Mordred

yes its purely speculative. Yes it would also lead to antigravity.

Its not forbiddem to ask these questions one just has to realize the answers are not so easy to understand. Nor do we necessarily know the full answer. Universe age being one of them. We can only approximate based on indirect evidence. In which that evidence can alter slightly as we fine tune our understanding. Each time we determine a new Hubble constant the estimated age changes.

lol no problem It is a lot to take in at once. You might note my signature has a link to further articles. Also the lightcone calculator is incredibly flexible. A proper study of those two textbooks should take several months though lol

understood I'm glad your enjoying the papers. Nice to get feedback on them. If you want more decent ones on a given subject feel free to ask. I have a database of articles I often use.

True though I have seen modelling that was later published done originally on forums. Though that was prior to WMAP lol. That forum no longer exists.

my 10" wasn't that pricey. I can pick up more than a 5". It depends on if you really need a motor or not. I don't do time elapsed photographing which is where your motor comes in handy

if only we could get Speculations to run properly lol. It's been a long time since I last saw a properly run Speculations modelling

Consider there is an actual science called "Political science"... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science Which quite frankly I have no knowledge of lol...

definetely important advice,

Not easily lol I've posted that example numerous times. ( its a handy time saver) However I can fix you up with something better. First lets relink the EoS link to the wiki article. In case you have problems a google search " Equations of state Cosmology" will pull up the correct link. Don't forget to add cosmology or you will get classical mechanics lol. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Here is a lecture note calculating the three main EoS. though it doesn't detail the scalar field EoS. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro421/lectures/lecture490_ch19.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjV3tGYtrHQAhUMyWMKHeAiCW84FBAWCB4wBA&usg=AFQjCNESxFBeqzW7M7nh-oLqj62DyUUq6A Seems to be links I post from my laptop as opposed to my phone that causes grief though I'm not sure why that is.

I too found the computer controlled mounts impractical. Particularly in finding the time with the right viewing conditions. Though I do take my scope out often it is often tricky to get the time under good viewing conditions. lol more often than not I use it on my balcony with all the light pollution. definitely hinders good viewing but fun nonetheless.

as far as I know you would need anti-mass. Keep in mind in Cosmology universe geometry isn't the same as curvature in GR. In GR curvature reflects the time component. In cosmology it is the expansion/contraction tendency due to total density vs critical density. In the latter case time dilation isn't involved.

Not that I'm aware of other than the possible saddle shape of the universe. Mass and energy results in positive curvature in GR.

lol we shall see. I expect nothing less than mathematical accuracy. Though do so on speculations not in mainstream physics section. We've pushed the moderators flexibility enough in this thread. Which is to look specifically at the CMB not alternative models.

why would we be crushed. read the link I posted. "In an expanding universe what doesn't expand"

fine mathematically prove the existence of a universe that expands whose thermodynamic process accordingly due to that volume change causes the CMB. Then on top of it solve the horizon and flatness problem that inflation solves. While your at it solve the distribution of the first generation stars, the early large scale structure formation using Jeans equation. The distribution of quasars which is due to the higher density past. As well as the measurements of the integrated Sache wolfe effect. The baryon accoustic oscillations of the CMB. However most importantly solve why we see cosmological redshift in the first place. If you believe your little equation solves those problems your dillusional

roflmao that isn't a steady state. Steady state means an eternal universe. Which also means no CMB.

like I said your graph is a mathematical error as it doesn't meet dimensional analysis.

That has nothing to do with whether the universe is finite or infinite. That just means it has a beginning

once again that is incorrect. Curvature does not determine if a universe is bounded or unbounded. This was a mistaken belief before the discovery of the cosmological constant. However only the positive curvature universe by older definitions could be infinite in extent.

The BB model doesn't attempt to explain the beginning of time or even the beginning of the universe. The model doesn't start till after [latex]10^{-43}[/latex] seconds. Secondly there is no reason to believe time starts at the moment of this universe starting. After all it is likely there is multiverses that can also be infinite in extent. One can slice an infinite universe an infinite number of times and each portion will still be infinite. Too often people make the assumption that time started with the BB. This is a mistaken assumption. Time is nothing more than a measure of rate of change or duration. The very instant you have something you can measure that object is in a moment of time. It's rate of change simply depends on a change nothing more. By the way here is a math article on dimensional analysis. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://web.mit.edu/2.25/www/pdf/DA_unified.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiikoDajbHQAhVOz2MKHR6rAD8QFggqMAg&usg=AFQjCNF6qxlpVz2srSeTzKy0Om8I3EEgLg

funny I gave you the light path in the equation above. Which is extremely well tested to match observational evidence. Unlike your equation which has space=1/time^2 which in terms of units state [latex] m^3=\frac{1}{sec^2}[/latex] which is mathematically wrong even as a function Unless you fix that it will never be accepted by anyone with any skill at math. You wouldn't want your kids and grandkids to make such a fundamental error in school

I found the Skywatcher with Newtonian Dobsonian mount in the 10" range affordable and flexible. Yes the 12" is better but the price tag got too high. https://www.telescopesplus.com/collections/sky-watcher-traditional-dobsonians You can see 5 km wide craters on the moon, the redspot and bands on Jupiter, the rings of Saturn. Some nebula and local galaxies you can distinquish. Quite flexible robust and easy to use. Though I would recommend a good collimator. With a selection of lenses. ie the moon lens. Keep in mind a good location with minimal light pollution is a must and also let the telescope stabilize to the atmospheric temperature for at least 1/2 hour. The other feature I like is that it easily transported via a car.

The CMB at z=1104 roughly is nowhere near infinitely redshifted. The dark ages prior to the surface of last scattering is due to the particles that form our atoms not being bound to atoms. Ie electrons, protons neutrons. This means that the mean free path of photons travelling through this environment is too short. The photons collide and scatter with other particles. When the temperature drops sufficiently enough that atoms can form with potential stability then the mean free path of photons increases to what it is today

You can readily use units of volume (space) and to maintain dimensionality equate time to a measuring rod ct. Nothing wrong with that. However trying to state its equal to a particle is another matter. For one thing volume isn't a particle property. There is a class of particles that are little more than bookkeeping devices. In GR its called a test particle. In inflation an example is the curvaton or inflaton. These are at best called quasi-particles. They however must have a least one valid particle property. As far as spinfoam which uses the Planck units you mentioned. These are actually descriptions of action within the units you mentioned.