Mordred

This is incorrect Hawking radiation is not FTL. When two entangled particles are created outside the black holes event horizon, the positive particle escapes, the negative energy particle falls into the the BH thus reducing the black holes mass and energy. Hawking radiation occurs outside the event horizon and is part of the accretion disk. For a full technical detail on the accretion disk as well as other forms of radiation that occurs within it. (including the angular momentum effects the accretion disk has on the BH's spin see this lengthy article. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself. as far as quantum tunneling being faster than the speed of light you might want to read these articles (information does not travel faster than light) http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.3889.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0403/0403010.pdf here is a simpler version for those not up on the mathematics http://sitemaker.umich.edu/herbert.winful/files/nimtz_stahlhofen_faster_than_light_speed.pdf

here this site will help, as I stated earlier it is trickle charging and also http://www.electroschematics.com/4983/usb-mobile-charger/ you never specified which cell phone you have but different cell phones have different charging requirements here is a brief list http://sindhu.ece.iisc.ernet.in/systemslab/documents/cellphone_chargers.pdf

the articles I linked cover those questions. Take the expansion history, we know how the universe expands today, reverse that expansion history. As the observable universe decreases in volume, density and temperature increases. We have observational evidence that supports this. the Universe expands, and hence it was smaller at earlier times. The energy was concentrated in a small region of space, and thus the temperature was high. Processes, which can be studied today only with the biggest particle accelerators, happened naturally at that time. here is the chronology of the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://planck.cf.ac.uk/science/timeline/universe/bigbang

there is one fundamental problem in the first paragraph, an observer who watches the particle near the speed of c will see the time delay, however the particle itself would experience time as normal. This has no effect on the particles energy, as such there is no need or risk of the particle changing its potential. A particles direction also does not affect the particles energy, unless it is traveling into or out of a gravity well. Due to those misunderstandings the rest of your post also makes no sense as your understanding is incorrect. Another problem you don't understand is space is not I repeat not a fabric, it is simply geometric volume, filled with the energy-density contents of the universe. When cosmologists refer to space curvature etc, what they really mean is the curvature of the gravitational energy-density distribution. or the shape of the area of influences due to gravity. It does not mean space is a curved fabric. Same with overall space geometry. Space geometry is the energy-density relations between gravity and the cosmological constant. Flat space means its actual density is close to its critical density. The energy-density relations has a corresponding pressure relation shown by the equations of state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 Universe geometry is explained here http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 is here (FLRW metric and distance measures) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ the rest of your write up is also incorrect there is no minimal volume change, space is volume only and as such a change of volume can be any quantity.

cell phone chargers trickle charge, you don't want to charge a cell phone battery too fast as it will reduce its life expectancy.

no I mean we have no means to gather direct measurements prior to the time of the CMB, so any knowledge we have is based on LHC studies and indirect measurements of the CMB anistropies

As mathematics, has briefly described, we do not understand how the universe started, prior to inflation out understanding is based upon our research in high energy particle physics and the related thermodynamics. We know the universe started at a hot dense state, but not the reason behind that beginning. Our knowledge of particle physics show us that one the of the earliest particles to drop out of thermal equilibrium is the photon however the photon needs a mean free path to be detectable. At the earlier stages of the universes beginning that mean free path is to short for us to see today. Google dark ages cosmology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe we will not see prior to the dark ages due to the mean free of photons, our best hope of gathering direct observational information prior to the dark ages lies in the neutrino background. However out ability to detect neutrinos is limited. As such much of the physics prior to inflation is conjectural, we also cannot simulate the temperatures involved in the lab. Though we are making progress with the LHC research. for more information 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

that's the problem, we simply don't know prior to inflation, there must have been some form of expansion prior to inflation otherwise the universe would have simply collapsed. (temperatures would have also increased, instead of decreasing) However we simply do not know as we can never collect any data prior to the dark ages. There is the possibility we will one day see further than the dark ages using the cosmic neutrino background. However our ability to detect neutrinos are still too limited. So making any statements prior to inflation is purely conjectural. If we can resolve which inflationary model is correct that would also provide clues. For example if say one of the Higg's inflationary models and either supersymmetry (MSSM) or SO(10) proves to be accurate. Then we can at least develop a thermodynamic process. More specifically we would be able to understand the particle physics and thermodynamic relations of the Higg's field and standard model/supersymmetric particles involved. An expanding universe is one that would cool down, that cooling allows particles to drop out of thermal equilibrium and results in phase transitions. Inflation may be a result of one of those phase transitions. One other detail is if the GUT models are accurate, then the planch epoch, GUT epoch and electroweak epoch can only occur for an expanding universe. To the best of our understanding the universe must have had a pre-inflation expansion rate. However we do not know what that rate or mechanism is due to no direct measurement data. As far as quantum explanations Loop quantum cosmology has the pre inflation expansion as the result of a bounce from a previous collapsing universe. However this is only one possible model. There are numerous bounce, cyclic and universe from nothing models, as well as the black hole models In the universe from nothing models, its the result of Heisenburg's uncertainty and the zero energy model. However another universe from nothing model has quantum tunneling from nothing. Similar to inflation's false vacuum to true vacuum in the false vacuum inflation model.

Earth itself went through 5 known major extinction events, with 12 minor extinction events, these are only the known ones from fossil records etc. Other planets would also have extinction level events. Planets without an atmosphere having a higher susceptibility. Radiation, meteors etc. The number and types of planetary scale extinction events are numerous. Evolution on a planet does not necessarily always produce intelligent, technological life forms. It took millions of years before humans came into being. Part of the reason we did was that the Dinosaurs were wiped out giving mammals a chance to develop beyond rodent size. As I mentioned before mathematical statistics rarely involve every variable into their equations. Exponential growth is a prime example. For one thing nature trends to establish a balance between animal and plant species. The only reason mankind isn't balanced with nature is our technology, allows us to fight natures processes. Take a region where one species becomes dominant outside of technology his food supply is limited, so that species can only survive to a certain population. If the species survives long enough. Then the likely hood another species evolves, that uses the previous species as a food source increases. Exponential growth is a statistic involving one species, the mathematics you showed doesn't cover food competition, diseases, extinction level events etc. (the numeric scenarios are endless) edit just recalled an interesting story in regards to exponential expansion... When I went to high school in grade 10, I recall watching a video as part of the curriculum. In that video they talked about exponential expansion based on the (then ) current birth rate and death rates. This was back in the early 80's, according to that video by the time the year 2000 rolled around mankind would have lost 98% of its population due to starvation. I recall this as I spent the better part of my younger years worried about population growth. Now that I've studied far beyond those days I learned to realize the numerous factors those numbers never accounted for.

Its good to see a 15 year old so interested in Cosmology, that being said the best route for you to undertake understanding cosmology is to understand what the current models and science already understands about cosmology and why. A very common mistake is to try and reinvent the wheel or think outside the box, without understanding what is inside the box. The FLRW metric is an exact solution to Einsteins field equations, currently the strongest model is the LCDM model or lambdaCDM ,[latex]\Lambda CDM[/latex] this is essentially the hot big bang model with the cosmological constant aka dark energy and dark matter included. In light of my advice here is some entrance articles other than the 2 I already posted above. http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry textbook style 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 historical articles handy to get a picture in how cosmology developed http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/hubble-law-redshift1929.htm Reprint of one of Hubbles papers. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf An authorized reprint of Einsteins Special relativity paper. http://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/debate20.html The "Great debate of the 20's" jubilee reprint article available this one covers Friedmann (FLRW metric) http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1498 " “The Waters I am Entering No One yet Has Crossed”: Alexander Friedman and the Origins of Modern Cosmology" written by Ari Belenkiy these articles are essentially entry level with some exceptions, but they should get you started, good luck in your studies.

scientifically speaking space is just geometric volume filled with the contents of the universe, space itself has no energy or matter. Space geometry is determined by energy-density relations between matter and the cosmological constant, as compared to the critical density. 7 and 6 are in conflict with one another "if space is constant with no pressure etc how does it expand? Superluminal expansion depends on the separation distance of measurement. Hubble's law states the greater the separation distance the greater the recessive velocity [latex]V=HD[/latex] here is a good article on the misconceptions on superluminal expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies how particles gain kinetic energy, is well understood there is little mystery there, much of which is described by basic physics (heat) laws of thermodynamics. Your theory doesn't explain how to handle the laws of thermodynamics, which in cosmology is covered under the ideal gas equations. The FLRW metric does include the equations of state, which is the ideal gas portion a theory such as this without the supportive math is just a hypothesis without proof

Neither do I, far too many variables

gotcha

one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the lasers are traveling through a medium, which means they are being influenced by the atmosphere. The process of refraction is involved. this article has the general refraction index formula http://www.rp-photonics.com/effective_refractive_index.html here is some at home inexpensive eperiments http://www.euhou.net/index.php/exercises-mainmenu-13/classroom-experiments-and-activities-mainmenu-186/203-determination-of-the-index-of-refraction-using-a-laser-pointer

One can always volunteer for the Mars one program lol, though its a one way trip. http://www.mars-one.com/mission/technical-feasibility http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap

no worry no one will steal, it as it makes absolutely no sense. If photons was gravity every time you turned on a light bulb things would be attracted to it. Photons is part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. Mass is due to the strong force primarily, with a very small percentage due to the Higg's boson interactions. Perhaps you should step back and study the science already available. For one photons mediates the electromagnetic force Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field. W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force. Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force. Higgs Bosons give other particles mass via the Higgs mechanism. Their existence was confirmed by CERN on 14 March 2013. (This should read only fermions and the massive W and Z gauge bosons.) ah well its Wiki not the most accurate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

no problem Studiot, I'm certainly not a chemist lol, those definitions were from some chemist websites. May have not been the best of sites. quantum tunneling also occurs in a higher vacuum or energy state, with particles tunneling to a lower vacuum or energy state. Inflation is one such process.(earliest form of inflation (false vacuum) Hawking radiation at the accretion disk is another. There are numerous forms, Unruh radiation, Hawking radiation, Schwinger mechanism, Parker radiation, I can't recall the name of the one related to strictly magnetism. However there is also a tunneling process at magnetars., neutron stars etc These are all cosmology based applications involving quantum tunneling.

cool site thanks

here is the chemistry definitions Solid Definition: state of matter characterized by particles arranged such that their shape and volume are relatively stable. The constituents of a solid tend to be packed together much closer than the particles in a gas or liquid. - the state in which a substance has no tendency to flow under moderate stress; resists forces (such as compression) that tend to deform it; and retains a definite size and shape A liquid has a definite volume, but takes the shape of its container. liquid state - the state in which a substance exhibits a characteristic readiness to flow with little or no tendency to disperse and relatively high incompressibility A gas has neither a definite volume nor a definite shape. The state of matter distinguished from the solid and liquid states by relatively low density and viscosity, relatively great expansion and contraction with changes in pressure and temperature, the ability to diffuse readily, and the spontaneous tendency to become distributed uniformly throughout any container. Plasma has neither a definite volume nor a definite shape. Plasma often is seen in ionized gases. Plasma is distinct from a gas because it possesses unique properties. Free electrical charges (not bound to atoms or ions) cause plasma to be electrically conductive. Plasma may be formed by heating and ionizing a gas.

I never stated f=ma proves a solid lol, f=ma simply behaves differently from within a solid, how would it work within a solid? ok that lines need a bit more detail lol it simply intended to say the universe is not a solid. then I wanted to describe how forces acted on different mass bodies within a fluid,or gas like state sorry for the confusion, that evidently got lost in translation lol. The perfect fluid calculations are commonly used in numerous cosmology applications so the synonym is applicable

correct we measure how movements of different bodies relate to each other all the time. We do this by comparing how one bodies movement is different from another in the same way your using 2D vectors, we use 3D vectors. To correlate this with the time component we need 4D vectors. Now if there is an overall rotation the vectors of motion will show motion due to how points on any rotating object or universe works. Take the solid example lets forget open spaces, simply make the solid clear so light can move through it (visibility). place any number of measurement points throughout that solid ball. Now rotate that ball. the points on the other side of the center will move in the opposite direction as the points on your side of the ball. When you think about it the only reason we know the Earth rotates is due to comparing our planet to other planets, how many years did we think the universe revolved around us? Its easier to detect a rotating universe, than say if that entire ball was moving moving in the same direction without rotating, in this case we would not have any measurement reference point to tell us differently, We can only measure within our universe, if every reference point was say moving right at the exact same vector and velocity, we wouldn't know. (solid case, linear motion) now the real universe is not a solid, far from it. remember f =ma, also remember newtons 3 laws of motion. if the universe has a rotation this causes centrifugal force, less massive bodies would move outward at a higher rate than massive one, rotation would also tend to flatten the universe into a sphere, just like it does for a galaxy.(provided the center of rotation in is our observable portion) So there would be a higher energy density near the equatorial epicenter. We see no evidence of this. We would see the same point to point correlations as the solid but with the added considerations of how forces work. In the case of of a consistent linear motion with absolutely no change in rate of velocity and absolutely no rotation we wouldn't be able to detect this (a body in motion will stay in motion till a force acts upon it). in the case of rotation with a center of rotation outside our observable universe, the objects closer to the center would have a slower rate of apparent movement than those further away from the center, also objects will still have a preferred direction outward away from the center. As f=ma smaller objects will move outward faster than larger objects. (centrifugal force) In many ways you can think of what occurs in a centrifuge used to separate red blood cells from white blood cells, why do they separate ? after all the same centrifugal force acted upon those blood cells.

No problem everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I'm not about to bash you into my way of thinking, I don't come to a science forum for that. I'll leave that to religion and philosophers. Scientifically speaking we don't know one way or the other.

if its so simple explain it using the correct equations, while your at it explain why Wiki has not one but two mass values for the photon 0 and mass is less than 1×10−18 eV/c2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon 1) prove mathematically mass=0 is right or wrong 2) prove mathematically the second value right or wrong.

Please read these three articles http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies your not getting smarter if you don't study what is already available you want a direct answer how to model the particle physics involved at the big bang? I can't think of a single scientifically accurate article that doesn't involve complex lie algebra and quage symmetry. here is two examples (trust me you want to start with the basics before you get into these articles below) http://arxiv.org/pdf...-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde (this one is older may be a bit out of date) http://www.wiese.itp...es/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis here are two direct GUT articles. SO(10) and super symmetry MSSM (minimal super symmetric model) these articles require advanced differential geometry, as well as a solid understanding of particle physics. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2...11-rev-guts.pdf

the big bang is not an explosion it is simply a hot dense state of unknown size and origins, this state simply expanded geometrically. It is not a an explosion like a bomb. I really wish you would at least read the articles I posted in your other thread. In particular the misconceptions articles.