Mordred

the equation you used in your paper is an SR equation. SR only works properly if the observer is at rest. Through Einsteins equivalence principle an observer in a gravity well is the same as an inertial observer. If you didn't include curvature your not describing relativity from a gravity well. Which makes your calculations and conclusions incorrect. All the equations in your paper are Newtonian weak field limit equations.

the temperature is what we measure. How do you think you determine the emitter frequency before redshift? Do you even know how Blackbody temperature is determined? Have you ever looked at Weins Displacement law? Shttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law Sure the metrics correlate the scale factor to temperature. the scale factor is determined by the thermodynamic laws. Measuring that temperature confirms the scale factor. Do you not understand the difference between measuring and calculating?

incorrect. Your math doesnt include a line element for proper comparison. I dont understand how you can go from. We already account for relativity. To your model showing something not described by Relativity. ie Cosmological redshift itself. By the way your paper used the Lorentz formula. You did your calculations with Euclidean flat geometry. You haven't included curvature terms associated with gravity wells. Where is your Scwartzchild metric. Where is your Ricci tensor? or your ricci scalar.? All I see in your paper is poorly understood SR. Which by the way the observer is at rest. ie not in a gravity well. that requires corrections answer this question if you can. Show the math of how time dilation under your model. Can get a measured recessive velocity of greater than c? Which we do in fact measure past 4400 Mpc roughly.

iffy or not measurements agree with it. It doesn't matter if your in or out of a gravity well. We can already account for this. Either way we don't rely just on redshift. the temperature data alone is enough to prove an expanding universe. Not to mention THE BB model predicted the CMB before discovery. Also predicted the correct % of elements.

No they weren't put in place to make BB work. The BB is a consequence of observational evidence both in redshift and thermodynamic temperature relations. As a point of note. Prior to the discovery of dark matter or the cosmological constant. The universe was predicted to be either expanding or contracting. Evidence shows expanding. One can accurately model expansion based solely on thermodynamic processes. Right up until the cosmological constant. but not including yet... see above articles. The cosmological constant is the observed deviation from what is predicted via strictly thermodynamic/EFE metrics. We haven't figured why it stays constant as the universe expands. We use a fundamental observer. One who isn't in a gravity well. In the FLRW metric itself.

the darks are simply placeholders. I always prefer the term cosmological constant to dark energy. Religous beliefs aside, we don't ever rely on a theory without extensive and intensive testing. Relativity and the Einstein field equations are incredibly well tested. Redshift is no different. Its too fundamental in distance estimates to rely on without rigourous tests. Some of those tests being various forms of parallax. You might think your model works but it doesn't Relativity is already factored into the FLRW metric via the EFE. We don't need the darks to have expansion. As a matter of fact today dark matter has extremely little influence on expansion. The cosmological constant is only needed for the accelerating expansion. We may already have a possible solution as to inflation,dark matter and the cosmological constant. More tests are required. DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 we account for gravitational redshift via the Sache-Wolfe equations. You don't need to look at the gravity wells of every individual particle. These are all averaged out via the EFE/FLRW metric. For example the Earths movement with the Milky way and large scale structure leads to a dipole anistrophy which we can filter out. Here these two articles may help http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Fact remains though. You still haven't adressed temperature measurements at a given redshift. Which runs counter to an illusionary expansion. As it supports an actual expansion. Not illusionary

except if you take a homogeneous and isotropic fluid (uniform mass distribution) which occurs at large distance scales 100 Mpc and above. You have no mass gradient so no time dilation. Cosmological redshift doesn't involve time dilation. Which is what your paper implies. Put it this way a static non expanding or contracting universe wouldn't have a cosmological redshift. Nor can it have a time dilation with a uniform distribution. The observer on Earth is in an extremely close to rest frame. Any time dilation that occurs there is small. As far as the Earths movement as well as its gravitational influence. We can and do filter out those influences. Here is something to chew on. There is a class of single component model universes. In one particular type we learn something rather surprising. A matter only universe with no dark energy, radiation, dark matter etc. Just baryonic matter will still expand. the mechanism which involves gravity only allows for expansion. This is due to the distribution of matter and the average density. If you take x amount of matter in a homogeneous and isotropic (uniform) distribution the average mass density is higher. However once matter starts to collapse into anistropy regions ie large scale structures. The average mass density drops. Also because gravity falls off in strength at 1/r^2 the average gravitational force on global scales decreases. Locally sure you have contraction but globally you get expansion. you can use this equation to model what I just described. Although its real purpose is to compare Hubble rate today with Hubble rate at a particular redshift. The formula takes in the density evolution of all expansion contributors. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex]

QM models the BB through action via loop quantum gravity. It still follows GR and thermodynamics. The BB model only involves how the universe evolves. Not how it starts and ends. Though we can make some reasonable predictions of an ending. To be honest perhaps you should spend a bit more time studying whats really behind LCDM. Your arguments are based on your perceptions and personal feeling more than the actual science

well quite frankly your proposed model does nothing to correct what you percieve to be problems. Simply ignoring thermodynamic evidence isn't going to help convince anyone your correct and every expert for the past 90 years or so is wrong. Lets put it this way. Your paper suggests the universe is essentially static. That expansion is just a relativity illusion. I just provided a counter argument that shows expansion doesn't just include red shift data but also thermodynamic evidence. At which point pretty much everyone that tries to argue expansion via redshift on forums ignores the thermodynamic evidence.

I believe you have the wrong conception of a singularity in this case. There is a significant difference between a BH singularity and that described by the BB singularity. In the latter case it means our physics can no longer accurately describe the conditions. This occurs until 10^-43 seconds after the BB. Our models describe after this point in time. The observable universe is our region of shared causality. This is the region that contracts to a finite dense volume. The rest of our universe outside our region of shared causality isn't being modelled. The universe can be finite or infinite. We simply don't know. If its infinite now its infinite in the past. Forget the pop media visual images of some explosion from some god particle. Thats not what the real science describes

One of the problems ppl have with expansion is that they assume matter stays in the same form it does today. Though they also aren't familiar with BB nucleosynthesis. The CMB is only possible via nucleosynthesis. This nucleosynthesis requires expansion to occur. Raise the temperature high enough atoms can no longer stay stable. Continue raising the temperature various particles reach thermal equilibrium. Continue doing so until all particles are in thermal equilibrium. How many photons can you stuff into a finite Planck unit volume? The BB is quite easily visualized. Of course it helps to understand whats really being described by expansion. Which apparently you don't. What is so unusual about the average mass density decreasing ? That decrease requires expansion. Although pressure performs the work. Pressure doesn't cause expansion as you require a pressure gradient. That and increased pressure increases gravity.

those thermodynamics your ignoring have a major role in defining cosmological redshift. Its an integral aspect. For example "What is the emitter frequency ?" temperature affects this. What is the curvature constant? this affects worldlines

90 pages. I would have expected considerably more mathematical detail.

flatenning of a nebula cloud is a normal consequence of the rotation. Though shockwaves may have have caused the original anistropy to cause enough compression to start gravitational collapae.

as far as strictly mass vs momentum. Your still moving the same amount of mass. So wont change fuel efficiency by placement.

good point Sensei on checking vehilcle owners manual.+1

You want you added weight as low to the ground as possible and with a vehilcle trailer situation. Ideally on the vehicle. (less swing). Otherwise on the trailer between the front tire and the vehicle. As close to the hitch as possible. The added weight will also help keep the hitch in place. Placement as far forward on the trailer is extremely important. Particularly if you need to skid sideways to a halt. Though you also want to make sure you don't have too much weight forward of the front tire of the trailer. As you may place too much downward stress on the hitch. If thats the case then place the heavier portion directly above the axle. You will induce more fishtail swing. However less stress on the hitch. In all cases keep your load balanced between the left and right hand side of the trailer

mass is "resistance to inertia change" So placement does matter. The added mass will affect turning radius as a change in direction is a change in inertia. So is accelerating and deceleration. This is a Newtons three laws of inertia type question. Obviously you don't want to place the mass too high.

In order to have your model describe any mechanical work on matter in our Schwartzchild system. Other than what is already defined by GR. You require the math and added energy. Handwaving this fact away isn't going to do anything. If your fields makes no alterations to the SR vacuum solutions. WE don't need your field. If your field alters the Schwartzchild metric. YOU NEED the new christoffel symbols and geodesics.

It could be the Higgsino. Susy treats fields considerably different than SM. For example in SO (10) there is 16 fermionic fields. The number of possible particles will be doubled. the standard model of particles has several difficulties. Right hand neutrinos. lepton and baryogenises. Dark matter, the cosmological constant. Inflation. Little known is the 1/3 charge also presents difficulties which SO (5) better describes. SO(3)×SO(2)×U(1) SM also doesn't include Pati-Salam which details right handed and left handed. Thats contained as a subgroup of SO (10). The added Higgs bosons will add different field components. Additional interactions or degrees of freedom. Rather than a seperate field. I have a decent article covering Gut under the SM,SO (5) and SO (10). I'll let you read that and post several proposals SO (10) may solve. GUT theories http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 lol I recall one 800+page dissertation that showed the math for a possible 16 different Higgs masses. If that can be believed. mainly little Higgs. Most of those mass values were well in our detection range. Keep in mind its even possible for this to even be one of the additional Bosons predicted by Susy.

no it doesn't worry me. The energy levels needed to create supersymmetric particles has always been known to be extreme. However as our tech improves were getting closer. A few years ago we wouldn't even dream of producing a 125 Higgs. Now we produced a much higher Gev particle. A supersymmetric Higgs will allow the supersymmetric particle symmetry breaks. the 246 Vev (vacuum expectation value only correlates the 125 Higgs. the Higgs inflation model works better under the MSSM model. So finding a Susy particle could go a long way to solving inflation. particle guage groups have a history of predicting particles long before their discovery. A decade ago most scientists denied the Higgs field for the same reasons presented in your last quote. Same with diquarks and pentaquarks. Which were now discovering

Definetely as more data is needed to avoid Speculations.

Oh definetely the bound for the coupling of the Kaluza-Klien graviton is roughly 1 Tev. The Randall Sundrum raised the initial lower bound. If I remember correct its roughly 475 Gev/c^2 and 900 something Gev/c^2. Been a few months since I last read the Randall paper

Sounds like your referring to the Randall-Sundrum gravitons. Estimates for graviton mass has always been funky.

I fully agree However it would be even more groundshaking if it turns out to have spin 2. Spin 1 is ruled out by the diphoton production. here is a paper looking at spin 0 and spin 2. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjS9NLk7ebNAhVS6mMKHTwQBqcQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1603.03421&usg=AFQjCNFDa4JmXA_DR6l2WgcoXWwQtYSkqw&sig2=WA3Cd7B5Iu8rcwkW2wWwFA