Mordred

sure we can. We can measure its properties and interactions. We don't need to know the ultimate building blocks of particles to understand how they behave. Particles are simply made up of smaller particles. The most fundamental we know of currently being quarks and gluons. Whether they are of smaller constituents we currently have no evidence for.

lol Should have no problem posting the math then. Or for that matter showing the mathematical proof of his model.

Nah its more fun not having any answers handed to us. That includes faith, which wouldn't be needed if there was no doubt of a creator. The very reason I enjoy physics is the challenge. Regardless of whether or not its the wrong tree. One often learns more from mistakes than getting the answer right the first time.

But if we don't have to look for answers life would be extremely boring. How can one improve himself if he nothing to strive for? How does one develop his self confidence without being challenged? Quite frankly I wouldn't want all the answers handed to me by some religion or diety. Life would become meaningless without challenges.

I did maybe you should spend time understanding my repeated answer to that question. Secondly I never claimed to be a professor my degree is Masters. Tell me is the reason you don't understand my answer is because it conflicts with your personal theory? You have been repeatably told "Of course local anistropy warps spacetime and causes gravitational effects" What do you think a gravity well is? = Spacetime warping. Can I spell that out for you in any simpler terms? Do you not read my posts? That IS NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is these warps are not Free gravitational fields and they DO NOT mean dark matter is not in particle form. lastly what of "You must present the math to support those two assertions do you not understand"

Historically speaking in some areas we are regaining knowledge. The base we stand upon is our recorded history of research. Its a fairly solid base. Yes it would be nice to find the original scripts. However I don't see how not finding them will prevent us from understanding science. Even in the scenario of current open questions such as the beginning of the universe. Which we still haven't answered.

I don't know where you got your numbers from but those are not the radiated power values of a GW wave. Radiated power is in units of watts determined by the following formula [latex]P=\frac{de}{dt}=\frac{32}{5}\frac{G^4}{c^5}\frac{(m_1m_2)^2(m_1+m_2)}{r^2}[/latex]

I hear this a lot "Science gets in the way of understanding the physics of the universe" Never did make sense to me. Its usually by those that fully don't understand the scientific method. We never state "this is the way it is", we simply state to the best of our research the following holds as a reasonable approximation. We never stop trying to improve our understanding of any formula, model or theory. Not even those well tested over time. Even formulas as simple as f=ma is tested and retested in numerous and more elaborate tests. Some models even exist where f=ma is no longer considered accurate. MOND for example. I'm not going to get into a debate of religion vs science. Quite frankly I see no need for any competition between the two. Nowhere in the bible does it state "man shall remain ignorant" Quite frankly anyone that uses religion as a crutch to learning science is simply hurting themself. There is no reason why one cannot study physics or other sciences and still follow their religion.

Yes your correct the term flat for cosmology is different than the flat relation in GR. For expansion the following will help This is for all contributors (photons, matter, radiation etc). So first we replace [latex]\rho(t)[/latex] mass density with energy density in the form [latex]\epsilon(t)/c^2[/latex] the GR form of the Freidmann equations is in the Newton limit in GR, this is low gravity such as stars, galaxies, LSS etc. It is a specific class solution in GR. This gives the form of [latex](\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2[/latex][latex]=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\frac{\epsilon(t)}{c^2}[/latex][latex]-\frac{kc^2}{R_0^2}\frac{1}{a^2(t)}[/latex] If [latex]k\le0[/latex] and the energy density is positive, then the R.H.S of the last equation is always positive. This is an expanding universe that will expand forever. If matter is the dominant form of energy, as opposed to radiation this implies [latex]\epsilon\propto \frac{1}{a^2(t)}[/latex]. If k=+1 then the R.H.S must eventually reach 0, after which the universe will contract. To get to the density parameter we can substitute [latex]H(t)=(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2[/latex] and we can rewrite the above equation into the Hubble parameter. (note I hate calling it constant, as its only constant at a particular moment in time) [latex]H(t)=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\frac{\epsilon(t)}{c^2}[/latex][latex]-\frac{kc^2}{R_0^2}\frac{1}{a^2(t)}[/latex] if k=0 then [latex]\rho_c(t)=\frac{\epsilon_c(t)}{c^2}=\frac{3H^2(t)}{8\pi G}[/latex] with the following density parameter relations [latex]\Omega=\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon_c}=\frac{\epsilon}{c^2}*\frac{8\pi G}{3H^3}[/latex] The above details how the acceleration/deceleration works with the Hubble parameter. In essence a combination of gravity and thermodynamics. If a particle contributors self energy exceeds its self gravity we get expansion. Loosely put. There really isn't one cause that we can just point to and say its due to pressure or temperature etc. Its a combination of gravity, density, pressure and temperature plus particle degrees of freedom. These all contribute in an elaborate juggling act. An oversimplification is potential energy (gravity) vs kinetic energy (particle momentum) however this isn't the full story. Nor is it particularly accurate in all cases. One example matter collapse into LSS assists expansion as the global mass density decreases due to the collapse. This is also why one must use the scale factor when calculating redshift for the cosmological redshift. As opposed to the objects velocity as per gravitational redshift. The volume change causes the latter method to become inaccurate at higher z values. PS flat can mean many things. It simply describes the geometric shape of a specified relation. That relation or calculation to determine flat is different in cosmology than in GR. PS you can tell your actually studying the material we presented to you in other threads +1

mass curves spacetime. This forms gravity wells. It does not form free gravitational fields as gravity is all one field. Not multiple fields. Though one can mathematically isolate systems or regions this does not mean they are not part of the global metric. The influences can influence the global metric and vise versa as I have already shown. However they remain interconnected. Not isolated. I have provided two examples. One where local changes affect the global metric and one where a change in the global metric affects the local metric. This shows localized gravity wells are NOT free gravitational fields. A free gravitational field is one that is isolated from the global metric. I have demonstrated in two methodologies that this is not the case. Demonstrating how localized regions are connected to the global system. Gravity wells are simply put anistropy regions under a global metric. (Global field) if you like. but they are not FREE from the Global gravitational field. You cannot remove the source of the mass. Doing so changes the field curvature. You have your answer. Any other declarations against the above requires math from you. Oh and dark matter is in particle matter form. Not a result of free gravitational fields which by your description CANNOT exist. Once again any declarations otherwise requires math from you. Otherwise this thread will end up being locked. It is a requirement in Speculations forum.

I concur and I am positive the moderators also concur as it is a speculations forum requirement. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/#entry839842 I'd like to touch on this incorrect statement. Gravitational collapse aids expansion. Take a homgeneous and isotropic initial condition. As inhomogeniety occurs, the average density of matter drops, due to pooling into large sale structure formation. This means gravity has less influence on the voids away fro the LSS. The very fact that gravity tends to condense into the LSS regions alone aids expansion. However we would need some rules governing LSS formation. For this we will use strictly a non relativistic matter only fluid. Just matter.... Well one set of rules has to do with Jeans mass, Primordial density fluctuations expand linearly at a rate slower than the rate of expansion. This induces localized anistropy regions that sets up two possibilities locally. Inflow and outlfow of matter. the dividing line between the two possibilities can be found by the following argument. Let the time of freefall into the overdense region be [latex]t_g=1/\sqrt{G_\rho}[/latex] sound waves in a medium propogate with velocity [latex]c_s=\sqrt{\frac{\partial p}{\partial\rho}}[/latex] so they move one wavelength in the time [latex]t_s=\lambda/c_s[/latex] when t_g is shorter than t_s the fluctuation is unstable and will continue to grow until it collapses locally setting T_g as equal to T_s we find the Jeans instability, Which correlates the rate of expansion and collapse locally due to gravity itself (locally only) [latex]\lambda_j=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{G\rho}}c_s[/latex] So we can see from this that expansion and gravity both aid in large scale structure formation. That large scale structure formation in turn helps the rate of expansion by the following equation. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] as expansion increases and the LSS develop the matter density evolves by the ratio in the last equation. This alters the rate of expansion compared to the rate today by the last equation. You will note radaition and matter both evolve but the cosmological constant does not. If you truly look and study the thermodynamics of particles, you will find nothing is more natural than an expanding or collapsing universe. Expansion is literally a thermodynamic process. (Though were still trying to fit the cosmological constant under thermodynamic process) possible solution is the Higgs metastability. Essentially from the above if the matter wavelength (Jeans mass wavelength) is significantly smaller than the Hubble expansion. Locally gravity will collapse, this local collapse will in turn aid expansion by lowering the global mass density average.

no they show local hidden variables are NOT viable. Here is a simplified article written by someone I consider incredibly knowledgable on the subject. I've had numerous conversations with him in the past. http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm Swansont had a decent coverage on hidden variables previously I'll see if I can dig it up. Found it thankfully QM forums isn't a busy one lol. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/

Thanks much appreciated I have a copy of Principles of Relativity which has a collection of these papers but would prefer the seperate manuscripts.

Very good but not quite accurate. A homogeneous and isotropic fluid has equal pressure on every point on an object. So as the volume changes this relationship still holds on expansion. The object gains no inertia as the sum of force in any direction equals zero. This however doesn't prevent the volume from changing between two objects. The objects themself do not move but the distance between them change due to volume change. Correlating this back to pressure we can accurately express that expansion is not due to pressure as their is no pressure gradient to cause a flow. However pressure can still perform the work for expansion. This is where it differs in your room example. In the case of expansion it modelled as an adiabatic solution. (no net inflow or outflow). This is also why superluminal expansion does not violate GR. As it is not an inertial change.

Scientists already know GR isn't complete as it cannot directly handle singularity issues

I still don't understand why you haven"t posted any math to even be able to design that simulator. I've given you all the relevant equations. Those equations can be adapted to practically any model. That was my purpose in posting them. Yes I gave examples of how to use them according to mainstream physics. Its up to you now to use those equations and properly develop your model. Until you have the math. You do not have a model. When a physicist says I have a theory. He has completed the math. He has the groundwork that allows his theory to be tested. So the very fact that you claim a theory without posting the mathematical model tells me your not a scientist. The issue I have raised is not secondary. If you perform the math you will see it is of utmost importance. How can you possibly have a free gravitational field not tied to the mass that defined the field distribution? That makes no sense. You really need to start thinking in terms global vs localized. I hope but not sure you mean not tied to the Hubble flow. Which is a tethered vs non tethered galaxy. Please clarify, there is some discussion in those links I provided on tethered vs non tethered galaxies. Speaking of simulations The current model is well tested via an extremely complex simulator. http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10 http://www.illustris-project.org/ http://arxiv.org/ftp...5/1405.1418.pdf As the particle based DM has been successfully simulated when your model has not. Your model is the more speculative. You CANNOT have a free gravitational field not tied to the mass distribution. You cannot have a gravitational effect without having a mass distribution. You cannot define a gravitational effect without having a mass distribution. You can't even define a gravitational field without its mass distribution local or global You really need to sit down and actually use the equations. You don't remove the cause of the gravity well, that defines the dimensions of that well and then state the well is the source. OK this is getting redundant. I will demonstrate proper modelling. First we define the problem. We would like to see if there is a correlation between Hubble expansion and dark matter halo size as a function of cosmological redshift. step two define a halo. The accepted norm is the cutoff for galaxy/halo is when the density is 200 times the critical density. [latex]M=\frac{4\pi}{3}r^3_{200} 200\rho_{cr}[/latex] critical density is [latex]\rho_{cr}(z)=\frac{3H^2(z)}{8\pi G}[/latex] so [latex]M=\frac{100^3_{200}H^2(z)}{G}[/latex] the virial velocity of the Halo is the circular velocity at the virial radius [latex]V^2_{200}=\frac{GM}{r_{200}}[/latex] therefore [latex]M=\frac{V^3_{200}} {10H(z)}[/latex] Hubble constant increases with lookback time H(z) At higher redshift the size of the halo of a given mass is smaller at a high redshift than the same mass at a lower redshift. Which makes sense as the average density of the Universe increases in the past. By the relation [latex](1+z)^3[/latex] The profiles of dark matter are well simulated by the NFW (Navarro-Frenk-White profile) [latex]\rho r=\frac{\rho_s}{(\frac{r}{ r_s})(\frac{1+r}{ r_s})^2} [/latex] where [latex]\rho_s, r_s[/latex] are scaling parameters. when [latex]r<r_s: \rho\propto r^{-1}[/latex] when [latex]r>r_s: \rho\propto r^{-3}[/latex] We can define a concentration parameter (dimensionless) as [latex]\rho_s= \frac{200}{3}\rho_{cr} z \frac{c^3}{ln(1+c)-(\frac{c}{1+c})}[/latex] where simulations will be needed to define the concentration index. Though the handout from one of my courses ( which is where I got this example) gives an approximate value [latex]c\propto \frac{M^{-1/9}}{M_{halo-mass}}(1+z)^{-1}[/latex] This example is from one of my courses, I do not know where it originated. I simply have it as a handout sheet. Might be Dr.M Franx but not positive However it is a good demonstration of MODEL REQUIREMENTS. We now fill the need of having a testable model. PS side note I can tell right off just looking at this we will need to adjust this at higher redshift's beyond Hubble Horizon. So this will be an approximation but not fully accurate once you start hitting the non linear portion of the scale factor. I question whether (1+z)^3 will be sufficiently accurate. I would consider replacing it with [latex]z=\frac {H_0l^2}{c+\frac {1}{2}(1+q_0)H^2_0l^2/c^2+O (H^3_0l^3)}[/latex]. Now assuming the above tests correctly we can see that global expansion can influence in a small way the size of a DM halo. However it would follow the difference between critical density vs halo density. However I would note the possibility Without declaring the above is correct or accurate

I already know how the original derivitaves looked. I did research the topic. However thanks for the offer. Tell me do you recall this quote directly from one of Lorentz memoirs? "such was my thought - coordinate axes which have a fixed position in the aether and which we can call "true" time;" You will know you have the right paper when you see the following transforms. [latex]\acute{x}=kl(x+\epsilon t), \acute{y}=ly,\acute{z}=lz,\acute{t}=kl(t+\epsilon x)[/latex] However even this is one of his later forms. 1914 I believe Two Papers of Henri Poincaré on Mathematical Physics by H. A. Lorentz I used to have several of his older papers but can't recall where I stored them. If you happen to have reprint copies of his older works. I would be obliged. I enjoy studying how models were historically developed. The one mentioned above is still easily found. As far as this thread goes we both seem to agree its run its course.

what a weak argument, every astrophysicist is not locked in stone on BBT. There are thousands of counter models. LCDM is still the best fit. We don't make the math complex simply out of whim. They become complex to as accurately as possible predict any possible dynamic involved. Much like QM and its statistical probability equations of a waveform. If you actually sit down and study the math of GR and the FLRW metric you would know it has the flexibility to model any type of universe. Not just our own. It can model infinite/finite, universes of any curvature value. The only thing neither can directly deal with is singularities. However they can be adapted under different coordinates to remove the mathematical singularities. The reasons your threads get locked is that you get stubborn your view is correct. Yet do not know the math to support your view. Instead you make inaccurate statements that we have to spend pages upon pages of posts correcting. However if you sat down and actually learned the model you would not make those mistskes that causes everyone else so much grief in correcting.

in a sense you're right a hidden mechanism is similar to a hidden variable. However good luck finding the hidden mechanism to predict superposition. The paper above does not predict the superposition state before examination. Invite me as a guest to your Nobel prize when you do lol. Do you understand what is meant by determism within the system state ?. Local vs global with regards to system states?

Sorry but quite frankly Lorentz first approach to the problem was to assume a frame that is always at rest. the Ether frame. It wasn't until Einstein who showed this as not being necessary. Even Poincare felt an ether must exist. I love how you ignore this key detail the transformations you see today is not his original transformations. There is several stepping stones that led to the modern form. Do you even understand the purpose behind an ether frane? your responses indicate to me that you don't. A Lorentz ether frame is an absolute space where true time is represented. It is by every definition a preferred frame or absolute frame. In essence this frame is more real than any other frame. Its here-now is true spacetime while every other frame has coordinate time You keep trying to state the modern day transformation maintains the Ether theory by ignoring the philosophical treatment of time itself. Preferred frame vs no frame preference. presentism =preferred frame eternalism =no preferred frame. Can I be any more obvious? any theory or model that implies here-now is more real indicates a frame preference. It states specifically here-now whatever frame that may be is more real than any other moment in time. Which directly conflicts with relativity. There is no frame preference. No moment in time is more real than any other I really don't know how many times I have to repeat this before you finally clue in. Of course your previous argument is that block papers are wrong, to defend your personal "relativistic presentism". Which is a garbage argument. If your going to use Block terminologies stick with how that terminology is defined.

quantum fluctuations require some energy source to perform the work in creating the virtual particle pair. They do not arise out of nothing. Your father is right. For example virtual particles can arise from temperature such as the blackbody temperature of a BH. (Hawkings radiation) potential differences between two plates with an insulator (Casimir effect) To understand the Casimiir effect you must first understand quantum vacuum A vacuum is not simply nothing at all, but is best pictured as a superposition of many different states of electromagnetic field. In the instance specifically of the Casimiir effect. Were not concerned with other fields for the Casimiir effect. However every field has fluctuations. These fluctuations give rise to quantum fluctuations via the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. It is not free energy.

at that time photons, quark/gluon plasma. Inflation doesn't particularly push particles its rather a rapid expansion of volume due to a phase change. Which closely ties to electroweak symmetry breaking. Do you understand the quantum tunneling aspects behind Guth's false vacuum?

Oh my I couldn't stop laughing. I was nearly in stitches. Though your point is clear. David instead of trying to prove why BBT doesn't work. Try first studying why it does work. Why do 1000's of professional astrophysicists/cosmologists agree with LCDM as being our best fit. Then when you understand why it is the best fit you can isolate what doesn't fit PS that requires learning the math and proper definitions. I've often tinkered with the idea of designing a personal model in speculations just to demonstrate how to properly model build.

I really see your having difficulty understanding here. Of course gravity wells have gravitational effects. Why would you think otherwise? That is not the issue. The issue is you cannot describe dark matter in one instant as having every characteristics of a massive particle. Which contributes to the mass of the gravity well. Then on the next instant claim dark matter isn't in massive particle but an optical effect from those gravity wells. That is my point. Dark matter is by every characteristics a massive particle. It does not make sense to claim gravity wells/Hubble bubbles can show dark matter as being not a massive particle. Not when dark matter contributes to the gravity wells/Hubble bubbles in precisely the manner of slow moving matter identically in every sense to baryonic matter. The LCDM model accounts for the optical effects due to DM's gravitational influence which has the identical equation of state as baryonic matter. [latex]w=0[/latex] one care to note as DM doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force. Its temperature contribution is slightly different than say protons which has the additional degree of freedom. To understand what I mean by this you need to use the Bose-Einstein/ Fermi Dirac ststistics or for non equilibrium systems the Maxwell Boltzmann equations. Chapter 4. http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Ok lets do an equation of state for air molecules at room temperature. DM will actually have similar characteristics with the exception of electromagnetic interaction. Its velocity for this purpose we will assume is identical. So lets set velocity of DM/air molecules at roughly 500 m/s. [latex] P=w\epsilon [/latex] w is a dimensionless parameter. [latex]c_s^2=\frac{dp}{d\rho}=\frac{dp}{d\epsilon}=wc^2 [/latex] For non relativistic gas [latex]P=\rho k T/\mu [/latex] where [latex]\mu [/latex] is the mean mass. [latex]\epsilon^2=\rho c^2 [/latex] so [latex]p=\frac{kT}{c^2\mu}\epsilon[/latex] [latex]w=\frac{1}{3}\frac{v^2}{c^2}[/latex] if you plug 500 m/s into the last equation [latex]w=10^{-12}[/latex] pressure is essentially zero when you plug w into [latex]w=p\epsilon[/latex] So the equation of state for dark matter is identical to the equation of state for baryonic matter. All non relativistic particles have equation of state w=0 which means far less than unity 1 not exactly zero. Pressure contribution zero or extremely close to zero. Let me know if you follow this so far because next I want to use that equation of state on large scale structure formation. Tying that into how LSS formation assists expansion. PS its rather neat that the faster matter collapses into large scale structures the faster the universe expands.

for the Lorentz transforms that is correct. However for the Lorentz ether that isn't correct lol. A preferred reference frame always at rest or a fundamental observer was the entire purpose of Lorentz ether. This isn't the same as the modern day Lorentz transformations which is symmetric under constant velocity.