Leaderboard

Direct sunlight ~100,000 lux 0.1% of that 100 lux, which is equivalent to an heavily overcast day, and brighter than that of the hallway lighting of a typical office building. A moonless clear night is ~0.002 lux

Your idea of considering the effects of relativity in regards to expansion related measurements is something that has already been examined so take heart in that. edit I should add that one of the biggest pieces of evidence of our expanding history is its metallicity history. Factors such as the density of hydrogen, lithium etc in our evolution history. The Saha equations in the nucleosynthesis link apply there. As well as the Bose_Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics.

ok, thank you very much. I appreciate your effort. I don't know enough about these formula to understand it properly. My idea is wrong then.

All observations are calibrated to include any relativistic effects. The evidence of expansion goes well beyond simply relativistic effects. They also go beyond those involved in cosmological redshift. These methods include those such as interstellar parallax, the various methods are collectively called the cosmological distance ladder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder Physicist can never rely on any single methodology in any given observation or experiment. In order to become Robust any theory must match any number of experimental and observational evidence. As far as the Hubble contention, there is ongoing evidence supporting that our local region is under-dense which has ramifications with regards to the near and far Hubble rates. This is something not mentioned in pop medial coverage of the JW telescope findings here is the related paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.12402 here is a later counter paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.04226 I post these to show other ongoing research beyond what you see in pop media. As shown there are other possibilities for the contention that go beyond claims of LCDM being incorrect or the BB itself. One thing most people also are not aware of is that the Hubble constant evolves over time. We call it a constant strictly in the historical sense. It isn't constant over time but merely constant everywhere at a given time. It should really be treated as simply a parameter. The Hubble parameter itself is in actuality decreasing in time in our Universe evolution history. the formula as a function of redshift is given by \[H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}\] this formula accounts for how matter density, radiation density and the Cosmological constant evolves overtime and its subsequent effects on our universe expansion rates. To understand how this formula is derived you would also require the equations of state for each which are a direct result of thermodynamics under the ideal gas laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) these equations of state are further applied to the FLRW deceleration oft call acceleration equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations included in last link. That link also ties into the first link. You will note that relativity is inclusive the GR EFE equation used is in the Newtonian limit. Here is the route to the equation. FLRW Metric equations \[d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2]\] \[S\kappa(r)= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}\] \[\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}\] \[H^2=(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2=\frac{8 \pi G}{3}\rho+\frac{\Lambda}{3}-\frac{k}{a^2}\] setting \[T^{\mu\nu}_\nu=0\] gives the energy stress mometum tensor as \[T^{\mu\nu}=pg^{\mu\nu}+(p=\rho)U^\mu U^\nu)\] \[T^{\mu\nu}_\nu\sim\frac{d}{dt}(\rho a^3)+p(\frac{d}{dt}(a^3)=0\] which describes the conservation of energy of a perfect fluid in commoving coordinates describes by the scale factor a with curvature term K=0. the related GR solution the the above will be the Newton approximation. \[G_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}\] Thermodynamics Tds=DU+pDV Adiabatic and isentropic fluid (closed system) equation of state \[w=\frac{\rho}{p}\sim p=\omega\rho\] \[\frac{d}{d}(\rho a^3)=-p\frac{d}{dt}(a^3)=-3H\omega(\rho a^3)\] as radiation equation of state is \[p_R=\rho_R/3\equiv \omega=1/3 \] radiation density in thermal equilibrium is therefore \[\rho_R=\frac{\pi^2}{30}{g_{*S}=\sum_{i=bosons}gi(\frac{T_i}{T})^3+\frac{7}{8}\sum_{i=fermions}gi(\frac{T_i}{T})}^3 \] \[S=\frac{2\pi^2}{45}g_{*s}(at)^3=constant\] temperature scales inversely to the scale factor giving \[T=T_O(1+z)\] with the density evolution of radiation, matter and Lambda given as a function of z \[H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}\] This I already had posted on this site under a thread I currently have underway regarding nucleosynthesis in our expanding universe and an examination of the various processes as a result. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128332-early-universe-nucleosynthesis/ The only reason I posted this thread in Speculations is that I wish to maintain the Privilege of toy modelling. However every single formula in that thread are commonly used and are main concordance formulas.

Don't pay to much attention to the pop media coverage of findings from the James Webb telescope for starters. No result from the James Webb telescope tells us that the universe isn't expanding. lets look at your scenario for a second, Expansion is roughly 70 km/Mpc/sec. That is extremely slow relative to the speed of light, especially considering that a single Mpc has roughly \[ 3.262*10^6\] light years. It is only at extreme distance that expansion becomes measurable, also it only occurs in regions that is not gravitationally bound. The evidence of an expanding universe occurs in a great deal of observational evidence. For example the CMB wouldn't even exist if expansion didn't occur. The temperature history which shows the universe cooling down as a direct result of expansion and how it applies to the ideal gas laws is another key piece of evidence. Cosmological redshift is another but certainly not the only piece of evidence

WTF are you talking about? A one dimensional view of life is better than the other three? Dude you're out of your depth... 😉

Yeah, to formulate his famous field equations of 1915 he spent a couple years learning tensor theory from his friend Marcel Grossman, instead of bellyaching that he couldn't do math and insisting others do it for him.

Yeah that's where I zoned out too. Maybe they meant that a mountain is a living ecosystem, but then they said the rocks themselves are conscious so being charitable with what they might have meant is difficult. Still, it wasn't as bad as Cladking saying animals live in four dimensions while humans live in one... sometimes I really do wonder how somebody made it through school. Reading that made me wish I really could squish myself down into just being in one dimension. I like this definition.

As far as I know cellulose, e.g. cotton, is hydrolysed by acid, so by H+ rather than H2O per se. Wool is keratin, which is a fibrous protein. The amide links in this can also be hydrolysed under acid conditions. I don't know whether in neutral water either of the these processes occurs at a perceptible rate, but I suppose it is conceivable over very long periods of time. Maybe someone else here knows more about it.

Alfred - Would it be okay if I suggested that perhaps for you anxiety is a bigger challenge than any of the marginal side effects vaccines and antibiotics may sometimes bring ever will be?

That red box suggests the answer was no. Ok. I never suggested your argument was wrong bc you seem anxiety ridden or obsessive about marginal risks. I asked a question.

It seems you are incapable of logic. The description of the geometry satisfies any sane criteria for the word "theory". To program it we need math. To understand that it logically describes everything requires no math. In fact, adding math is opposite from logical understanding. Math provides a quantized understanding, not a logical one.

Not anyone can be a scientist. This is only for noble people. Because in the way of knowledge there are usually lots of times in which one has to recognize he was wrong. Do we agree? I'll tell you about my case. I am 27 years old, I only finished high school, but I have found the cure of autism and a lot of chronic illnesses. It has always been hidden in plain sight. Not anyone can be a scientist because intelligence is not innate to everyone. And now we will wake up to having trusted in white smocks, and in people for their diplomas, for their having been able to repeat well. And just as intelligence is not innate to everyone so isn't nobility or a good heart. This way, there are lots of times in which there are perverse people, intelligent by the way, in places of influence. And these would own big sums of money, would work together, and shape us a system of mental conditioning in which we may think ourselves doing some big job, when it's only part of the biggest lie ever created. And when any of you be able to realize, which will be your reaction? Are you going to keep spinning on your hamster wheel? Or help us bring a better world? Solutions empower the people. Taking away the pacifier may upset some, but when solutions are put at hand, there is not much place for being a pain. We are learning the lesson worldwide. Guillermo Yacante Afonso. Search my name. Thank you.