Mordred

Sensei raises a key point. Words in physics means absolutley nothing. Its all about predictability via mathematical modelling. Until you can do that your not doing physics. Present a proper physics claim that follows the basic laws of physics and we won't be so quick to dismiss it. Present a proper analysis.

why wouldn't you think the ether wouldn't exist from the beginning? Perhaps you should start there. Did you want a practical application of Ether that makes sense? Or more practical what is your specific definition of an ether? Obviously its different from the mainstream definition. You obviously have a non standard definition of what constitutes an ether.

matter is not mass. Matter only applies to fermionic particles via the Pauli exclusion principle.

Thanks Sensei your knowledge of atomic physics I rarely disagree with. I deal more with the fundamental particles than atomic physics. However I was referring to thermal equilibrium. ie What temperature atoms can possibly form with a modicum of stability. It makes no sense to apply barium's to an ether at temperatures too high to form a hydrogen atom.

Nothing in these papers support an Eather. Your definetely misunderstanding them. In point of detail its more related to baryogenesis than an ether. Meaning tbe possibility of an assymmetry between matter and antimatter to account for why we have an imbalance between matter and anti matter. Which has nothing to do with an Ether itself. However even providing evidence to solving baryogenesis is a stretch which these papers do not solve. nor is it their intention. For one thing a major detail you've completely ignored is that Bariums do not form in the early universe. they come far later. An ether would have to be present at all stages in our universe history. Barium's cannot form with stability until the average temperature is sufficiently low enough. The two are completely unrelated. Just as the papers above do not relate to baryogenesis. Its unfortunate vixra only requires you pay them to publish a paper. You would have been far better served having your paper reviewed first. You just wasted good money better suited into buying textbooks to learn the subject matter. Your vixra article for 55 pages has a single formula. A lot of pictures and talk but no math.... If anything it tells me how little you understand the physics behind the subject matter. Rather than the opposite. Not a very useful paper in the slightest. Physics is all about showing the math. Sorry for being blunt, but I honestly hate seeing people wasting their money on vixra. PS most forums have banned that particular site. This one is more forgiving to that site and speculative ideas. As it believes one can learn through errors in thinking by providing proper direction and corrections. Most sites have found Speculations too problematic. I for one am glad this one values dealing with those problems. It's the primary reason I support this site to any other.

or a table is not made of color.

I don't think your understanding what we are looking for here. You keep repeating yourself. Your not answering any questions being asked

Yeah the fabric like 4th dimension lol. There is a lot of misconceptions that the rubber sheet causes.

You also need to study wavelength and its application to the probability functions of finding that photon somewhere on thst wavelength. Wavelength DOES NOT equal the photons volume. The two are completely unrelated You obviously do not understand this distinction. A wave is basically a group of particles which moves in a particular form of motion. It is not the particle volume. which is pointlike. Volume isn't a definable property of a particle.

You haven't shown a single metric to define your proposal. Do the actual math you will find are flat out wrong. You can easily prove your assumptions wrong by simple number crunching.

Here is something to grasp. The rate of expansion per Mpc is slowing down. Yet the seperation distance due to expansion is accelerating. This is explained on those links. The two links you provided is 100% unrelated to expansion. Yes they both use geometry but that is the only similarity. Expansion does not affect the two slit experiment. Go ahead assume it does. Take the rate of expansion per Mpc 70 km/sec/Mpc. How meters is in 1 Mega Parsec? Now apply that to a 1 meter distance two slit experiment. Where each photon takes far less than a single second to cross a single meter. The numbers will not add up. You will end up being so many orders of magnitude out to be garbage. 1 Parsec =‎: ‎3.0857×10^16 m‎ The rate of expansion per second is 70 km/sec/Mpc. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Go ahead show how those numbers add up. Then explain how the density strength of the cosmological constant at a measly 7×10-10 joules/meter can possibly affect a single atom. Let alone a solar system or galaxy compared to the force of gravity due to their mass. These two numbers alone explain how light can exceed expansion. Ie cross 46 Glyrs 1 Parsec = ‎3.0857×10^16 m‎ The rate of expansion per second is 70 km/sec/Mpc. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s locally to the light path the rate of expansion is practically non-existent.

Try running the math itself. Stop to consider that both the Earth and Sun formed a few billion years ago. Secondly the Earth has always orbitted our Sun. So if you consider these details then how can you possibly stand where the sun was a mere 8 minutes ago? There is nothing logical behind that statement. Especially considering it takes light 8 minutes to reach us from the Sun. Let alone a massive object that is orbitting said sun. Secondly expansion Does not affect our solar system gravity is simply too strong compared to the strength of the cosmological constant. Thirdly your confusing artifacts of formulas such as recessive velocity which is not a true velocity but an apparent velocity due to the formula and seperation distance between observer and emitter. [latex]v_r=H_0d[/latex] For example the recessive velocity at z=1100 is roughly 3.2 c. Yet we know nothing moves faster that c not even information exchange Its well and good to speculate but at least use the laws of physics. As far as redshift goes the velocity of light does not change. It is the wavelength not velocity that is affected. Do some vector addition with regards to the Earth sun system. You will not possibly a combination that shows you are standing where the sun was 8 minutes ago. It is a physical impossibility. Not merely flying in the face of basic physics.

Agreed I've always found rate comes with practice and self motivation. I always try to place others according to their particular interests and guide them to pursue those interests. lol my favorite students was always the ones that drove me crazy with questions.

With good directional motivation I agree with this. Everyone learns at different rates. What often works with one student may hinder another.

These issues is fairly common in pretty much any field or industry. The line you used above. " You won't find these in a texbook..." This is often tricky to get past, it takes dedication and self motivation to take your schooling lessons beyond the textbooks. Many don't, they tend to get disheartened when the answers are not readily available. Its like learning a craft, you keep practicing and stay motivated. Always strive to learn every aspect. As Charony mentioned with his ripples analogy. I prefer one bite of the apple at a time.

How to become a good researcher ? Good question. While the type of research I've done differs. Some of the criteria is the same.1) understand the goal of the research project 2) Understand which methodologies and experimental practices reduces various types of error 3) Understand how the experiments are appropriate to the experiment including any possible errors.( ie equipment error etc) 4) establishing good control points to help improve accuracy 5) Look for possible alternatives both for and against your line of research. (counter models etc) 6) Look for supportive research both supportive and against. 7) Self study always 8) Understand the limitations of the equipment and how to optimize their versatility and flexibility. 9) Look for ways to increase accuracy and consistency (error reduction/repeatability) 10) Consistency, consistency consistency in all the above. I'm positive others can name more One hint a good self researcher can often find his own answers. Via studying other research They are the ones that tend to supply the answers more than asking others for the answers. Most importantly if he doesn't know the answer. He knows where he can find the answer. Nobody remembers every formula. Develop a database and reliable sources for answers. Lets take a simple example spinning blood in a centrifuge. With the list above "What are the steps to properly test the blood sample in the most consistent and accurate manner? (including sources of error and means of addressing those errors) List them in order. (break it down to each individual step)

Oh really I think not. This is a complete garbage statement. What changes in how the observer measures light due to expansion? Don't make the mistake of confusing apparent or peculiar velocity with actual velocity. I think you better study these two articles. http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies Don't let the title of the first one confuse you. Its a simplified version of the second article. Written by a professor that has years of forum experience.

repeating these assertions isn't addressing our questions. x posted with Strange lol

Yes however lookback time requires those additional parameters to stay accurate. As well as flexible in particular to k values. lets try a key detail. 1) Is the rate of expansion constant over time? 2) What is the importance of those density values in regards to the rate of expansion today as opposed to the rate of expansion then? 3) How does the deceleration equation get involved? (hint number two can be answered from one of the equations I posted) your wondering where your deviations are coming from the above questions will provide your clues. While the formulas above are reasonable approximations. The parameters you mentioned can greatly increase their accuracy. There is a particular variation of the lookback time formula by Hogg's that is far more accurate than the standard look back time formulas. I will post it later when You've had time to consider the above. (Don't forget to look at the z corrections as well) (same hint as per above for question 2) the Hogg's version applies the same equation as per question 1 and 2)

Well this definetely grasping at straws on developing connections without understanding the material. Perhaps instead of posting numerous links on gyroscopes etc. You will show the actual math. Rather than expect us to connect your imaginary dots. I would recommend you start with the stress tensor for both electromagnetic and EFE. Then study the different spin statistics. Followed by showing 3+1 spacetime with 1 dimension for electromagnetism in the Kalazu Klien. Are you even familiar with the math I suggested ? If not Rindlers "General Relativity" has some excellent coverage. Granted it is an old thread, but its still considered thread hijacking when you present a personal speculation as an answer to someone else's thread. I recommend starting a new one under Speculations. Perhaps you might consider the detail that not all gravitational bodies have a electromagnetic field. Then again if you understood GR we already consider spinning bodies lol

Not everything is expanding. Only between the voids, away from LSS does expansion occur. So I'm having trouble making sense of your proposal. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano

As it is after work now atm, I can add some details. In particular on Cosmological redshift. There is some handy relations to be familiar with. first start with commoving coordinates [latex]r_1,\theta, \phi[/latex] photons follow null geodesics [latex]ds^2=0[/latex] thus [latex]cdt=\pm\frac{Rdr}{\sqrt{1-kr^2}}[/latex] key note k in flat geometry =0. The - sign is appropriate as the radius decreases as light approaches us. this essentially means [latex]\int^{t_0}_{t_1}\frac{cdt}{T(t)}=\int^{r_1}_0\frac{dr}{\sqrt{1-kr^2}}[/latex] For R(t) roughly constant over [latex]\Delta T_0[/latex] [latex]\frac{c\Delta t_0}{R(t_0)}-\frac{c\Delta t_1}{R(t_1)}=0[/latex] with c as a constant [latex]\frac{c\Delta t_0}{c\Delta(t_1)}=\frac{v_0}{v_1}=\frac{\lambda_0}{\lambda_1}=\frac{R(t_0)}{R(t_1}=1+z[/latex] So compare this series of equations with thee one you derived. Further details on the above can be found in "Modern Cosmology" by Max Camenzind page 205 (though I changed the commoving coordinates symbols to match those used by wiki and common textbooks)

Hubble horizon is at roughly 4400 Mpc. You can convert that to Gly to get a rough z. I will have to look later but one of the column options should give the Hubble horizon. Glad you like the calc, I find it incredibly handy. I should mention not all formulas in Cosmology are complex. The FLRW metric is fairly straightforward compared to GR. The advantages a formula has is more than simplicity. Its also its flexibility to define other formulas. For example this formula is extremely simple and flexible to correlate to more complex formulas. [latex]1+z=\frac {R (t_0)}{R (t_1)}[/latex] Whats of greater use though is the formulas involving scale factor. [latex] H(t)=\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}[/latex] for example is further used to calculate proper distance and also temperature thermodynamic relations. There is simple correlations to the scale factor vs temperature evolution. You can see the flexibility in these two articles. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues [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] Another handy article http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1498 " The Waters I am Entering No One yet Has Crossed: Alexander Friedman and the Origins of Modern Cosmology" written by Ari Belenkiy This particular formula is incredibly handy [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex]

Well sounds like you may find this resource handy. Particularly if your math skills is up to it. http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields. Another handy online resource is http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft.html You will numerous lecture notes here. The subject is immense I would also recommend studying feyman diagrams, [latex]\phi^4 [/latex] theory, Hamiltons and Langrange's The first article has an excellent listing of different field theories. Should come in handy. You will need a good understanding of particle physics, relativity and obviously strong math skills. For the particle physics side. These two articles are handy. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2 Though if you can buy textbooks Quarks and Leptons is an intro to Particle physics. Also any books by David Griffith are handy. In particular his Introductory to particle physics.

Yeah if I recall we ran into that when we compared to Ned's calc. We opted to compare to Davies. On the top right is your dataset options Stretch equals 1.00 is present age. If you want to contact the developer himself you can find him here. This is the thread that we ran to develop the calculator. Unfortunately the trainer that taught ppl how to use it passed away (Marcus) but the Jorrie still frequents that forum. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/steps-on-the-way-to-lightcone-cosmological-calculator.634757/ Ordinarily I don't like referring to other forums but in this case, the details on the calc usage is best described on this thread. Here is the formulas used in the calculator including reference paper. http://cosmocalc.wikidot.com/advanced-user You can fine tune the calculator by playing with the lower/upper stretch values keeping the number of steps at however many rows you want. This is handy for example in finding the inflection point where we switch from matter dominant to Lambda dominant at roughly 7.3 Gyrs. That thread has an example of doing so. ( my involvement was mainly writing the user manual)