Mordred

Then explain electromagnetism it is both particles and it has a field of influence. The Higg's boson also is a particle with a field of influence. a field cannot exist without particle interactions, energy does not exist on its own, energy is transferred through particle to particle interactions. A gravitational field would also have particle to particle interactions. in order to have a field you must have particles interactions so in this case you must have it both ways. QED, is a working field theory, so is QCD. The problem with quantum gravity is the lack of being able to quantize the graviton. This is the underlying problem in unifying quantum gravity and relativity. Relativity does not work at all energy levels it works great in describing gravity in the macroscopic world however it does not work well in describing the microscopic interactions. This is why a complete theory is needed. If you look at the stress energy tenser of the Einstein field equations (oh wow look the term field is used). "the stress–energy tensor (sometimes stress–energy–momentum tensor or energy–momentum tensor) is a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor energy and momentum is transferred through particle to particle interactions. please note the stress energy tenser of the Einstein field equations specifically refer to perfect fluid calculations. see the image to the right on that link. spacetime fundamentally is a geometric description of gravitational influences upon matter (particle to particle interactions) in other words its a geometric description of the effective field strength of gravity at a given range. That geometry is essentially a field, hence the term gravitational field I always find it amazing that so many people limit themselves to their favorite pet theory and never study the alternative theories as though they are always in competition with each other. The best policy is to study EVERY theory they can get their hands on. If they did they would realize that the alternate theories are not necessarily in direct competition, but are in fact merely different ways to describe the same interactions through different coordinate systems and differential geometry. some theories are better at describing x influences other theories describe y interactions better. This does not mean one is necessarily better than the other. here is a decent article on what spacetime means in terms of a perfect fluid http://mathreview.uwaterloo.ca/archive/voli/2/olsthoorn.pdf here is a paper that discusses GR and QFT compatibility it also mentions the various issues http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.3511v1.pdf "effective field theory has shown that general relativity and quantum mechanics do in fact go together fine at ordinary scales where both are valid. GR behaves like an ordinary field theory over those scales. This is important progress. We still have work to do in order to understand gravity and the other interactions at extreme scales" quoted from the above paper.

yes it can according to QFT (assuming the graviton exists, it is after all a hypothetical particle) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton "Unlike the force carriers of the other forces, gravitation plays a special role in general relativity in defining the spacetime in which events take place" in other words it has a geometric influence which is the same as the stress energy tenser (in essence would be the carrier between mass and the stress energy tenser) though that statement may be a bit poor

I answered in terms of the OP for this thread I've already pointed out your mistake in assuming mass means volume in the other thread you posted. The stress energy tenser is the density of mass energy not the volume or space it occupies. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52948-why-does-mass-curve-space-time/?p=813626 please read the entire thread before posting .

good article however its too bad you didn't pay attention to the details.... look at equation 1 here is the quote describing equation 1 "where G is the Einstein curvature tensor,T is the stress-energy tensor,G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light. The Einstein tcnsor describes the curvature of space-time; the stress-energy tensor describes the density of mass-energy. This equation therefore concisely describes the curvature of space-time that results from the presence of mass-energy. This curvature in turn determines the motion of freely falling objects" please note the stress energy tensor is the density of mass energy, in other words if you take the mass of the Earth and reduce its volume below its Schwartzchild radius it will become a black hole. Or if you have an object with the same volume as the Earth but higher density it will exert a greater gravitational influence. this wiki page gives the Schwartzchild radius for the Earth roughly the size of a peanut 9 mm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius here is some more information on the stress energy tenser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor please note line "In general relativity, the symmetric stress–energy tensor acts as the source of space-time curvature" by the way your fluid analogy isn't a bad idea, its just a bit more complicated than mere volume. (its due to energy-density relations) You will notice the terms perfect fluid being used numerous times on the stress energy tenser page. see the last link for the fluid solutions of the Einstein field equations "In general relativity, a fluid solution is an exact solution of the Einstein field equation in which the gravitational field is produced entirely by the mass, momentum, and stress density of a fluid." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution by the way welcome to the forum here this reference will help you learn GR, careful though its 927 pages long (page 167 covers the fluid dynamics) http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf here is another reference for GR fluid dynamics http://www.nikhef.nl/~t32/relhyd.pdf Relativistic fluid dynamics

here is the problem I see with the model, that the universe being a continuum of matter the average density is extremely close to the critical density, observational measurements agree with this [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] [latex]\rho[/latex] =energy-density [latex]G\ =\ 6.673(10)\ \times\ 10^{-11}\ m^{3} kg^{-1} s^{-2}[/latex] [latex]c\ =\ 2.99792458\ \times\ 10^{8}\ m\ s^{-1}[/latex] H0 using roughly 72 km/s/Mpc so if you do the calculations this works out to a mass density of 10-26 kg/m3 or 9*10-10 joules/m3 this low of an energy-density would work out to be roughly 5 hydrogen atoms per m3 please note this calculation I did some rounding off, but your answer should be within the same degree of magnitude sounds to me like a lot of empty area. and Hubble constant today varies from WMAP to planck data so I used an older value last article I read has it at roughly 69 km/s/Mpc The 1% Concordance Hubble Constant http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.1718v1.pdf this is the latest constraint I'm aware of, the above from one of my notes, for an article I am updating for my website it covers the cirtical density an universe geometry, I was looking to update some aspects of the article http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 covers the FLRW metric in terms of distance measurements http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ however if you want a more professional reference covering the above 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://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis these articles are handy to teach cosmology and each article covers how the critical density parameter is determined, the last article is particularly handy as a supplement to Scott Dodelson's Modern cosmology second edition as he uses the same calculations for the thermodynamic history of the universe this is the problem of trying to give us your model without the supportive math, someone like me can come along and show you math that will argue against it, so I would like to see how your model works in terms of the mathematics and observational support the last article will supply the mathematical tools in terms of how to derive the number of particles for any type of particle from the temperature of the universe see chapter 3,4 and 5 you should be able to for example calculate the number of photons from the CMB as a temperature contributor for example. After all any good model requires the necessary mathematical support or its meaningless and as this is your model its up to you to show that mathematical support in terms of how the universe expands here is the FLRW acceleration equation the Hubble law shows the proportionality between distance and recession velocity. Hubble law the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity [latex]V_{recessive}=H_OD[/latex] Accelerated expansion means that the scale factor "a" increases accelerated, which is the case if the second derivative of "a" with respect to time is positive. According to the Friedmann acceleration equation [latex]H^2 = \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{8 \pi G}{3}\rho - \frac{kc^2}{a^2}\dot{H} + H^2 = \frac{\ddot{a}}{a} = - \frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^2}\right)[/latex] the second derivative of "a" is proportional to [latex]- \left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^2}\right)[/latex]. That shows how the amount of energy density and pressure determines the expansion of the universe by the way we don't know if the universe is finite or infinite even with our measurements showing the universe as being close to flat, the universe could be so large its like an ant sitting on a balloon (it will appear to be flat) Our universe can still be finite, with a finite amount of energy. here is a recent paper arguing that the universe could be closed http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7860 we do have good estimates for the amount of energy is in the observable universe, here is the energy budget http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf "The Cosmic energy inventory" I assume your referring to the cosmological constant in this portion, so yes it does contribute to the expansion dynamics there is enough detail above that going into further detail would just add confusion. See the above articles . the cosmological constant is represented by [latex]\Lambda[/latex] this one in particular has a good coverage http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY" you'll note her energy density per m3 is a little different but they normalized the Hubble parameter at 100 km/s/Mpc equation 14 page 4 equation 10 is the energy conservation equation which includes the cosmological constant the equations of state for the cosmological constant and the other contributors matter ,radiation etc is on page 5 equations 16 and 17 of alternative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 that should be more than enough information for one post (might be a bit excessive already, my apologies if it is but I'm bored lol)

actually your not far off. lets clarify one aspect first though, space itself has no substance or fabric. Space is just geometric volume filled with the energy-mass contents of the universe. In and of itself there is no matter or energy.(this is also true in string theory) However that volume isn't empty, there is always some form of particle either virtual particles or real particles present. Though often the energy density per m3 is extremely low. In cosmology the Einstien field equations and the FLRW metric correlate the dynamics of the universe, as an ideal gas or perfect fluid. Energy-density of a contributor such as photons etc has a correlating equation of state, to relate its energy density to its pressure contribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 Now QM and QFT, has a vacuum state called zero point energy, which is the lowest energy state a volume of space can have. This is due to the Heisenburg's uncertainty principle. In this case what it boils down to is extremely short lived particles pop in to existence in matter/anti-matter pairs. (virtual particles are too short lived to be considered a real particle) These particles contribute to the energy-density of the vacuum pressure. So the lowest energy density in any volume of space is considered to be [latex]e=\frac{hv}{2}[/latex] e is the energy h is the planck constant v is the frequency also every particle has a wave function as well as momentum, A particle is defined by its spin, energy and momentum, in QM each of these properties has a corresponding wave function. As well as interaction wave functions, rather than try to show you the math its probably better to let you read a reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function -Wave functions and function spaces: if the wave function is to change throughout space and time, one would expect the wave function to be a function of the position and time coordinates. It is solved from the Schrödinger equation (or other relativistic wave equations), a linear partial differential equation: (differential geometry mathematics involved in this, the terminologies in this section are all differential geometry aspects and coordinate systems) other wave functions include (see the reference on their usage) -Position-space wave function -Momentum-space wave function how these different wave functions over all is defined in the Relation between wave functions section. so yes all the particles in the universe, in a sense have a vibration, however that vibration is referred to as its wave function or frequency, however as I explained above space itself has no substance (volume only). However how particles interact influences the various wave functions of other particles. now in string theory the twisted particles is in the same sense is a theoretical particle influence with a rotational wave function or curled movement(twist) string theory relations also uses advanced differential geometry to describe into a coordinate system how various influences occur. (string theory is not my specialty, so I would have to look at the applicable metrics) When you look close enough at any of the various physics studies the mathematics usually breaks down to how a influences b in terms of a coordinate system and differential geometry. So much of the terminology used is in fact mathematical terms (space-time geometry, phase space, Hilbert spaces are some examples),This is true in QM,relativity, particle physics,QCD,QED,QFT string theory etc. The differences comes into play on what coordinate system and interactions described by which differential geometry, best describes what is being modeled one of the best textbooks that teaches this understanding is (that I have read) "Roads to Reality" by Roger Penrose he starts at a low level of mathematics and gradually brings you up to a point where you can relate to any model (though some of his terminology is rather hilarious, such as using the term zig and zag to describe electromagnetic frequency) edit forgot to add zero point energy of the vacuum energy is also described by the quantum harmonic oscillator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator

the zero point energy equation and its relation to the uncertainty principle and how it is derived is shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy QFT defines it as. "Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the field" however the virtual particle production is in the form of photons (matter/antimatter photons-photons has no charge) so in QM its also sometimes called "quantum electromagnetic zero point energy" another related subject is the quantum harmonic oscillator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator QM isn't my strongest subject, still studying my QM and QFT textbooks. so for the finer details I recommend asking on the QM forum, I needed to understand this particular subject as it is oft related to cosmology models, at one time it was thought to be the cause of the cosmological constant, but its energy level was shown to be 120 magnitudes of order too large. However there is numerous papers that indicate that the cosmological constant may or may not be the Higg's field metastability, (more research is needed on the Higg's to know if the models are reasonable or not) this thread has some of the related articles http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83765-higgs-field-thermodynamic-research-cmb-and-now/

The calculations that are specific to the planck length theory is on the wiki page I posted, its not my idea but what the theory itself states.( or at least according to what the wiki page states is the basis of the planck length, I noticed their citations on this is not particularly good) Swansort however could also be correct in the particle creation scenario. (when I answer on forums I try to answer to according to what is the current concordance, to the best of my knowledge, though sometimes I am off lol, I never introduce personal theories-if you look through my posts you will notice I usually try to supply some form of reference to learn from,its a policy of mine lol. Not saying you thought it was my theory just an side note) I'll dig around for a more professional paper for the planck length limit after work I recall reading an arxiv paper at one time on it but I am not sure if I recall keeping a copy edit found the paper ( not the best I've read its a little shy of the style and detail of most arxiv articles,) A New Basis for Interpretation of the Planck Length http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0610/0610127.pdf but there is numerous papers dealing with the planck length including alternates for a smaller possible size Measuring a Kaluza-Klein radius smaller than the Planck length http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.0521.pdf

myself I personally consider the use of entropy to be a poor way to define time, whether the universe contracts, expands or stays static itself doesn't define time well by itself. For example entropy can be thought of as an increase in the number of degrees of freedom, in thermodynamics. So when the universe contracts the universe would heat up. Particles would reach thermal equilibrium so the total degrees of freedom of distinguishable particles decreases. Now take we discussed time flowing one way when the universe expands, and flowing the other way when it contracts, does it make any sense to say time stops when it is static? I think not. -then there is the question of is time determined just by its thermodynamic properties? if everything stays in thermal equilibrium is there no time? if so how would you define time then, would you say time doesn't exist? but then time is also a measure of duration duration includes a period of no change as well as change, so how does this work with entropy? I particularly like this short answer "The first mystery of the arrow of time is that it's nowhere to be found in the fundamental laws of physics. Those laws work perfectly well if we run processes backwards in time. (More rigorously, for every allowed process there exists a time-reversed process that is also allowed, obtained by switching parity and exchanging particles for antiparticles -- the CPT Theorem.) Nevertheless, the macroscopic world we observe is full of irreversible processes. The puzzle is to reconcile microscopic reversibility with macroscopic irreversibility" I wonder if one could use this argument to argue against the universe starting from a BH lol, I'll have to put some thought into that question "In the early universe, when it was just a homogenous plasma, the entropy was essentially the number of particles -- within our current cosmological horizon, that's about 1088. Once black holes form, they tend to dominate; a single supermassive black hole, such as the one at the center of our galaxy, has an entropy of order 1090, according to Stephen Hawking's famous formula. If you took all of the matter in our observable universe and made one big black hole, the entropy would be about 10120. The entropy of the universe might seem big, but it's nowhere near as big as it could be." The article has some good arguments, and he clearly states there is still lots of work to be done to fully understand entropy in terms of arrow of time. I only mentioned some of the aspects. The tendency of a system to evolve is something I agree with, however using the expansion, contraction of the universe itself without other considerations isn't a good way to define the arrow of time

No offense but you really need to understand whats in the box before you start thinking whats outside it. "this is due to the light being in close proximity to its source of heat" are you saying the BH is the source of heat? "the tape is flimsy, minimal interactions with. As such this light has no physics expectations to contend with." this tape model of yours is just another attempt to apply a substance to the volume of space, no physics model or recognized theory tells us that space itself is other than volume, the volume may be filled with other particles both virtual and real, however this does not imply space itself is a substance. Even string theory does not try to describe space as a substance. ( sounds to me your merely replacing the term "fabric of space" with tape).

I don't think you understand what is being said, he mentioned the photon is our investigation tool. In other words we use the electromagnetic spectrum to investigate particles. particle physics can determine a particles mass, spin and momentum. However much of the information we get on a particle is usually measured by its deflections and impacts. Most of the particles were discovered by shooting particles at a small region and watching for path interference patterns. Most detection mechanisms rely on the fact that when high-energy charged particles pass through matter they ionize atoms along their path. The "Wilson cloud chamber" is an early example of a particle detector http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber the planck length is considered the shortest theoretical length the same holds true for the planck time. keep in mind we cannot come close to measuring anything near this scale. Without going into details here is a statement that covers the theory, "The greater the energy of photons, the shorter their wavelength and the more accurate the measurement. If the photon has enough energy to measure objects the size of the Planck length, it would collapse into a black hole and the measurement would be impossible. Thus, the Planck length sets the fundamental limits on the accuracy of length measurement." the formulas involved and these statements are from the same page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length "There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length; it is, however, a topic of theoretical research. Since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any current instrument could possibly measure, there is no way of examining it directly. According to the generalized uncertainty principle , the Planck length is, in principle, within a factor of order unity, the shortest measurable length – and no improvement in measurement instruments could change that." for the reasons above. now here is planck time "In physics, the Planck time (tP) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length" Now think about the above, we cannot measure a planck length, its a calculated value, if its true then we can never measure below that value, so we also cannot measure a smaller time scale. Can a smaller length exist? or a smaller time? certainly but we will never be able to know for sure as we will never be able to test any smaller units. The key term is the planck length is the smallest theoretical measurable unit. It is not the smallest possible unit in reality ( or at least probably not, but then we would have to find and measure a particle smaller than the planck length-good luck with that). Its a theoretical limit on measurements. any model can later be proven wrong, but unless you have some testable results, this usually doesn't occur, so until we can test a smaller unit then the planck scale will remain as a limit. (its not even a case of being rudimentary technology, we don't even have the tech to test the planck length, nor are we likely to be able to any time soon)

time is a difficult subject to define, in many ways its definition depends on the universe model. In multi-verse models the typical reasoning is that time exists outside our universe. In bounce models, cyclic models or any model that our universe started from another previous universe the same is true (usually) In the universe from nothing models, time starts when the first bubble due to vacuum fluctuations occur. there is huge debates on the time aspects, so there is no clear answer. Wish I could help more but any answer I give is open to conjecture and debate

fair enough the only articles I have deal mainly with lightning strikes, and they are quite lengthy ie too large to post (not even sure if I can attach them due to the size) A key difference between lightning and a solar flare is the amount of area of induced current and the duration

I believe I understand where Enthalphy is coming from, protection from inductive currents whether from lightning strikes or solar flares essentially boils down to adequate grounding. Where damage usually occurs is when the grounding is insufficient to handle the induced currents, either through poor design, or mechanical failure (damaged wiring etc). Electronic circuits are designed to filter out unwanted noise, part of the noise protection circuits include a path to the ground plane to remove the excess currents. Another aspect is that the power supply itself is regulated, take your PC power supply for example. The PS (power supply) is regulated as its circuit utilizes a pulse width modulation circuit. Basically what this means instead of sending a steady current at a given voltage, the PS sends on/off pulses, when more current is demanded by the PC load, the rate of pulses increases generating a higher current flow and vise versa. Now at the chip gate level, ie a memory gate, each memory gate will only accept voltages within a tight limit to recognize a 1 or a 0. For example on a TTL (total transistor logic) logic circuit. the recognized voltages are 0.4-0.8 volts for a digital 0, and 4.4 to 4.8 volts for a digital 1. So any voltages outside those limits isn't recognized. Even if by sheer luck the induced currents produce those values, you also require key signals to active a chip. These signals have a specific timing with the data signal, such signals include Read or write, Chip enable, and in the case of memory RAS and CAS (row and column activation signal). If the timing is off then the chip does not change the data already stored within it With those requirements it is highly unlikely to gain corrupted data due to induced voltages from a lightning strike or a solar flare, the damage from lightning strikes and solar flares typically damage the components. However adequate grounding can and does offer protection. There is though interferance noise in analog signals, but again analog circuits have noise protection, though in some cases the noise is outside the protection design, this doesn't generate a latch up. Instead it generates unrecognized and corrupted data, Error correction codes can regenerate the corrupted bits from a transmission. (there is too many error correction codes to go into any length on this) checksum is one example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checksum

yeah it was bad wording that's why I altered it to no measurable time delay

no measurable time delay,

seeing as how were on the subject of a universe from nothing and where the energy comes from. This paper covers those questions, its a bit technical so I'll just post a key lines. The process involves false vacuum (higher vacuum energy state, and true vacuum-lowest energy state) and the Heisenburg's uncertainty principle +( virtual particle production and rapid expansion) "One may ask the question when and how space, time and matter appear in the early universe from nothing. With the exponential expansion of the bubble, it is doubtless that space and time will emerge. Due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, there should be virtual particle pairs created by quantum fluctuations. Generally speaking, a virtual particle pair will annihilate soon after its birth. But, two virtual particles from a pair can be separated immediately before annihilation due to the exponential expansion of the bubble. Therefore, there would be a large amount of real particles created as vacuum bubble expands exponentially" "Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf the idea has been around for some time here is an older paper by Coleman "Fate of the false vacuum" http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/ph564/Coleman.pdf Leonard Parker (Parker radiation) was also an older work that showed particle creation due to inflation (unfortunately I could never get his original works but here is a later article) by the same author in which he refers to his earlier work (thesis paper) "Particle creation and particle number in an expanding universe" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5616v1.pdf

electrons have kids? what exciting parents. now seriously when a photon is absorbed by an electron, it is completely destroyed. All its energy is imparted to the electron, which instantly jumps to a new energy level. The photon itself ceases to be. The opposite happens when an electron emits a photon. The photon is not selected from a "well" of photons living in the atom; it is created instantaneously out of the vacuum. The electron in the high energy level is instantly converted into a lower energy-level electron and a photon. There is no in-between state where the photon is being constructed. It instantly pops into existence electrons surround the nucleus of an atom, occupying different energy levels. To move from a lower to a higher energy level, an electron must gain energy. Oppositely, to move from a higher to a lower energy level, an electron must give up energy so its meaningless to describe a pregnant electron lol. ( no offense but I'll probably chuckle over that statement for some time)

I've often wondered why we would expect to hear radio waves, considering I used to work for a communication company. You've nailed the problem. Glad to see someone else correlate these details. You've already mentioned the signals piled on each other. To expand on that how many different radio waves on Earth would use the same frequency? Any frequency that is viable in radio waves is used a multitude number times, regulations restrict multiple frequencies in the same regions however we also plant what is called privacy tones onto a primary frequency to allow the same primary frequency to be used more often. Some privacy tones are analog or digital

could you please use a smaller font this is annoying to read.

here is a good article to expand on what Delta1212 just said http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf : "Misconceptions about the Big bang" Lineweaver and Davies the cosmos basics pinned thread at top has other articles this one is from the last posted in that thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33180-cosmo-basics/

oh lol didn't notice that

In terms of expansion localized gravitational influences is negligible. Expansion is a global influence so your Earth example above wouldn't really work. To explain that further you need to realize that our measurements of expansion is uniform (defined by the terms homogeneous and isotropic) Homogeneous- no preferred location isotropic -no preferred direction. now think of those terms in regards of expansion being the influence from every gravitational body. wouldn't be too uniform. The FLRW metric is an equivalence to the Einstein field equations, however both include correlations to the ideal gas laws. The universe dynamics can be described as an ideal gas or perfect fluid. (provides a very good approximation) Essentially radiation(relativistic,non relativistic),matter (baryonic,nonbaryonic-dark matter), the cosmological constant (dark energy possibly) each have positive energy-densities however they contribute to the pressure in different relations defined by their equations of state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 here is an article that covers the fluid equations and how its derived from the EFE http://www.helsinki.fi/~hkurkisu/cosmology/Cosmo4.pdf the resulting rate of expansion is defined by the acceleration equation (see link) Universe geometry is also defined by the above relations as compared to the calculated critical density. If the total actual density equals the critical density then the universe is flat. see the following for how universe geometry affects light paths and distance measurements http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 covers the distance measures http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ the links in my signature has more articles on these aspects as well as others. one of my favorites covering above in regards to GR is by Mathius Blau, though its extremely long and technical http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf (its an excellent reference particularly for the relativity forum lol) section F covers cosmology

yeah your right the value was given at 1 bar. I should have noted that, The surface of the planet is defined as the point where the pressure of the atmosphere is 1 bar, which is equal to the atmospheric pressure at Earth’s surface. Thanks for pointing out that detail I forgot to include (or more accurately forgot altogether lol)

That is a good question, and its also not easily answered, I'll leave it in the hands of this article "Time before time" http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0408/0408111.pdf