Mordred

The problem isn't that a particle wouldn't be affected by DDE. The problem was thinking the Suns spin would be affected. The sun emits an average wavelength regardless of its spin. DDE effects won't change its spin rate as from the reference frame of the Sun as the emitter there is no DDE effect. From the particle it's a different story. Frequency relates to energy, so a shorter wavelength will add more energy to the particle. However as I mentioned the peak average wavelength is 500 nm on the 11 year cycle average. The DDE effect is plus or minus 0.00395 nm. The ratio difference between 500nm and 0.00395 nm is 1265822.78481. Comparitively the 0.00395 nm would be a miniscule factor.

Not quite correct. Part one is correct, Part 2 not so much.. Recall the energy-density of matter and radiation changes at different rates but the cosmological constant stays constant. Matter and radiation interchange is easy to understand. A lot of the relations we can lab test on Earth. The problem is the Cosmological constant per m^3 is so extremely close to zero we require immense volume just to measure it. It's so close to zero we can't even determine if it's coming from the current mass or radiation density. This is why we can't tell with certainty if it obeys the conservation of energy. There was one post where I also stated that the universe energy equated to roughly 10^90 protons (equivalent). That's still true today as it was as early as we can measure the total energy/density. The part I was trying to get you to understand was matter, radiation and the Cosmological constant energy?density changes at different rates as the universe expands. Matter has a lower kinetic energy than radiation does. So when you took values today and compared them at a smaller volume, The ratio change would be different than if you used the formula I provided

Well I'll admit the paper itself is interesting, but the pop media Scientific America hype does it zero justice. First off the paper doesn't state life doesn't exist on other planets. It states that galaxies such as our own may have a smaller %. This is the as the paper puts it "mild Copernican violation". Key word on mild. The paper also bases it's study with look back time in mind . Meaning the further we look back the further into the past we see. This is part of the error bar. The only thing special they actually refer to is the conditions of Earth like planets developing in our local group up to a specific z value. Not too surprising a result. When you consider all the criteria for a planet with liquid water, right mix of elements via metalicity. That's about the only indication that the Earth is special, The problem is we can't measure "Now" everywhere so our datasets are limiited by that factor. It places a higher probability of life sustaining planets in other galaxy types.

Yeah I just noticed the arxiv file I'll retract the modtip. Reading the arxiv file atm

It's a modtip, It's more a message to avoid insulting tones in your posts. Also this thread has numerous information showing the Earth isn't a special place. The laws of physics is the same here than anywhere else.

Because your not listening. Instead your assuming I'm wrong simply because you don't understand it. No I'm a resident expert, that grants me certain moderator leeway.

Roflmao... Our own motion relative to the CMB causes a dipole anisotropy to the CMB temperature measurements. Does that mean the universe is hotter in the direction of our motion? Man spend a little time studying and less jumping to misguided conclusions. Thats like saying I can burn you up by measuring the frequency your emitting and flying fast enough toward you while I measure your temperature.

Read my last post. With all the time Youve Bern on this forum. One would have thought you would have learned how Doppler effect or gravitational and Cosmological redshift works. Me too

Take a vehicle or any object. Measure its speed via the formula I showed you. It's used in radar guns. Light only travels at c. As the object approaches you the wavelength contracts. As it moves away it's wavelength expands. The same effect occurs whether or not the vehicle is sitting still or if the radar gun is the object moving. This is the same thing with the Sun. The measured wavelength change is a result of its motion relative to your reference frame not the wavelength it is emitting.

Your own motion can affect redshift measurement. If you fly away from the sun the entire Sun will measure a different wavelength. Does that mean the entire Sun has cooled off?

The proof in the blooming equation. Yeesh the equation follows conforms to GR. The two terms EMITTER, OBSERVER should be sufficient proof. Change the observer position you get a different result, have the observer move. Does that mean the Sun actually changes temperature because your moving? Measure a static object you are the observer with inertia. Did the temperature of the object change or did your observation of that measurement change? Come on man use a little common sense.

I've already read the article your understanding of it is incorrect... The Universe is huge, we have evidence that life can exist on meteors (microbes) and survive. We haven't been able to leave our solar system and we've only explored an extremely small % via telescopes which can barely detect the planets let alone determine if there is life on it or not. It's not like our telescopes can stare down on a planet several million light years away and spot an alien eating dinner. Use a little common sense

Not really, I've been studying the cosmological problem for years now. Enough to have strong faith in the Higgs field possibility which is shown to be accurate will still maintain the conservation of energy. The research limitation has more to do with funding and the CERN experiments. We already know our particle physics model may not be complete. We find new particles on a regular basis. One example is diquark particles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diquark We predicted these before discovering them. Another series of predicted particles is the supersymmetric particles. The problem is the energy levels needed to create them. We predicted monopoles, same problem. Just because we don't understand something yet doesn't mean that it's created out of nothing. It just means we haven't figured it out Yet. The Universe from nothing model by Lawrence R Krauss or the zero energy universe both left out one vital detail. It takes energy to create virtual particles.

Of course it's different than every planet but so is every other different from each other. What makes one more special than the other? Nothing just ego of humanity

Good luck I am more than familiar with how relativity works. Would you like to read the reprint of his original article? http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf An authorized reprint of Einsteins Special relativity paper.

That link has nothing to do with geocentrism. Can you prove the physics on Earth is different than any other place in the universe? Did you miss the part that states the physics are the same? Are you familiar with the modern form called the Cosmological Principle? The principle of relativity follows two postulates. 1) the speed of light is the same for all observers 2) there is no preferred reference frame. Google the meaning of reference frame (ie at rest or in motion) Next time you choose an argument make sure you understand what it means.

Talk away this thread has enough countering details. You clearly aren't interested in the real physics.

Yes I'm familiar with Hoyles steady state theory. Even he realized it didn't work. Particularly with observed evidence in measurement of expansion. His model didn't expand the size of the observable universe is steady. This didn't match observation, neither did temperature measurement. That statement I posted specifically means we don't understand the mechanism that keeps the cosmological constant. That's not the same thing as energy/matter being created from nothing. It just means we haven't figured out the cosmological constant... You also chose not to include the next part where I mentioned the Higgs field as a possibility. This is still under study but you can read the related paper here. Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

What the ???++++++??????? This makes absolutely no sense. Come on seriously ? Do you know the difference between emitter wavelength and observer wavelength? The sun emits the same average wavelength on all facings, we observe different wavelengths due to its angular momentum. It is an observed shift, an adjustment to our measurements. [latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex] c is the velocity of waves in the medium; [latex]v_{r}[/latex], is the velocity of the receiver relative to the medium; positive if the receiver is moving towards the source (and negative in the other direction); [latex]v_\text{s}[/latex], is the velocity of the source relative to the medium; positive if the source is moving away from the receiver (and negative in the other direction).

No it has nothing to do with appearance but basic physics. Take a figure skater, spinning with arms spread out. When she tucks her arms in she spins faster. Same physics. Conservation of angular momentum. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/angular_momentum

Your forgetting one aspect of PMS stars. Let's assume our star in PMS stage was 12 times its current size. It's rate of rotation would be considerably slower. A stars rotation involves conservation of angular momentum. They spin faster as they shrink. Taking that into consideration you will have less differential Doppler. As they haven't reached the fusion stage, it's blackbody temperature is far lower thus the Poynting Robertson effect is also reduced. Roflmao

The differential Doppler between the edges of our Sun at the equator works out to 0.0079 nm. Or plus or minus 0.0079/2. From the centre. It's extremely difficult to detect from Earth. The only time it will have any effect on dust is if the dust is close enough to the Sun that the Suns diameter blocks the opposite side or close enough to get a measurable difference in distance between the two edges. That would be well within the radius of Mercury. ( close enough that the average luminosity wavelength relation is more applicable). It's a handy principal to measure the Suns rate of rotation but for overall radiation pressure equations not so much. For the overall Poynting Robertson metric which applies to a far larger region it's too circumstantial to apply to the overall metric. You'd have to be extremely close to the Sun to have any measurable effect, at least as far as it's overall effect on radiation pressure. Key note the formula uses luminosity. Which is the stars radiated power over ALL wavelengths and is the amount of energy emitted by a star each second. If you wish to determine the average wavelength you can apply Weins law. Which will give the peak and wavelength via the Suns blackbody temperature. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law Our Suns peak wavelength via Weins law is 500 nm. ( on average). Our Sun has an 11 year cycle. Compare that to the differential Doppler value of 0.0079 nm

Blueshift and redshift affect wavelength, now consider a spinning star emitting light will blueshift on one side and redshift on the other. The qauntity of the shift will be the same on both sides of the star. So the resulting shift total will be the same as though it were emitted from the center of the star. In other words the various shift at each point in the star averages out to be the same value. Closest point on the star, particularly over long distances.

No the rotation speed makes no difference in the case of light which always travels at c. No matter what speed the Sun rotates the speed of light will remain at c. The radiation pressure it will exert will depend on its wavelength when it arrives at the dust particle. However due to the size of the particles not all the radiation pressure due to the full wavelength is involved. This is why you have the the Mie scattering terms in the equations

OK this is much better to follow glad to see you switched to latex. I'll have to look at the math later on. I would recommend at first glance changing the symbol for energy density from p to use \rho. [latex]\rho[/latex] p is the common symbol for pressure or momentum. For now lets treat your modelling as a toy universe we can check how it matches up to reality later on. toy model building is a good training exercisethat one can learn a ton from. I have one question though, how familiar are you with GR in particular the Einstein field equations.? this is going to be the tricky level to work out the new FLRW metric. by the way +1 for recognizing the importance of the math in model building Training (textbook Style 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 http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau this material will help in your model building several of the steps are described within, it will give you some study aids to understand better the formulas your manipulating.. currently at work atm so I'll have to get back to assist you later on