Mordred

excellent post MigL describes it succintly.

Well at least now we know you don't have the math supporting your theory. To the last post the global vs local observational influence. They manifest observationally via two seperate equations. Both while related are due to two seperate causes. Gravitational redshift vs Cosmological redshift. Both equations while they seem related are distinctly derived from two different line elements (Worldline). This also accounts for gravitational lensing. Which by the way was my original request. I already gave the wordline for the FLRW metric above. That's your global background. Note the scale factor a(t) where t is a commoving observer. The volume change is the cause for cosmological redshift. On The local anistropy regions Galaxies etc the gravitational redshift is derived via the Newton limit solutions under GR. The rate of large scale structure formation with dark matter can be approximated via the Jean's equation. Now I have to ask Do you the math behind Worldlines in GR ? Can I jump to the math? On second thought lets save time. Tamara Davies gives a simplified coverage of both redshifts http://www.google.ca/url?q=https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjT2JbOsr3QAhWFMGMKHU5VBDQQFggbMAM&usg=AFQjCNFE9aQDrUBHk91mW2m2K0ME7UyISQ Another good paper is Hogg's Distance measures in Cosmology https://arxiv.org/pd...h/9905116v4.pdf. For Newton limit http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~vincent/4500.6-001/Cosmology/Newtonian_Limit-Geodesic-Equations.htm I hope your already familiar with [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}[/latex] I for one cannot think of a single GR introductory textbook that doesn't cover this metric It is a basic GR equation. If not let me know and we can better detail it. Of course DM will have indirect observational influence. Described as pressureless matter in The Newton approximation. Key note matter being a fermionic particle. However the gravitational redshift influence is accountable and regularly done. Example integrated Sache Wolfe effect. For intermediate gravity wells between the emitter and observer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect This can essentially model the DM influence upon observation. Ie Hubble bubble's (sounds like a bad chewing gum lol). I'll stick to gravity wells lol.

I believe I have stated my issue several times now. Please show how you define DM as Hubble bubbles without DM being a particle mass. Is that clear enough, as Swansont and I pointed out this requires some equations. mathematically show how your theory differs from LCDM. Which does not describe the above. I have no real issue with your descriptive of Hubble bubbles describing a localized overdense region. Though it is not a terminology I would use. I have issue with you stating this explains why we can't detect DM as it is not in particle form but due to Hubble bubbles. By the way the terminology I would use is simply Gravity well as this denotes a localized inhomogeneous and anistropic metric. Where the global metric is homogenous and isotropic. (uniform). Do you have the mathematical solutions describing the above ?

"thermodynamics in an expanding universe." A little on the math heavy side. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjqvprFxr_QAhUQ_WMKHVRLDIQQFggcMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.personal.psu.edu%2Fduj13%2FASTRO545%2Fnotes%2Fch4-ExpandingThermodanamics.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG9oF7OYmRjYL0n0Yl1j8eaEz2BXg Your in luck though I found an open source full length lecture note on thermodynamics. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi6hbf7zL_QAhXCgrwKHVAVAcsQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww3.nd.edu%2F~powers%2Fame.20231%2Fnotes.pdf&usg=AFQjCNED3Gx272wGY3Nfzwk2-_C1tC4iwA "Local thermal equilibrium is then reached before the effect of the expansion becomes relevant. As the universe cools, the rate of interactions may decrease faster than the expansion rate. At tc tH , the particles decouple from the thermal bath. Different particle species may have different interaction rates and so may decouple at different times." From this link, this process creates the CMB itself. 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 I am curious what exactly is your definition of Density? Density. Density is the mass per unit volume. This means that the density of any solid, liquid or gas can be found by dividing its mass in kilograms by its volume in cubic metres. So any volume change by definition and mathematical, results in a change in density. You tried to state that expansion does not result in a density decrease but the very definition of density tells you otherwise. It is the repetition of these mistakes which makes trying to teach you cosmology extremely fustrating. As the repetition indicates your not learning. Or you are missing key details in your posts. Are you perhaps referring to the cosmological constant influence upon conservation of energy? Side note: Recall an earlier statement I made to there being a cosmological redshift to temperature relationship? see first link section 4.6.4 Please recall a change in mass density also changes temperature/pressure and entropy density (and vice versa in any change mentioned)

No that is not what I think. The term presentism is incompatible with relativity. The term relativistic presentism is a contradiction in terminology. The main difference between Minkoswkii vs Lorentz ether is that Lorentz ether is a preferred frame. While Minkowskii is not. Both use 3d+1 spacetime with variable time. The difference is having a preferred frame or not having a preferred frame. Einstein showed a preferred frame is unnecessary which is part of the relativity principle today. Presentism is a preferred frame (here-now) while in eternalism all frames are equal. t-assymetry vs t-symmetry with the assumption constant velocity. For clarity all observers will see the Lorentz ether frame (at rest) but every other frame as inertial. presentism In Minkowskii/Einstein all frames are inertial with no preference on choice of rest frame. The rest frame is an equivalent arbitrary choice.= eternalism

BS the thermodynamic laws of physics alone state that expansion causes a density decrease. Which has been pointed out to you before

These caveats are essentially accurate, however your theory that dark matter can be explained by those caveats is not accurate. How can you replace the mass term of DM by a term that requires DM to define the rate of expansion in the first place? If you remove the mass of pressureless dust including dark matter you cannot define the spacetime geometry of an LSS in the first place. It is the major mass source. So your Hubble spheres cannot be defined without dark matter being treated as pressureless dust just as baryonic matter is. The reason DM is difficult to detect is not because it isn't in particle form. All radiation, and matter is in particle form. Matter is fermionic particles, light etc is bosonic particles So even your radiation is treated in particle form. We even treat the cosmological constant itself in particle form but in this instance its more of a placeholder. Outside of topic but you can ask clarification if you need. The reason dark matter is difficult to detect is that it doesn't couple to the electromagnetic field nor the the strong force. Not because it isn't in particle form. Physicist treat every form of energy in particle form. Their equations of state determine its pressure contribution. Now I ask you "how can you possibly state dark matter does not require particle form" when a) it is cold non relativistic. b) has all the properties best represented as fermionic as opposed to bosonic. c) is the major contributor to mass in the LSS. Which you require to establish the gravitational structure of an LSS. So how can you possibly state dark matter is due to individual Hubble spheres yet state it explains dark matter when dark matter determines those Hubble spheres in the first place? That is a logical error. Your essentially stating your can explain something as non existent by a dynamic caused by the dark matter in the first place. Without DM as pressureless mass you cannot define your LSS geometry in the first place. So you cannot replace DM as due to Hubble spheres when DM defines those Hubble spheres. that would be like having an effect without a cause As far as DM being weakly interactive neutrinos and DM share many of the same characteristics. However neutrinos have little mass and are relativistic. A possible modern explanation for DM is "Sterile neutrinos". Both neutrinos and DM don't interact with the strong force nor electromagnetic radiation. They both may interact with the weak force. All particles interact with gravity as gravity is spacetime geometry. However it is the distribution of those particles that determine the geometry in the first place. So trying to explain how the geometry accounts for DM when DM is included to determine the geometry is a logical error. This is essentially how your opening post reads by analogy. I can show how localized curvature not influenced by global expansion can explain dark matter. But first I need dark matter to define the local geometry. Your trying to describe DM as a geometry effect but at the same time use DM to determine your geometry

I think you need to examine the math involved. Both baryonic matter and DM are included in the FLRW metric under pressureless matter. Hopefully you at least understand the math in GR. I still don't know. Which I will have to assume you don't know the math involved. At least until you confirm you understand the field equations. The FLRW metric itself doesn't concern specifically the localized anistropy regions of the Large scale structure formation. However it does include that formation by taking into consideration their formation. The formation of LSS including the dark matter component reduces the global average density . This collapse into LSS assists expansion. Now here is the problem. Dark matter and the cosmological constant is your two major mass contributors under the FLRW metric. The other player being radiation. Baryonic matter contained in LSS structure formation accounts for roughly 3% of the mass budget. Now here is the direct conflict with stating you do not require DM in particle form. You will end up with the wrong equation of state for dark matter. DM has equation of state w=0. It is cold which means non relativistic. Its equation of state does not add any pressure influence. Which is the same treatment as baryonic matter. Energy doesn't exist on its own. It is a property of particles. Just to add this caveat.

I agree dark matter warps spacetime just as any other form of mass. However your claim of dark matter not requiring to be of particle form but of Hubble warps is what I question. This is specifically what I want the math showing.

No but I didn't redirect your post the moderators did so. Mainstream section is concordance model or understanding only not personal model ideas. I cannot help you without assessing your mathematical understanding of GR. I believe I requested math not words show me your knowledge on the subject via the Worldlines. Do you understand my request? We have had publishers in the past post on this forum on books they wrote about GR that had no math skill in GR. Their entire book didn't include a single equation beyond simplistic Lorentz formulas. Yet they made outlandish claims without any math involved. I seriously hope your not in this crowd. This entire post can be described as local vs a global metric. Locally the anistropy regions as they condense into LSS structures assist expansion. However none of the above shows how you derive the equivalent to the NFW profile for galaxy rotation curves. Nor does it show the mathematics involved in weak field lensing. Did you not read my request in my first reply? You wrote a book entitled " Relativity Made Easy, The Hidden Principles" Showing the math should be a breeze for you. Either show the math or admit you have no math to support the claims in this post.

Those are are the reasons I include links so you can verify my statements and understanding without relying on my word on the subject. It takes some time to get a handle on these aspects as the textbooks themselves only involve the basics. Which is why you rarely see the corrected formulas for high z. That's something that comes up in advanced studies and courses. Here this is from one of my courses. Here is the workup starting with the FLRW ds^2 line element. The last equation is the corrected redshift formula when recessive velocity exceeds c. O above is leading order. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_approximation

The major problem here is that the Planck energy density is roughly 120 orders of magnitude too high. This is a known problem in QM. "However, most Planck units are many orders of magnitude too large or too small to be of practical use, so that Planck units as a system are really only relevant to theoretical physics. In fact, 1 Planck unit is often the largest or smallest value of a physical quantity that makes sense according to our current understanding." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Derived_units

Those models run into problems beyond Hubble horizon. afiak. [latex]1+z=\frac{\lambda_{observered}}{\lambda_{rest}}=\frac{R_o}{R(t)}=\frac{1}{a(t)}[/latex] This equation gives the cosmological redshift, however I cannot stress enough that it is not due to the velocity of receeding objects, only by the increase in the scale factor a(t) since time t. The equation above however is a basic equation that details local redshift. It gets inaccurate at higher redshifts once you get beyond Hubble horizon, when the value of recessive velocity given by [latex]V_r=H_oD[/latex] where v becomes greater than c. If you try to apply the time dilation equations to the recessive velocity values you will hit infinity at the Hubble horizon when v=c. Tamara Davies gives a simplified coverage of this aspect here. http://www.google.ca/url?q=https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjT2JbOsr3QAhWFMGMKHU5VBDQQFggbMAM&usg=AFQjCNFE9aQDrUBHk91mW2m2K0ME7UyISQ The main points is the assumption of constant expansion used in Hubble's recessive velocity formula will give you incorrect results when applied to the time dilation formulas. The correct methodology is to use the scale factor (which evolves over time) and not recessive velocity. Another good article covering this is by Hogg's Distance measures in Cosmology\ https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9905116v4.pdf hope that helps PS side note there is also k corrections for luminosity distance past z=5.0

No time dilation doesn't apply to the FLRW metric. [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2][/latex] [latex]S\kappa,r= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}[/latex] In this line element you have the Newton approximation given by the Minkowskii/Lorentz equations. However this is in the polar coordinate form. The scale factor a adds a new dynamic to the volume spatial terms. Time dilation requires an inhomogeneous distribution of matter but when you have a homogenous and isotropic fluid with uniform distribution at a particular moment in time such as now. Time dilation does not occur at any particular time slice. So even though there is a higher density past. This is simply due to volume change over time and not time dilation.

Hubble warps. Have you got any of the appropriate math showing how this is possible with the thermodynamic correlations to the Einstein field equations ?. My guess is no. For one thing dark matter has an equation of state w=0. Hubble constant does not have an equation of state. How do you simultaneously use a Hubble warpage to explain galaxy rotation curves which require a uniform distribution of mass (Hubble constant isn't a mass/energy value). Gravitational lensing itself and early large scale structure formation using different regional values of Hubbles constant? Please post your math showing how this is possible. Not your worded theory, but your mathematical proof. Side note though your book Relativity made easy. Does it properly include the math of the Einstein field equations ? The second side note, as the model for dark matter above is not a mainstream textbook ie taught in schools answer. This thread should belong in our Speculations forum. edit: I see the moderators agree, I would like to see your light path World lines as it switches Hubble regions. By all rights you will not get anywhere close to the following Worldline. [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2][/latex] [latex]S\kappa,r= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}[/latex] With acceleration equation relations [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] This leads to [latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex] Please show the above under your different density Hubble regions. Each Hubble region will have different refractive indexes, different light path curvature influences with significant change as it crosses your boundary conditions. Please show this, under GR the four momentum is adequate if you prefer working in the EFE as opposed to the FLRW. I understand both metrics

I would add That has real world applications.

I'm not about to waste my time. Particularly as you will just argue its just math. Did the thought ever occur to you that COBE, Planck and WMAP datasets literally provide the proof of an evolving density? I'm pretty positive the evidence is already posted in this 40 plus page thread. Considering that LCDM itself states an evolving density the burden of proof of a non evolving density is in your court. Every other poster that actually understands how this universe evolves according to the FLRW LCDM metric. Including the professional scientific community. You should take that as a solid hint your wrong. As been mentioned numerous times You can't even have a CMB without a density change. Quite frankly I'm tired of repeating myself in this thread while you continuosly go in circles. Here is a thought why would we even need the cosmological constant to explain the accelerating expansion, when initially our math showed no accelerating expansion? Could it possibly be because our model was shown incomplete by observational evidence? that it took several decades of research before the cosmological constant became accepted and the equations were subsequently repaired? But I suppose according to you none of this counts as evidence simply because a formula is involved right ? 😄. Do you honestly believe science Doesn't spend billions of dollars and not test those formulas you ignore? Like I said I'm not about to waste my time proving what a 100 years of research and tests have shown. In case you try the " They just say that to make the math fit" conspiracy argument you will be wasting your time

Well fortunately research and observations disagree with a stable density. Of course you would actually have to study the thermodynamic laws itself. For one thing its incredibly possible to have an infinite universe whose average density decreases. In point of detail it is incredibly Unlikely to have a thermodynamic stable system. Stellar formation itself lends to expansion. I would normally post the math showing that but I would be wasting my time

Maybe you should learn why the physics community state hidden variables doesn't work. Where the current models state entanglement does. For example explain the hidden variable in entanglement of particle pairs where one of the pair is created at a much later time? However thats more detail than we really need. Particle entangled pairs share the same superposition state. Once you examine one of the pair the other is now known. We cannot determine either state until one is examined. You can't even predetermine a state. That results in loss of entanglement. This paper does nothing to counter entanglement. Thats not its intent. The question I have is why you believe entanglement must equal hidden variables when Bells inequality shows this in error? Here is a half decent article on hidden variables vs entanglement and Bells inequality. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjbpZqYjLrQAhVdGGMKHSiABooQFggkMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theory.caltech.edu%2Fpeople%2Fpreskill%2Fph229%2Fnotes%2Fchap4.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH9C5y14C8VrFVmbmpbIQfb3GIXXg We've gone a long ways to test for variables. Far enough to essentially rule out local hidden variables. Were still in the progress of ruling out non local hidden variables. (its still being researched) Though some attempts to use local spacetime as the hidden variable do exist, they haven't reached the point of being considered conclusive For example this paper requires an ADS state. (anti-Desitter space) we have no definitive proof of our universe being in an antiDesitter space or a Desitter space. Which in and of itself is problematic. Ads/cft model is only one of many possible models. sidenote If you ever read 100 roads to reality even Sir Roger Penrose is beginning to doubt this model which at one time he was one of its stronger supoorters. However thats just a sidenote Modern tests looking hidden variables have shown non locality of entanglement. Where hidden variables require local connections to be deterministic within the system. Of course many don't fully understand why locality vs determinism is important. They tend to argue against entanglement for personal philisophical reasons than the actual research.

It involves entanglement which is an opposition to hidden variables. Most modern papers no longer include hidden variables.

The exact opposite to hidden variables but at the same time an interesting possible connection between spacetime and entanglement. The math involved is substantial and extremely well thought out. Going to take me a while to work through it. However more important is the possibility of describing mass and the stress energy tensor without once using gravity. Albiet via Ads/cft That in and of itself is intriguing.

Interesting paper thanks for sharing. Reading the arxiv.

I believe thats already detailed in this thread. Lets play connect the dots. 1) Cosmological redshift is caused by ? 2) A change in volume causes a change in temperature/ pressure and ?

If you choose to believe so. I disagree however I'm far more picky as I don't even agree with block itself. If anything I would most agree with evolving block. I don't have anything to add to thread, its run its course lol This is precisely why I prefer the math with its predictions compared to philosophical arguments. Such as block arguments.

Yes but Krauss failed to mention that unique point on time is several billion years long.