this relation. I suggest studying before trying to invent a model.

Strange pretty much covered the key details.

fair enough, the standard definition is that the greater the mass the greater the force of gravity. The GR manual I posted will cover that, its a good learning reference. [latex]f=\frac{Gm_1 m_2}{r^2}[/latex] Newtons universal law of gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation its always best to learn the standard science before trying to develop a new theory, the situations I posted above are some examples of why pressure does not work in being the cause of gravity. As strange posted pressure has been considered before and found not to work.

read the section on scientific method http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html that's where the fun comes in.

its simply a coordinate grid much like a map. 3d rendering is also a form of coordinate grid

yes asteroids are made up of atoms but they are in a stable configuration. You can either learn the equations of state or you can choose to ignore it, Either way matter exerts no pressure. This is a well known Equation of state. W=0 (these equations of state are compatible with general relativity) here is a good example I recall from another forum, that I am also a member of here he correlates hydrogen gas at 1000 degree kelvin and shows negligible pressure. A solid such as an asteroid would have far less pressure. (this is one of the best examples, I've come across) http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4718263&postcount=23 note this also includes the correlations to Einsteins field equations which the FLRW metric is 100% compatible with. here is another set of calculations that show the EoS of matter as being w=o which means pressure=0 http://www.ir.isas.jaxa.jp/~cpp/teaching/cosmology/documents/cosmology01-05.pdf page 6 and page 8 I've also referred you to the stress energy tenser of GR in the Mathius Blau general relativity article. please note he also has a cosmology section page 737 equation 34.17 where he states w=0 as well, chapter 6 shows how the stress energy tensor of gravity affects pressure, (not pressure affects gravity) so now if you wish to continue I suggest you show your math to prove that matter exerts pressure with the ideal gas laws and then causes gravity. Or show a professional peer reviewed article to support your claims. Quite frankly you have not shown any support of your model other than your descriptive, which myself and others have already stated is wrong. ask yourself the question "how would the pressure be sufficient enough to form a star in the first place when w=0 ,pressure-less dust, which includes non relativistic baryonic matter and non baryonic matter? how would an asteroid or a planet form when the dust is pressure less? or lets take another example what about the hot dense state of the early universe? if pressure causes gravity why didn't the early universe collapse? After all the extremely high temperatures, higher energy density and smaller volume means according to the ideal gas laws the pressure is also higher. Therefore according to your idea then the overall force of gravity throughout the early universe would have to be higher as well. This would have caused the universe to collapse before inflation could occur. as I stated show your math and supportive articles (peer reviewed)

no flat universe is an energy-density relation, a flat universe would have a total energy density that = the critical density critical density is a calculated value that the universe would stop expanding and start to collapse. (a perfectly critical dense universe the curvature would be perfectly flat for more info read) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ this is not the same as dimensionally flat, its flat in terms of energy density relations only. The main thing to realize is often a geometric relation applies only to the interactions being described. GR spacetime is a good example of this, its the relation of how gravity influences matter. In both these cases it applies only to the mathematical model of influences being described. One of the most common misunderstandings is people tend to think that space has a substance that can be warped, grows, stretches etc. They do not realize that GR is a geometric descriptive of gravity influences on matter, and only applies to the relations of how gravity interacts with matter. Space itself has no substance its simply volume filled with the energy-mass contents of the universe. For a lengthy discussion on this see this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83690-what-is-space/

well if this is your intention, then you will definitely find Roads to Reality handy. For example he models electromagnetic waves as zig and zag model, zig being left zag being right. This is done with 90 degree angles with a forward movement. Sounds hilarious but it does a good job of simplifying the complexity of waves. though he is modelling the Dirac spinor in terms of the left and right components. So it is also mathematically accurate. though this model has some accuracy there is also some debates on its inaccuracies in particular aspects, The zig-zag road to reality http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.4909v1.pdf this is where you will need to be careful with oversimplification, you will need to make sure what your modelling is also accurate and non misleading. Its great to find ways to simplify a model, but don't add confusion with oversimplification. a good example of this is the common confusions with the balloon analogy or the rubber sheet analogy, while they are useful to explain expansion and gravity they tend to cause a lot of confusion an misinterpretation

waves,EM and linear algebra would be a good way to start, QM mathematics can get very complex rather quickly, so you will want a solid understanding of these subjects first before getting into QM. The Feyman lectures page has some good material on these subjects as well.

if you never studied the maths involved in GR then how do you pretend to understand GR? there is plenty of material to learn the maths involved that do not involve money, it only involves taking the time and energy to do so. I would have no faith in any book or article with regards to physics without the supportive mathematics. No one in their right mind would. You obviously have no interest in learning what physics is really about. here is a free one equivalent to any textbook http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau take the time to actually learn it before making outlandish claims

how about 36% efficiency http://solarlove.org/amonix-achieves-world-record-for-pv-module-efficiency-in-test-at-nrel/ however the above uses concentrators and is not available for residential applications. there is a research paper that discusses a possible method to get a 30% boost for a total of 60% efficiency http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jz500676c site coverage of the above article published 2 days ago http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186176-solar-singlet-fission-bends-the-laws-of-physics-to-boost-solar-power-efficiency-by-30 here is another alternative to fossil fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/scientists-turn-algae-into-crude-oil-in-less-than-an-hour-180948282/ Algae biofuel can help meet world energy demand, researchers say http://phys.org/news/2014-05-algae-biofuel-world-energy-demand.html there is also the problem of battery storage to deal with http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153614-new-lithium-ion-battery-design-thats-2000-times-more-powerful-recharges-1000-times-faster

I'm not sure why your having a problem with pi, its simply the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter. Take a wheel or any circular object and a ruler. for simplicity sake use a 1 inch diameter object. draw a line on one edge of that object. place that line on a ruler, roll the wheel along the ruler until the line once again returns to its original point. the distance of travel will be approximately 3.14 inches. now as a lab experiment gather various circular objects 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 inch diameters conduct the same steps as above, divide the distance of travel by the objects diameter, you will get the same result of pi pi is used throughout any formulas that involve a circular or semi circular object or interaction. such examples are waveforms, frequencies, orbits, etc. Its fundamental in measuring the distance relations of those frequencies, waveforms and orbits. Much of physics is geometric relations of interactions, as such pi is used extensively as its used in trigonometry. Differential geometry is an extensive subject involved in physics. I would advise spending some time studying trigonometry and differential geometry, it will greatly aid you in understanding many of the physics formulas you will come across. For example it will also help to understand how Pythagoras theorem is used in numerous formulas. here is one example of its usage in the FLRW metric http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ whether its fair or not is irrelevant, it works for the geometric applications that it is describing simple as that this article will also help with how Newton came up with the universal laws of gravity and the gravitational constant http://qinf.fisica.unimi.it/~paris/FisBio/m101.pdf there is naturally better articles however this one shows the steps in how Newton developed his theory here is a site with a good animation of pi at work with waveforms, also correlates sine, cos and tan functions to the waveform as well http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/trigonometry.html http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/trig-sin-cos-tan-graphs.html graph plots of sine, cos and tan this site I find handy as it includes various calculators and plotter programs, not the greatest to learn from but it will help check your work so to speak http://www.intmath.com/help/interactive-math-applications.php for actual learning I would work from its home page http://www.intmath.com/

Thanks for the clarity on that, unfortunately having myself review your article would be next to useless lol. Its not a field of study I have looked into

just a side note here is the procedure to calculate a planets mass lets say you just spotted a new planet and would like its basic characteristics http://www4.wittenberg.edu/sgmoa/supplemental/FindExtrasolarPlanetMass.pdf http://www.sfu.ca/colloquium/PDC_Top/astrobiology/discovering-exoplanets/calculating-exoplanet-properties.html

what about biochemical interactions? doesn't the protein to protein interaction include both electrostatic forces and/or biochemical events? for example how does it explain the interactions described in say this paper? "principles of protein to protein interactions" http://www.pnas.org/content/93/1/13.full.pdf keep in mind I have no appreciable knowledge in this field

yes there is numerous research papers on this The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 About the role of the Higgs boson in the evolution of the early universe http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3658 Linear Inflation from Running Kinetic Term in Supergravity http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3658 Higgs inflation and the cosmological constant http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 Higgs mass implications on the stability of the electroweak vacuum http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3022 Multifield Dynamics of Higgs Inflation http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8190 here is a review paper on the Higg's boson sector itself STATUS OF HIGGS BOSON PHYSICS http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-higgs-boson.pdf here is a lengthy dissertation Aspects of Higgs Physics and New Physics at the LHC http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/documents/3064085 that should provide lots of reading material lol, the particle model that best describes the Higg's sector is the SO(10) the SO(10) group is the Higg's sector itself there is numerous variations of the SO(10) sector some of which is covered in the dissertation above. there is some further coverage here concerning the SO(10) and GUT Aspects of Symmetry Breaking in Grand Unified Theories http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3210.pdf here is a paper discussing the SO(10) and the BICEP2 data From B Modes to Quantum Gravity and Unification of Forces http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0634 in my opinion this line of research has the strongest possibilities, though we do need more data in the TeV energy levels, all to these papers require the Higg's metastability seesaw mechanism. There may be two seesaw mechanisms however the standard model Higg's only has one. seesaw I Essentially the Higg's boson has a left hand and right hand Higg's (matter, antimatter variations) the right hand Higg's is the antimatter variant. How the two interact with each other is the seesaw mechanism. At high enough temperatures the Higg's loses coherence leading to the possibility of other Higg's masses other than the 126 Gev Higg's the seesaw mechanism has a Mexican hat potential, see image on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism

xyct posted this handy link on another thread there is a good coverage of QM on this site as well http://www.feynmanlectures.info/ (its another Feyman site link to his online textbooks, click read on the left handside and you will see 3 textbooks one of them being QM) unfortunately I don't have much in the way of QM material, however you can find some quantum field theory articles on my signature, though most of them are fairly advanced so you will probably need to check them out later on

I agree I follow the philosophy of study everything and every model I come across I always learn something, even with models that I know are incorrect. Some of the metric examples are quite handy if used in other applications. However care must be used to realize which models are more correct than others. Its easy to get confused when some model states it solves a problem and therefore its better than the concordance model of a particular field. I try to ignore such claims, there is reasons why the various models are the concordance models, the simple reason is they are more successful in making predictions and conforming to evidence.

good glad to hear your planning on studying, you may find the materials on my signature handy as a starting point. As you didn't specify a field of research though you may or may not if you can afford a good textbook there is one I found incredibly helpful in regards to the mathematics used in various physics. Though its not directly related to any particular field of physics. "Roads to Reality" by Roger Penrose. he does a great job of taking some of the complexity out of various geometric relations. Its particularly suited to your ideas

an asteroid has no internal processes to cause pressure and yet it exerts a gravitational force, if gravity was the result of pressure differences then asteroids would exert no gravity. So this idea doesn't work. As I stated above ordinary matter causes negligible pressure. see the equations of state. the energy-density of dark matter is also extremely low you can only measure dark matter on very large scales. the energy density of dark matter within a solar system would be insignificant. (also does not exert any pressure) its equation of state is also w=0. Yet it also exerts a gravitational force even though it has no pressure. yes its been considered before and found not to work the last paragraph explains some of the problems. The re-examination of Le Sage's theory in the 19th century identified several closely interconnected problems with the theory. These relate to excessive heating, frictional drag, shielding, and gravitational aberration. The recognition of these problems, in conjunction with a general shift away from mechanical based theories, resulted in a progressive loss of interest in Le Sage’s theory. Ultimately in the 20th century Le Sage’s theory was eclipsed by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. In 1965 Richard Feynman examined the Fatio/Lesage mechanism, primarily as an example of an attempt to explain a "complicated" physical law (in this case, Newton's inverse-square law of gravity) in terms of simpler primitive operations without the use of complex mathematics, and also as an example of a failed theory. He notes that the mechanism of "bouncing particles" reproduces the inverse-square force law and that "the strangeness of the mathematical relation will be very much reduced", but then remarks that the scheme "does not work", because of the drag it predicts would be experienced by moving bodies, "so that is the end of that theory".[59][60] Although it is not regarded as a viable theory within the mainstream scientific community, there are occasional attempts to re-habilitate the theory outside the mainstream, including those of Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960),[61] Shneiderov (1961),[62] Buonomano and Engels (1976),[63] Adamut (1982),[64] Jaakkola (1996),[65] Tom Van Flandern (1999),[66] and Edwards (2007).[67] A variety of Le Sage models and related topics are discussed in Edwards, et al.[68] As this states there have been numerous attempts to revitalize this model. also Lesage particles must be superluminal that's also mentioned on the same page

the problem is your limiting yourself, by your own admissions, I am an electronics engineer, Not a physicist all it takes to learn science is dedication in study. As well as the right material. Never limit yourself. We can post the tools to learn by, however you need to show us a willingness to learn. I've already described numerous examples where your logic is flawed. Take the time to understand why I can be so certain as to that answer. Don't use a cop out like its not my field. Anyone on this forum is willing to assist you in understanding any aspect you need help in. However you need to show your willing to learn, otherwise its a waste of our time

and yet another poster that doesn't wish to learn real science be well, have fun with your leaky model by the way I'm not a physicist either, I'm just smart enough to study what is already understood, where you choose to limits based on philosophy compare your article to two of the ones I wrote, http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry which is more scientific in understanding? either way I won't waste my time on trying to teach those with no interest in learning real science