Mordred

Both you always have to account for redshift. However BAO baryon accoustic oscillation rate is also affected by density. So redshift aside the BAO dynamics alone support a higher density past. The particle (element composition) of the CMB is only possible via BB nucleosynthesis, the percentages of hydrogen, lithium etc of that time era is completely different than today. This is also an effect due to expansion.

That is based on real measurements

The CMB itself is only possible in a cooling universe. Secondly temperature history shows a decreasing value. At time of the CMB it was 3000 kelvin today 2.7 kelvin. Density and temperature both drop due to expansion. You already know these details. They have been mentioned numerous times to you in past threads

Yes there is a mass to luminosity relation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93luminosity_relation Also learning this will also help. Snells law, Weins Displacement law, and blackbody temperature. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/search http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry See bottom corner last link for second page. Which described the ds^2 worldlines in the FLRW metric. Yes temperature influences optical effects play a part. We refine data by using spectrography to look for known properties of elements. Such as hydrogen etc. Now homogeneous (no preferred location) example uniform mass distribution Isotropic ( no preferred direction) combined this is a uniform distribution. Such as the average density of our universe. The opposites being inhomogeneous and anistropic examples. Explosions, stellar bodies, rotational systems.

As mentioned by Strange these issues were addressed in later experiments with far greater detail. As well as more accurate equipment. Here is some pdf coverage to help. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J03/transparencies/5_thursday/1_morning/peters.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjp7rKzwLPQAhUBFWMKHUvtDyoQFggfMAE&usg=AFQjCNEN_GB--7X4jzs_RoBVi6_0Nu0nDQ This article is a review of tests, and the reasons behind the tests. Arxiv article https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.1318&ved=0ahUKEwjp7rKzwLPQAhUBFWMKHUvtDyoQFggmMAM&usg=AFQjCNFW2Ft_ASMCiTK-x3ZWTjlHrcovnA Science has moved far beyond the experiment in the original tests.

I too prefer it here, and no I don't believe anyone is suggesting a different forum. It's simply a side light example of a different methodology used on forums. Both methods have their pros and cons. I also visit plctalk.net for motion control systems. Though a electrical Engineering+Plant automatation its far easier to control.

No different Marcus. You can see his posts commonly in the Cosmology forum. He was one of the co-contributors to the lightcone calc in my signature. He was excellent at finding ways to simplify complexity of the FLRW metric to a simplified but mathematically equivalent form. He was also exvellent in his understanding of LQC which was his specialty. In this he was more knowledgeable than me. His other favourite forum was Beyond the Standard model.

Well I first off you need to understand how cosmological redshift and expansion works with regards to how far light can transverse. Think of it this way the speed of light is far faster than the localized rate of expansion. Which is roughly 70 km/s/Mpc. This article will save some time there. http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell its based on this article. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe. Time dilation isn't involved when it comes to expansion this is where cosmological redshift differs from gravitational redshift. Expansion causes a volume change at any time slice such as now. A homogeneous and isotropic fluid has at sufficient size scales roughly 100 Mpc a uniform mass density throughout the universe at any particular moment in time. So you get time dilation/length contraction thats a common misconception. Assuming we had a different means of seeing beyond the opacity of the dark ages. Ie measuring reliably the neutrino background we could see much further back till roughly when neutrinos drop of thermal equilibrium and decouples. This would be roughly 10^-12 seconds after BB. Though we don't have this technology yet. Here is a chronology of the BB. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe it details the dark ages.

We test light through a medium regularly it is these learned principles which led to the M$M experiment directly. The null result is a direct result of no medium (ether) being present. The entire experiment was designed with a medium in mind

my mobile works without problem let me try my lappy in windows 10 laptop test seems ok

yes supersymmetry includes time. How can you have anti-time?

I'm not really sure I understand this the way its worded.

Yes those are some the ones I respected over there Unfortunately another good was Markus who unfortunately passed away. However you described the general attitude perfectly meet me here or go back and study. There is a lot to be said for the flexibility here. I for one hope this site never loses sight of being flexible. The member I learned the most from was Brian Powell. Particularly in his specialty inflation. anyways this is rather off topic which is to discuss the politics forum

I keep looking for those too, in some subjects such as GR they are difficult to find decent heuristic views which is why I tend to repost good examples. Certain authors such as Rindler, Lewis Ryder, Barbers Ryden, Andrew Little and Griffith have some decent low math level books. Unfortunately posting them would be a copyright violation lol. So instead I grab key lessons from them and refer to them. Always interested in other sources though. I had hoped 100 roads to reality by Sir Roger Penrose would have helped but that got too math heavy for most forum members who are unfamimiliar with the math. Which is also why I steer clear of Scott Dodelson Relativity and Fundamentals of Cosmology by Mukhannhov This is a problem I saw on Physicsforum. The level of math particularly on Relativity literally terrifies the average member. Many flat out refuse to even dare post a question. In many ways I miss the old Space.com forum (thats going back a ways) they had an unwritten policy of sticking to the Minkowskii metric as much as possible. While still supporting Speculations.

actually the time when light can no longer reach us due to expansion isn't for several billion years in the future. However that hasn't anything to do with the CMB opacity. Assuming my back of the envelope calculations is correct and nothing changes from the Planck dataset roughly when the universe is 17.8 billion years old.

try working through the rapidity equations. You might be surprised. It isn't just meeting that is involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity the very instance one ship no longer maintains constant velocity for any reason rapidity occurs and so does the world line itself. The Lorentz transformations are symmetric provided one assumes constant velocity. Once constant velocity occurs you have your assymetry. The SO(1,3) Lorentz group is a skew-symmetric group however you should note Any symmetry group whose elements have a common fixed point, which is true for all finite symmetry groups and also for the symmetry groups of bounded figures, can be represented as a subgroup of the orthogonal group O(n) by choosing the origin to be a fixed point. The proper symmetry group is then a subgroup of the special orthogonal group SO(n), and is therefore also called rotation group of the figure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_group The Lorentz transformation group (not to be confused by the full group SO(1.3) is a symmetric subgroup and has 6 symmetric boosts three correspond to rotations and three to boosts along thee x axis but has an anti-symmetric operator [M_{\mu\nu} the equations [latex]\acute{x}=\gamma(x-vt), \acute{y}, \acute{z}, \acute{t}=\gamma(t-vx/c^2[/latex] are symmetric. It does not matter who the observer is you will have identical results under constant velocity. This is denoted by the inner dot product [latex]U*V=V*U[/latex] this amounts to the lorentz transformation being homogenous no preferred reference frame and isotropic no referred direction (symmetric), which you should recall form the basis of the Principles of relativity. I should note there is two key properties of the Lorentz transformation group symmetry and transitivity http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TransitiveGroup.html If you like later on I'll show you acceleration under the four momentum to better see the difference.

I seem to recall similar research in the past along these lines. It was several years ago though so can't recall too much about it. It is also why this post doesn't surprise me. As it has been suggested in a similar manner before. Here is an arxiv file on the subject. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0407155&ved=0ahUKEwiJ-OmH7LLQAhVX22MKHVVwAJcQFggxMAc&usg=AFQjCNG1kdxBviPVJW4l6a5CssPYx8fZBg

Excellent post, very accurate. Ask yourself the following question. Assume every single point in the universe is devoid of all particles including virtual particle production via the Heisenburg uncertainty principle 1)How would you determine the field potential energy? 2) can we assume the potential energy value is zero? remember the definition of energy is just the ability to perform work. It is not an entity unto itself such as matter.

I thought we were going to estimate the number of M$M's we could fit in a bag lol. Strange and Swansont have already raised the key points.

This is the most accurate response on that site. Information in QM is specifically to quantum numbers. Though the Shannon portion is relevant its not quite what were talking about. Yes the speed limit can be viewed accurately as a result of spacetime. Let me double check but if I recall Rindler does an excellent job detailing the speed limit. If I recall correctly I"ll post those details. If I remember correct his example didn't involve light itself OK the Rindler example wasn't quite the way I recall but still appropriate. lets start with [latex]\gamma=\gamma(v)=\frac{1}{(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}}[/latex] which denotes the Lorentz factor. the transforms being [latex]\acute{x}=\gamma(x-vt), \acute{y}=y, \acute{z}=z, \acute{t}=y(t-vx/c2)[/latex] when v=c the Lorentz factor becomes infinite, and v>c leads to imaginary values of the Lorentz factor. This is the first indication that shows the relative velocity of two observers must be less than c. Since finite coordinates in one frame must correspond to finite coordinates in any other frame. This also indicates that no particle can move superluminally relative to an inertial frame. Consider for example a case where a signal or process event A causes an event B where information is assumed to be superluminal. U>c. relative to some frame S. We choose coordinates in S so that these events both occur on the x axis and let their time and distance separations be [latex]\Delta>0, \Delta x>0[/latex] then in the usual frame [latex]\acute{S}[/latex] we have [latex]\Delta\acute{t}=\gamma(\Delta t-\frac{v\Delta x}{c^2})=\gamma\Delta t(1-\frac{vU}{c^2)}[/latex] for a v that satisfies [latex]c^2/U<v<c[/latex] we would then have [latex]\Delta\\actute{t},0[/latex]. Hence there would exist an inertial frame in which b precedes A. In which cause and effect would reverse and the signal is considered to travel in the opposite spatial direction. This would violate causality. The rest of his examples involve numerous causality violations. page 73 Rindlers "Relativity (Special,General and Cosmology) second edition. Hope that helps better understand the quoted section

In a way we are both correct. That may sound strange but its possible the BB doesn't occur in the first place. Evidence merely points to a BB. New evidence could very well show that as being wrong. Some cyclic models don't require a BB. An infinite universe does not mean an infinite past. I can readily model how a universe infinite in extent can arise from a zero energy field. Though I don't need to as its already been done in the zero point energy theory models. Which still is viable even today. Though its also important to realize a field has a zero energy value until it interacts. Energy is often misunderstood, it is a property but how we measure that property depends on the observer. If you think about zero point energy those quantum fluctuations are seemingly small but over a large enough volume is immense in total energy. Mathematically more than sufficient. 120 orders of magnitude too much energy lol. However I can show you a paper that suppresses zero point energy that still makes the zero energy universe viable. Though I will have to dig it up from my dropbox archive

I'm also a member there. I found I'm more useful here as this site supports Speculations. You can in some cases help redirect a person's interest into studying the current models. So in this regard you end up helping.

While I understand what your getting at other readers may not. Could you clarify

The twin that accelerates undergoes "rapidity" this is a seperate set of tensor calculations. The rapidity is the source of assymmetry in the twin not paradox. Both acceleration in magnitude and direction apply in this example. This tells us without doubt which twin was inertial.

We use c as it represents an invariant constant. One not just the speed of light in a vacuum but more more importantly the speed of information exchange. Its literally the speed limit for any possible interactions. Including inside a medium, no particle exchange can occur faster than c. All observers will measure information exchange as the same. This is true even if there are no photons included in the system being modelled.