Mordred

It's too bad cost is an issue, for long driveways one of the best tools I've used is the powerbrush snowsweeper. They work extremely well as long as you don't let the snow get too deep for the size of sweeper. Cleans right to the cement and helps with ice removal. In my experience they work far better than snow blowers. (Canadian living lol)

Just so your aware water waves follow a dipole transverse waveform. However gravity waves are transverse quadrupole due to spin 2 statistics. So while their is simularities, their is also a significant difference in how the two cause strain.

Too bad Bobcats are also expensive.

Yes your right its definitely outside the observational evidence. PS we cross posted on my last edit. Are you perchance alluding to some form of luminiferous ether? Ie an absolute frame of reference?

Well I certainly am not following your logic circle here. Observations and experimental evidence strongly supports GR with relative spacetime. You agree to its accuracy so why would you try to model absolute spacetime? Doesn't sound like a logical approach. Other than strictly Doppler shift you can't even have cosmological or gravitational redshift. They both require a change in mass density. Either through change in volume or simply change in distribution. Isn't it your goal to model a steady state universe? If so why tackle GR as well?

Thanks for sharing that last post.

Im happy with Canada's results though lol of course personal interest there.

+1 for that question Michel

What in the world do you mean by flat time? If your using GR, spacetime is a single entity.

Good example I even have to think about that one. +1

The observable portion for total mass yes and the same for around BB. We have no idea beyond the observable. To add to Delta1212 excellent post. If we were to take the slight curvature we have from flat via the Planck 2012 dataset. Assuming expansion stopped. If we were to fire a laser beam under that ever so slight curvature it would theotetically take 880 Billion years for the beam to return to its original point. This is of course assuming expansion were to suddenly stop. This is the closest approximation we can infer for a finite universe. However it is based on curvature. The cosmological constant however indicates with curvature that our universe is unbounded. Meaning it will expand forever

Oh now we have radioactive electrons. Everyone move away from your christmas trees, Lights etc. How do convert volume (space) into matter? Maybe you should google "electron" instead of making such embarassing statements.

Science recognizes the truth as to the best of our knowledge by recognizing there is always room for error. That is the recognized truth to science.

Fair enough lets start with basics first. [latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{\hbar c}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{\hbar c}[/latex] Here is your basic relations Gravitational redshift is [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex] Relativistic Doppler being [latex]\acute{\lambda}=\lambda\frac {\sqrt{1+v/c^2}}{\sqrt{1-v/c^2}}[/latex] Cosmological redshift being [latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex] So which would you like to see how it is derived first? I would recommend the relativistic doppler first but I will let you choose. In particular on e=mc^2. If I try to do gravitational and cosmological at the same time the post will get too lengthy. Actually lets save time I'll give you the relevant articles covering each. Cosmological redshift chapter 12. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi6hbf7zL_QAhXCgrwKHVAVAcsQFggiMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.damtp.cam.ac.uk%2Fuser%2Fdb275%2FCosmology%2FLectures.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGxvGWwx9QmCl2FyZLAUmB7lkZ7xQ This article details how to derive relativistic Doppler from the Lorentz transformations and also how to derive e=mc^2. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO1PDF/V12N1HAM.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiRhP66qN7QAhVN92MKHWu0A1oQFgggMAQ&usg=AFQjCNE7J5SUCJTwOV5K_By-nj7CZmOkQQ PS the first article covers the key formulas in Cosmology but there is a section on temperature influence on redshift.

Your making excellent progress though. Feel proud of how much you learned in such a short time. Oh I should have mentioned earlier use the lightcone calculator in my signature. Its a valuable aid.

Sure I'll be happy to look over your equations when you develop them. Its good training to try to model build. For wavelength you want to use the cosmological redshift equation. However for your proposal if I understand correctly show that it is equivalent to gravitational redshift. However I will forewarn you this has been tried using proper distance. Which will only take you to the Hubble horizon. You won't be able to use commoving distance as this would counter your model.

close but not quite. We can see superluminal recessive velocity. At z=1104 we can see a recessive velocity of 3.2 c. This is correct which is why its handy for us.

Hubble horizon is the distance light can reach us based upon the linear equation v=Hd. It doesn't account for the accelerating expansion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cosmological_horizons See the equations under Hubble horizon and event horizon. Particle horizon being simply c×age of universe. This wiki article places it at 4.1 Gpc. The cosmological event however is 14.3 Gpc. Theoretically the farthest we will ever be able to recieve a signal in the future is roughly 19 Gpc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe Think of it this way without going into too much detail. Hubble horizon was at one time the theoretical limit before we discovered the cosmological constant.

No the Hubble limit isn't the edge. The cosmological event horizon is.

Well DM starts collected before Baryonic matter. Its a little complex to explain why. However it has a lot to do with thermal equilibrium and when particles drop out of thermal equilibrium. Which isn't easily explained. One of the articles I posted to you covers this without detailing DM itself.

I did some digging as nearly as I can tell the earliest model for antimatter universe was proposed by Omnes back in 1969. Unfortunately his original paper is behind a pay wall. However here is a brief paper at a slightly later date. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.38&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi01cGJ-93QAhUFS2MKHUWWAPk4ChAWCC8wCA&usg=AFQjCNH0q0DNx8WhRtRO_RmHaTk1-kEO9w You might try digging deeper before declaring such. It took me less than 1/2 hour to find previous publications on this proposal.

excellent post +1, very accurate and succinct.

Alot of these ideas came out long before we were able to create antimatter at the LHC. These models never got very far, I am familiar with them. They were based on the idea that antimatter had properties other than the opposite charge. Two ideas were involved antimatter acts as antigravity and subsequently anti-time. Todays modern particle physics now know that antimatter is identical to matter with just the opposite charge. It is affected by gravity and time in the same way regular matter is. In point of detail antimatter is constantly being generated in our universe by stars etc. Our Earth is regularly bombarded with antimatter and we have measured the annihilations in our upper atmosphere. Originally these proposals were meant to account for baryogenesis and leptogenesis. Which is the reason for the inequality in matter to antimatter distribution. SO(10) Pati-Salam subgroup may hold the answer with chirality breaking when you include the Higgs metastability. The Ops claim of being the first to publish this claim however is false. I've read articles on this proposal back in the late 80's I even tried to develop my own variation back in the 80's. Here is a published paper on the subject back in 1997. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwil84LP893QAhVC-2MKHcS2BXoQFggmMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcds.cern.ch%2Frecord%2F329585%2Ffiles%2F9707087.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFTt9RFbjDcmKKfaDa9JRzCNZ7DlA This isn't even the Earliest variation I've read.

DM as far as we know only interacts with the weak force and gravity. Yes we do have evidence that DM clusters around large scale structures. Yes it's highly likely to be present within Galaxies etc. There is even some thought as to being present within stars. We don't know for sure on that one. However it is viable.

Good question. The answer surprisingly is yes to a certain extent. To understand that you can examine expansion itself. If the region immediately outside or observable portion had a different mass distribution. Ie one greater or less mass average per volume. This would influence our observable portion by causing a preferred direction to expansion. Ie you would have an effective pressure gradient. So if the pressure outside our OU. Is less than our OU expansion will be anistropic. Same if the pressure is greater it would essentially compress our OU. As we do not see any anistropy in expansion we can safely assume it has the same mass distribution as our observable portion. Lol you have no idea just how many altetnative models get overthrown by not being able to maintain the cosmological principle. However there is a limit to how far we can apply this. For example if your far enough away from our OU that there can never be any possible causal connection. You can have a completely different dynamic that will never influence our OU.