Mordred

No you need motion

Here this paper discusses redshift and distance measures. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9905116 "Distance measures in cosmology" David W. Hogg The paper discusses the inherent problem due to the Hubble Horizon. For example at z=1100 a galaxy has an apparent recessive velocity of 3.2 c. We know nothing moves faster than c yet we can have recessive velocities faster than c. If you tried using Doppler formula you will get the wrong answer. For that matter the simple cosmological redshift formula requires corrections beyond the Hubble Horizon.

Your still not understanding the point. The point is we don't assume our redshift formulas are correct.. We need other methods to test that they are accurate. I mentioned some of those tests. The cosmological redshift formula for example that is commonly posted is only accurate up to the Hubble Horizon. The observable universe is far bigger than the Hubble Horizon.

They are both observer influences upon measurements. I've already covered the different causes. Gravitational redshift is related to time dilation. There is no time dilation in Doppler redshift. Or rather no significant time dilation.

How does redefining Doppler and gravitational redshift help you? I mentioned before that we don't rely on redshift data. Some of the other methods to determine distance change is intergalactic parallax. Angular diameter distance and luminosity to distance. Just to name three others in a long list of methods. Do you honestly believe you can say cosmological redshift is wrong and figure that counters expansion? That isn't good enough. Your also choosing to ignore observational data on an evolving % of elements and metalicity due to expansion and thermodynamic processes. We can easily measure elements with spectrography. Every element gives off unique signatures. Unique enough that you can determine the number of electrons orbitting the nucleus. Redshift data does nothing to confirm BB nucleosynthesis, yet measurements of elements and metalicity % confirms nucleosynthesis. It's amazing how ppl choose to ignore all the other evidence of expansion. They typically always argue redshift and ignore the other pieces of evidence. Then they wonder why they don't get listened to.....

To add to Strange comment. All redshifts have some commonality. They all require a change in wavelength, and require invariant speed of light. The difference lies in what causes the change in wavelength.

Not necessarily a wobble, if you say have a planet with mountains. (Not perfectly symmetrical) that planet generates gravity waves.

Actually photons count as radiation which during the radiation dominant era, photons and neutrinos were the dominant contributions to expansion. Essentially the Universe has always been expanding but the rates have always varied. During the radiation dominant era the primary contributors to expansion was photons and neutrinos. Then matter started slowing down the rate of expansion until the Universe was roughly 7.3 billion years old. After that the Cosmological constant became dominant leading the an accelerated rate of expansion. This isn't to say dark energy wasn't always present, but it's influence was less in the past compared to radiation. I don't count my efforts to solve the cosmological constant wasted. I learned a ton of real physics during those years. However I didn't waste my time by not learning the math. What makes the effort worthwhile was the study and honest effort to learn how the FLRW metric truly works. Learning statistical mechanics and differential geometry. Today I can build most toy model universes, either single component or multicomponent. Examples being matter only, radiation only, lambda only, or any combination. Your postulates on Space is inaccurate, Einstein never stated space is some fabric like property. Space is simply volume, this pinned thread I wrote provides a decent coverage. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89395-what-is-space-made-of/#entry870133

Funny part about that is I tried solving the Cosmological constant based upon a simple thermodynamic property. Any higher energy/density will naturally try to reduce to a lower energy/density. (Although there is no pressure gradient for a net flow, so you can't state pressure causes expansion) You can mathematically maintain a homogeneous and isotropic universe with the above. However you can't keep the cosmological constant.. as constant as observational data shows. Every attempt I've made I've proved wrong with mathematics. I've never posted that theory or published it as I prove my own theories wrong. I dropped the theory nearly 10 years ago, then started studying particle physics, to seek some process to have a constant scalar field. Closest I know of is the Higgs field. So I really do laugh at the fools that feel they can solve a physics problem without knowing any of the required math.

Study takes too much work sheer conjecture and wild imagination will solve everything roflmao

Nothing you've stated thus far has any feasibility. Just a lot of useless conjecture with zero understanding. You don't need dark energy to have expansion. Radiation alone can cause expansion. However you choose to ignore the science simply because it doesn't make sense to you. Without any study you assume you can solve something that thousands of professional physicists have trouble solving. Yet without mathematics your ideas is 100% meaningless.

In one of your statements you stated you weren't interested in the thermodynamic of LCDM. Unfortunately LCDM is mainly a thermodynamic process. No matter which theory I've studied on the Universe LCDM, MOND, LQC etc. They all involve thermodynamic processes. The Einstein field equations also describe a homogeneous and isotropic ideal gas. It's unavoidable. Expansion is a thermodynamic process there is a good chance the cosmological constant is as well. Why do you think the acceleration equation I posted earlier in this thread includes energy density and pressure terms?

Let's clarify one key detail, you don't need the cosmological constant to have expansion. The cosmological constant is needed to explain why expansion is at the current rate. I never agreed with the statement "accelerating expansion as that depends on the seperation distance. Per Mpc expansion its slowing down. Yet if you use recessive velocity then it's accelerating. Just a side note I spent 5years trying to solve the cosmological constant via thermodynamics. While I could keep a homogeneous and isotropic expansion I never could maintain the cosmological constant as constant as observational data shows. After all my Years of study I feel the best hope lies in the Higgs field. (Has strong potential, but more research is needed) Here is the related papers. Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 Note the Higgs field may also help solve inflation as a thermodynamic phase change (Higgs field dropping out of thermal equilibrium) Just a side note, one of the consequences of this formula [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] which calculates the rate of expansion per Mpc as a function of redshift. Is that if you do the calculations into the far future the rate of expansion per Mpc will stabilize when the Universe is roughly 56 billion years old. With a rate of approximately 56.5 km/sec/Mpc. The reason for that is the density of matter and radiation will become negligible in terms of expansion. Yet thus far there is no evidence that the cosmological constant will.

Yeah I agree it was a poor example of amplitude displacement. I didn't even consider "ideally rigid" But stress and strain are two different formulas. [latex]stress=\frac{f}{a_{cross,section}}[/latex] [latex]strain=\frac{\Delta L}{L}[/latex] My example was still poorly worded though lol

What is particularly nice is he recognizes his own mistakes and doesn't make assumptions. (Didn't see Strange post was posting at same time)

Let's try this angle. There happens to be an active thread, where the OP is trying to model a steady state universe or at least the Cosmological constant itself. No one on this forum has considered him a crackpot, or for that matter that he is necessarily wrong. Why is this? It comes down to technique, he never states "this is the way it is" but most importantly he is applying and studying the math, as well as formulating new equations to develop his model. In other words he is following the forum guidelines to the letter for the speculation forum. I may not agree with his idea, but the effort he is putting forth teaches him and others. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93471-local-isotropic-length-transformation-hypothesis/page-1

Coordinate displacement of each particle. Take a rigid rod, apply force at one end but not the other you produce strain. Were dealing with coordinate change of spacetime each particle being essentially attached to a specific coordinate.

Or in the case of strain the amount of displacement.

Yeah I know I'm trying to find the original though its just the pop media article. Found it. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10

The simulation Strange mentioned can be found here. This simulation uses all the LCDM metric. It was done to test the metric. http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10 http://www.illustris-project.org/ Personally what I found truly impressive wasn't just getting the correct metalicity etc but that it also produced the types of galaxies we see today.

If you understood the math all of the above is accounted for. That's why I provided the links to help you understand the math. This is a good one one expansion. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies

Your last post tells me you have some misconceptions. First off the Singlarity of the BB is merely a point in time where the conditions become indescribable. Too many infinities. Not a point like singularity. Secondly we don't know the size of the entire universe it could be infinite. The point like beginning you see often expressed is our region of shared causality. (Observable universe) not the entire universe.

We've been waiting. You've yet to show a single calculation So what if there is 10* the amount of Dark matter than baryonic matter. The mass distribution is FAR MORE UNIFORM.

Why would you even think there would be a Significant difference of Dark matter from one star/BH in a binary system. Do you not know the meaning of the term HALO? As you stated Dark matter doesn't clump. (No strong force) (no electromagnetic force) It's average distribution around ANY binary system is roughly uniform. It would be too miniscule to cause a Significant time dilation than the other object.

I never could figure out why those new to cosmology always figure a model is wrong because it doesn't match their "opinions" This is a good example, after all why shouldn't the Universe expand or contract? It's actually nearly impossible to be "steady state" No matter how you calculate a steady state universe it will be unstable. @the OP. The links I supplied will provide a better direction than pop media learning. If your truly interested in learning Cosmology and can afford textbooks. I would suggest "Introductory to Cosmology" by Matt Roose Or by Barbera Ryden under the same title. Your wrong by the way that we don't incorperate mass. If you study the EFE and FLRW metric mass is included. Though you'll often hear it expressed as energy/mass density. See the last set of formulas above. [latex]\rho[/latex] is the symbol for mass density