Mordred

What does that have to do with physics ? Simply put the reason cosmological redshift exists has nothing to do with probability but is a direct consequence of expansion due to thermodynamics. There is no guess work involved. The further an object is from us the greater the cosmological redshift value will be. That will not change due to some hypothetical probability. Just as there is no guess work behind expansion being homogeneous and isotropic. Physics isn't guess work. Its careful examination of observational evidence combined with mathematics to describe what is observed. Its not random guesses or mere logic games. That has been repeatably mentioned this thread. Any object you measure at the limit of any telescope will have the corresponding redshift to distance relation. That isn't based on any guesswork but is simply put what has been shown through all observational evidence. For example using one equation I was able to show your guesswork incorrect with regards to the SMBH. You could easily have done the same thing. The formula for Newtons gravitational law is extremely easy to use. If you spent more time studying why cosmology states what it does and learn how the thermodynamic laws are involved in expansion you would be far better off. Simply put expansion is easy to understand once you look at those equations of state I posted earlier.

Why would that matter when every object we do observe has redshift? If every object we have ever observed has cosmological redshift it only stands to reason that once we do find a new unobserved object. It too will have redshift. Little side note it's possible to extend the range of a telescope using gravitational lensing. Many of Hubble telescopes deep field detection was done using this technique. Nothing prevents the James Webb Telescope from doing the same.

The entire universe with the exception of gravitationally bound objects is expanding. It also represents the farthest distance we can possibly receive any signals. (Radius of shared causality.) It doesn't matter which object your measuring. You will be able to measure the effect of expansion via the cosmological redshift. Nor does it matter which direction you look.

if you recall this statement I made on page 1. If you perform the same calculation for the radius of Milky way you should get approximately 2.046*10^{-15} N. That is with a little larger than a 1 billion solar mass BH as I rounded up the solar mass. Just for fun I decided to see if Sagittarius A has any measurable influence on our solar system. The answer is the force exerted on a 1 km mass in our solar system is approximately 9.34*10^{-36} N. Easily overpowered by local gravity.

Ok a back of the envelop calculation using a 1 billion solar mass BH at distance 1 Mpc mass 2 I used 1 kg. \[F=\frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}\] using this at 1 Mpc the force exerted between mass 1 (roughly 2*10^36 kg) I rounded up for simplicity mass 2 1 kg. radius 30856775812799586000 km. you get roughly \(1.402 *10^{-19}\) newtons of force. Not enough to move a grain of sand.....so much for the idea of ultra-massive BH driving expansion...recall the diameter of the Observable universe above. That is why physics uses math, it tests the feasibility of an idea.

Thanks I did. https://www.illustris-project.org/

One of the biggest problems I see with those that try to suggest Galaxy or BHs causing things like expansion etc. Is that they really do not truly understand the sheer volume of our Observable universe. Watch this video at the start it's only showing 42 to 43 Mpc watch as it zooms in. You cannot even discern a galaxy until your less than 1 Mpc. Our Observable universe is 28820 Mpc in diameter. 93 billion light years. Our entire Milky way is 0.01620 Mpc. In radius. There is literally no way no SMBH can possibly affect expansion once you crunch some numbers it's literally impossible. That doesn't even take into consideration that gravity travels at c. You can convert the Mpc into light years to see what I mean by impossible.

Yes I'm positive this is my area of expertise and if you take expansion in reverse one can calculate at what temperature atoms such as hydrogen can form. 6000 degrees Kelvin for 25 % stability 3000 kelvin for 75 percent stability. The equation that one uses is the SAHA equation. Those temperatures come prior to surface of last scattering but after inflation. You will get some hydrogen just prior to reheating due to slow roll on inflation. However the universe must cool down to hit electrweak symmetry breaking so must expand just prior to that as well.

Lol for that matter I ignore anything stated in any form of pop media regardless of who the speaker is.

So ? That only describes the accelerated portion. Matter and radiation also contribute. In your idea you cannot have expansion before a BH can form and neither stars nor a BH can form until you have sufficient expansion to allow atoms to form. To put it bluntly your idea is a literal impossibility. It's like the chicken before the egg scenario. As far as DE is concerned a lot of research and evidence suggest it may be the Higgs field itself.

You know physics isn't a bunch of guesswork from the imagination. Even if you include all the mass of every galaxy you still wouldn't get any expansion from those galaxies. All baryonic matter which forms blackholes only accounts for 3 percent the mass terms. What causes expansion is thermodynamics and their equations of state for all particles of the SM model. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) With that one can accurately calculate everything involving expansion. The calculator in my signature does just that and it can predict up to 80 billion years into the future assuming the evolution of matter, radiation and the cosmological constant stays at the same rate of change.

Sounds like your describing primordial Black holes. As mentioned large Stars collapse to form blackholes

Well the set of imaginary numbers is infinite. We have proof there is no limit on imagination. Mathematics also teaches us that not using whole numbers is improper. It also teaches us that any relation with two variables gets complex.

Great imaginary numbers aren't real anyways.

A couple other details. How would the universe expand before blackholes could form ? Why would they cause expansion when their gravity sucks all nearby material into the BH ?

Rotation driven by a supermassive BH would lead to Kepler curve which does not match the galaxy curves. Secondly due to the 1/r2 relation of reducing gravitational strength per mass term the strength of gravity would fall off to effectively zero influence Long before reaching the outer galaxy region.

little point getting into quantum Hall effect if you can't get the basic relations correct. classical motion in a magnetic field being \[m\frac{dv}{dt}=-ev\times B\] set the magnetic field to the z plane the particle moves in the transverse plane so you get using time differentials \[m\ddot{x}=-eB\\dot{y}\] \[m\ddot{y}=eB\\dot{x}\] gives \[x(t)=X-Rsin(\omega_Bt+\theta)\] and \[y(t)=Y+Rcos(\omega_Bt+\theta)\] cyclotron frequency given by \[\omega_B=\frac{eB}{m}\] oh look there's that cross product term once again, first equation enough said If you like I can take this through the Drude model to get the explicit expression for conductivity. however lets just skip to the conductivity tensor. \[\sigma \begin{pmatrix}\sigma_{xx}&\omega_{xy}\\-\sigma_{xy}&\sigma_{xx}\end{pmatrix}\] \[sigma\frac{\sigma_{DC}}{1+\omega^2_B\tau^2}\begin{pmatrix}1&-\omega_B\tau\\-\omega_B\tau&1)\end{pmatrix}\] with \[\sigma_{DC}=\frac{ne^2\tau}{m}\] the off diagonal terms gives rise to the hall effect resistivity being the inverse of conductivity here is a peer review coverage. https://phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS502/PROJECTS/21-Thomas.pdf This should show that if you never looked at vectors and spinor relations you could never describe the Hall effect with any degree of accuracy..... that is the classical treatment I gave the link provides the quantum treatment. for reference Drude model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drude_model

Why do you think I mentioned this on page one had you looked at the cross product term you would have recognized what I stated is precisely what is described by the Lorentz force law. Other applicable laws being the magnetic law and Amperes law. The cross product term has consequences in regard to the magnetic field that makes it unique from the E field which involves the dot product. It is also why the magnetic moment becomes critical as it has different vector relations from the magnetic field. It's critical to understanding how magnets work.

Yes let's as this is incorrect. The B field is non divergent and does not have a point of origin. The E field is divergent and has a point of origin the B field does not. I thought you claimed to understand the vectors and spinors of the cross product ? Of course your likely going to state " Not in my model" Well that's well described by modern physics via Maxwell equations.

Lets look at charge directly regardless if it's magnetic or otherwise. Charge requires divergence ie source and sink of a field the magnetic field itself isn't divergent. The magnetic moment is.

Lol now that reminds me of a research plan to move the entire solar system by moving the sun.

I have looked at your literature. The lack of any relationships beyond magnitude only values is a HUGE lack in regards to your goals. You cannot accurately describe anything involving kinetic energy and momentum terms including force of anything particle related without it. You cannot describe the relationship between the E and B fields without using vectors and spinors either. They are essential. That is precisely why the majority of particles physics including the Feymann path integrals include the dot and cross product terms. It does so through the Euler-Langrangian equations combined with the probably functions of the Schrodinger equation for QM and the Klein-Gordon equations of QFT. I can't even confirm any accuracy of any of your equations if you didn't apply those vectors and spinors.

We are pointing out errors why do you feel pointing out using vectors and spinors and not using them isn't in error ? We also pointed out numerous other errors in this thread. That isn't cynicism but an examination. I examined what you have here and even looked at your other papers. Not using vectors and spinors is a fundamental error you have in every article. I chose to restrict myself to what you posted here

I don't believe you understand the scientific process. It is expected that any new theory gets examined and effort is made to disprove any new theory. That is a major part of the process. Our pointing out errors and asking questions is precisely part of the scientific method. You don't get a robust theory otherwise. Every theory gets examined in this manner. You also have a couple of physicist currently asking those questions in this thread. No I could not begin to use your theory. I don't see how it can possibly work with any mainstream observational evidence that supports the mainstream physics.

You do realize the fine structure constant applies directly to the couplings strength of charged particles. how can you believe that wouldn't be carefully examined ? In point of detail we would need to know how well the neutron and proton couples to the EM field. So it's quite accurately examined. One of the precision tests of the fine structure constant is atomic recoil. The highest precision test involving rubidium atoms.