Mordred

To add some details the FLRW metric models the Universe in terms of a fundamental observer Ned Wright has a decent coverage. https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peacock/Peacock3_1.html. Essentially we take our local conditions into consideration. Now in the Einstein field equations the Universe is modelled as an ideal gas. So each contributor has an equation of state. The equation of state for the Cosmological constant being w=-1. Expansion occurs when the kinetic energy of each contributor overcomes its self gravity. You don't need the cosmological constant to have expansion. Its only needed to explain the added rate of expansion. Essentially it's a placeholder until we can determine the process of the added expansion rate.

O/T means off topic so the moderators moved those posts to another thread. If you click the link in the modnote you can see the off topic posts.

Look at the equipment setup in the Fizou experiments. The equipment itself doesn't suffer from relativistic influence. Neither does the equipment in the Sagnac experiments. Or rather the experimentor is in the same frame of reference as the equipment. Looks like your still having trouble with frames of reference. If you have two observers Alice and Bob. Each with their own clock calibrated to each other. Alice being stationary for simplicity. Bob being inertial. Alice looks at her clock sees nothing out of the ordinary, when she looks at Bob's clock she sees the time dilation. However Bob looks at his clock sees nothing but when he looks at Alice's clock he sees the same dilation. In the Fizeou and Sacnac experiments the observer is in the same reference frame as the equipment.

Why would you think I would agree with you. You have yet to show any math to show how you can account for these experiments via Newtonian physics at the same degree of accuracy as those covered by relativity. If you honestly believe you can change a physicists mind about something without applying math and experimentation your deluding yourself. Measuring equipment doesn't compensate for measurements that are non linear. In particular the equipment used in those experiments. Your postulates is incorrect

You don't seem to be willing to understand. Sure you can use Newtonian physics where There is miniscule relativistic effects. However it will not be as accurate. For example there is a measurable time dilation experiment where two clocks were a measly 12" apart. Yes the effect is extremely small but nonetheless it is present. As far as theories based on postulates. Well most theories start out as postulates then the math is developed, then experimental evidence is gathered to see if they are correct. If the evidence doesn't show then the postulates are shown to be wrong. Happens more often than people realize.

As far as others involving blackholes with universe creation etc. There is no lack of similar threads. Seems to be a common first misunderstanding.

Its great you desire to learn, and your not precisely pushing your own idea. As Strange mentioned there is no center. Expansion data shows no preferred direction or location (center) to expansion. This is described by the cosmological principle. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic. To better understand these terms here is two useful articles. http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

You know I've watched your threads for sometime now. I've yet to see any mathematics beyond a few basic formula manipulations of which Swansort has pointed out errors within. I've been wondering "How long will it take for you to realize, you need a good understanding of the current model before reformulating your own???" The math level I read in all your threads amount to pure gibberish.

I would suggest looking at electron spectography. In spectography there is unique signatures each element emits (this includes electron orbitals.). When we examine a plasma cloud we can determine the cloud composition via its spectrograph (accounting for redshift) When googling don't worry about the colors, the detail is the frequencies. Spectrographs don't show colors they show frequencies. ( Google typically shows the color spectrum, due to how spectrogaphy was developed) Here is an extremely basic coverage http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Spectroscopy/Photoelectron_Spectroscopy/Photoelectron_Spectroscopy%3A_Theory See figure 5

It's a thesis paper on geometrodynamics covering numerous metrics since Wheeler first started modelling gravity by the action formulism. Which in its simplest terms means according to its momentum influence. Loop quantum gravity follows similar metrics of action. One thing to realize is you can create a successful model simply by its influence not necessarily the mechanism (particle to particle energy exchange). For example spacetime geodesics uses the principle of least action. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action The Hamilton's principle follows from langrenes (metrics used in the above principle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%27s_principle These metrics don't require particle to particle exchange and neither does relativity. The reason being is your measuring the influence it has on what you can measure. Ie the standard model multiparticle system. To put this into perspective. This paper calculates the detection requirements for a graviton. At a reasonable detection rate you would need a detector the mass of Jupiter near a primordial blackhole as the emitter. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&rct=j&q=graviton%20pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjfk9KRvZ7LAhVFymMKHW3hDyMQFggfMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fgr-qc%2F0601043&usg=AFQjCNG-bFQ_8lCsID-bXmAceGsHTeX1Fg good luck doing that in an Earth bound lab lol

No at the individual particle level the effects of gravity is well beyond our ability to quantize. This is the underlying problem that quantum gravity faces. We can only measure gravity at sufficient mass levels to have any measurable effects. Unfortunately bosons being the heaviest of the standard model particles( total energy/mass not rest mass itself). Means they also take the higher energy levels to create. This is particularly troublesome for the graviton. The mass expectations would require energy levels far beyond our particle accelerators. We would actually have a better chance creating all the supersymmetric particles predicted by SUSY, than a graviton. (Though we have good predictions that the graviton would need to be spin 2) A good field of study on the graviton is geometrodynamics. Which is the QFT branch dealing specifically with gravity (though it specifically tries to model spacetime without the graviton ,originally lol) http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&rct=j&q=geometrodynamics&ved=0ahUKEwj54MfwrZ7LAhUE-mMKHSGUBxoQFggfMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fgrqc%2F0409123&usg=AFQjCNHpAx0QWeJxPddqyC0p1PsHCYJeSQ

David if the conservation of energy/mass holds true for the Universe as a whole then the postulates you posted would be accurate. However energy/mass of the universe as the system state may or may not hold true. (There is no right or wrong answer, not with our current understanding) Now consider the following problem sets. the paper I showed you where the author showed both conserved and not conserved metrics. (Should have been an indicator that it depends on how you model the system). The author felt mass is created. Now consider the following questions. 1) What is mass? 2) How does observer affect how we measure mass and energy? 3) In one calc on that paper he included the Planck epock. 3a) how much influence does the Higgs field have at 10^16 Gev in a thermodynamic equilibrium Quark/gluon plasma soup? (Don't try to calculate it, just consider it) today the Higgs field accounts to roughly 1% the mass in a proton. 3b) did the author account for a varying Higgs field ? Or even the Higgs field itself? 3c) did he account for varying % of different elementary particles (ie those not bound in atoms ) The point being here is that paper was only 11 pages, it made numerous assumptions. The other problem is we can only theorize conditions prior to the CMB. We can only apply what we understand today to understand those conditions. We simply can't observe far enough. (The mean free path of photons was too short)

You've got the wrong idea about how the zero gravity facility works. It's a 132 metre drop in a vaccuum it's a similar principle to using a plane in a descent. It's not creating zero gravity via the plates. Here http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&rct=j&q=zero%20gravity%20facility&ved=0ahUKEwi-5-rU05TLAhUMyGMKHe_qDOoQFggiMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffacilities.grc.nasa.gov%2Fdocuments%2FTOPS%2FTopZERO.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGPhISDtv1JDrwjsF-q5OzV20Xjzw

The problem is gravity is so weak, it's extremely difficult to distinguish a gravity wave from background interference. A mere vibration from any source can I interfere. (Vibration etc)

No problem, however one has to understand the challenge presented to the mods on a forum. Take a new poster, he feels there is a mistake on an understanding. That poster takes it upon himself to solve that mistake, yet more often than not fails to back it with effort. By effort I mean supportive posts or effort into the math. Without mentioning specific posts currently I can point to three active posts that follow the rules on speculations that have been allowed. The mods allow the effort, after all any diligence into an effort has its rewards, provided the poster listens to advise being offered against his ideas. After all the job of us professionals on a particular field is to poke holes onto a model or theory. This done and accounted for strengthens that model or theory. The job of a moderator is extremely challenging. One they do so voluntarily. They must look at the wide variety of ideas, determine which has scientific merit or which is based upon misconceptions. (Not including other factors such as rules violations). As one that has moderated on a PLC (programmable logic controller website) for 2 Years not an easy task

Lol I recall a few private messages where you and I tried to find a scientific direction on a thread, including conversations on how to best guide a poster into a more informed direction. To describe it as hard is in some cases an understatement My wife has often heard me yell "how can he be so blind".

Dynamically the two are both modelled as a scalar field. So is the Higgs field. The equation of state that is used is [latex]w = \frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 - V(\phi)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 + V(\phi)}[/latex] In the case of the cosmological constant w=-1. This in thermodynamics equates to an incompressable fluid with a vanishing kinetic energy. quantum fluctuations via the Heisenberg uncertainty principles and zero point energy which is the theoretical lowest energy state [latex]e=\frac{\hbar v}{2}[/latex] was at one time proposed to the cosmological constant. However calculations later showed this lead to an error of 120 orders of magnitude too much energy. We're still trying to solve baryogenises on why our universe is currently comprised of matter vs antimatter balance. There is some hope in the SO(10) supersymmetric models but only time will tell. ! Moderator Note I see no reason as to why this thread should remain in the speculations forum. The OP is asking legitimate questions concerning a fundamental problem in Cosmology in terms of the conservation laws. At no point in the discussion has a single speculative argument been raised. Rather it's clear the OP is asking for information relating to the topic. The information within this thread is better suited in the Astronomy and Cosmology forum. For these reasons I'm going to move the thread where it belongs.

That statement is more accurate. Thanks

Now this post I like as it's a good description of properly researching a subject.

As a long standing member on numerous forums I can honestly say this forum grants a far greater leeway than many. I can for example name several highly successful forums that don't even allow a speculative section. Any thread that doesn't follow mainstream science is instantly locked down. I've been a member on this forum for quite sometime, I prefer the flexibility here, not because I have speculative models to post but I find a better opportunity to assist ppl to learn the science they more often enough didn't understand in the first place. Quite frankly the staff here do an excellent job, as far as I've seen they always give a fair chance when members aren't following the forum rules.

Note he stated in that quote " in obedience to the conservation of energy" I believe what you need to look at is "what is mass" The definition of mass is resistance to inertia. However different types of mass exist. GR doesn't have a clear cut definition of total mass. It doesn't even have a clear cut conservation of energy or mass. "Generalizing this definition to general relativity, however, is problematic; in fact, it turns out to be impossible to find a general definition for a system's total mass (or energy). The main reason for this is that "gravitational field energy" is not a part of the energymomentum tensor" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_general_relativity The problem is that The paper uses the FLRW metric, which is based on GR. Observer viewpoints can alter how one measures mass or energy, so when one calculates the total mass of the system, you use an observer. Fundamental observer in the FLRW metric. On that link there is a reference to ADM mass. (Which that paper never mentioned.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM_formalism#ADM_energy "According to general relativity, the conservation law for the total energy does not hold in more general, time-dependent backgrounds for example, it is completely violated in physical cosmology. Cosmic inflation in particular is able to produce energy (and mass) from "nothing" because the vacuum energy density is roughly constant, but the volume of the Universe grows exponentially." You can see the difficulty on the conservation of energy/mass. How you define and measure the system can vary the results. Suffice it to say conservation of mass or energy of the universe is a question without a clear answer. This doesn't imply were creating mass/energy when you get right down to it the problem is we can't properly define the conservation of mass/energy for all observer situations in an evolving spacetime. This is in my opinion a good description of the problem PS don't worry if this is all confusing. This type of problem can make a professor in philosophy of cosmology head spin.

The 100 Mpc size is the size where the Universe is roughly homogeneous and isotropic. As you contract the Universe the scale needed becomes smaller as well. For example conditions at CMB is extremely homogeneous and isotropic in temperature/mass distribution. At the Planck epock everything is in a condition called thermal equilibrium. The size then was small enough that you don't require the curvature constant. This point in time you can't distinquish any anisotropy so it's homogeneous and isotropic at any scale. This will continue for the majority of the radiation dominant era. Particularly since the rapid expansion of inflation has a supercooling effect, but on the slow roll cycle a super reheating effect. Any anistropies is essentially washed out to an extremely uniform distribution. Anisotropy development start somewhat later. So yes the FLRW is particularly useful prior to CMB.

Lol I know that feeling I just flew home today myself

You might want to look at the shockwave metrics in this article. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=17&rct=j&q=meteor%20%20moving%20Earth%20pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi1-8mc-I_LAhVMyGMKHWl5AGM4ChAWCC0wBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci-ed.org%2Fdocuments%2FLCP%252011%2520%2520ASTEROID%2520May%252020.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHiZk8M0ShXIhdPiC7hnle4b4j-Vg You should be able to refine your metrics as it has a formula for % forward thrust to outgassing.

I'll have to give the relationship some thought. Sound wave influences can get tricky. It's been awhile since I last looked at shockwave metrics it's an interesting question though. One factor I can see is. How much of the shockwave would get buffered and dispersed by the atmosphere. Which correlated to how much inertia is transferred to the Earth. As well as outgassing