Mordred

You know you could look at the numbers with the lightcone calculator on my signature. It has redshift, scale factor and various key distances built into it. You can even graph the results. PS it will even show expansion roughly 88 billion years into the future assuming the physics of the universe doesn't change However you might enjoy. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9905116"Distance measures in cosmology" David W. Hogg though a more complete article is. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies

To improve upon its confidence level and accuracy. Relativity is a big pill for many to swallow. However if you think about it we test one aspect of relativity in particle accelerators 100's of times every day. That being inertial mass and the amount of energy required to accelerate the protons. We even have an atomic clock on Mount Everest testing time dilation. Then you also have muon decay. Normally muons couldn't reach the Earths surface. But they do thanks to good ole time dilation. Comments on the tests of relativity. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0528 http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/rosalba/astro2030/GeneralRelativity_tests.pdf

You send a signal with a response request then devide the time for the signal to get back to you by two. This way you can calibrate signal delay including electronic process delays. A more accurate method though could be sending a request to the RTC (real time clock) on the satellite requesting the time of receiving a signal. Then compare to two precalibrated atomic clocks. One on Earth one on satellite. From that data one can calculate the distance to a satellite. Granted we don't rely on one method. If you combine the previous data with parallax you can fine tune the distance/rate of signal. After all a signal moving through a medium can cause delays so you will need to study and test that medium. (Ie atmosphere). After years of transmission though we have an extremely high degree of accuracy in knowing the properties of the atmosphere and local spacetime medium. (Though we still continually test it for changes). That's one aspect ppl fail to recognize in science. We continously test. Particularly on something as critical on distance measures, redshift, luminosity/distance relation and relativity. This continous testing leads to extreme fine tuning. As such numerous tests are continuously developed to help strengthen our accuracy.

David knowing how to calculate the proper distance of any object is far more useful than calculating the volume. In the case of expansion you only need to calculate the radius. From there it's simply one calculation to determine the volume. Simplistic isn't the true reason however. In order to find the distance of a measured object, one has to factor in the redshift. Or luminosity to distance relationship. Granted the method will vary depending on what distance your looking at. Google "cosmic distance ladder" As your already working at measuring distance ie you wish to confirm how far an object has moved due to expansion... it doesn't make sense to worry about volume change until you need to do so. When you think about it knowing the proper distance to an object ie Cosmological event horizon, distance galaxy etc is far more practical than knowing the enclosed volume. This practicality is naturally already in place. When you wish to measure the observable universe you must first measure the distance to the observable universe cosmological event horizon. Before you can calculate the volume of the observable universe you must first know the radius. In that measurement you will need the redshift. From there you determine the scale factor. then you use the proper distance formula on that wiki link Strange provided. From that data you calculate the volume if you so desire. for wavelength change Google Weins displacement law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law http://astronomyonline.org/Science/WiensLaw.asp

Roughly 43 million light years in radius.

There is outside our observable universe. Not necessarily outside the universe itself. I gave an example on this thread showing the related math of an adiabatic expansion with no heat transfer.

Yes it is. welcome to Cosmology applications that naturally include physics, thermodynamics and particle physics. Of course you also need relativity and differential geometry with statistical mathematics. What's your expertise? (Granted QM is needed I'm cosmology to understand the principle of least action in say the SO(1.3) Lorentz group in gauge symmetry. Which is also used to deal with how particles move.) Trust me resident experts and above can easily see to persons with low physics knowledge. If you knew basic physics. You would not have needed to Google the term "work". PS that term is taught in high school physics (in Canada grade 3) Here is The crux. Direction on improving your ideas have been provided. Learn.... Several experts have read your OP. We all find it lacking and full of errors. Rather than nit pick them. We chose to provide teaching. choice is yours. In order to understand the involved math you will need to understand why that math works. Or why it was developed to be so hard fast and tried. As of yet you've not shown one shred of evidence that thousands of professional scientists are wrong.

pS. Explain Particles that do not interact via the electromagnetic but do in gravitational. (Neutrinos). How do they correlate into gravito-magnitism.

The one mention section you posted David on the behaviour of a higher energy-density/pressure/temperature is accurate. Any higher state in the aforementioned three will naturally develop into a lower value. Key note 'based upon heat or work transfer to amnther outside thermodynamic state Here is the problem of development of this principle into a "cosmological constant". Lets take your example first. Strict higher temperatures moving to a zero temperature state. (If you study thermodynamics this leads to a preference direction. {Hot to cold}= Measurements show no sign of the above action. (CMB temperature) Now the question comes into play.... can our uniform measurement of the CMB agree with this action. My knowledge (after 30 years study days no). If you noted the conversation between Carrock and others during this thread. The subject came up. Thus far this thread no evidence or supported papers have shown up on anything other than a homogeneous and isotropic fluid in Cosmology terms been presented). Any suppositions presented have lacked following supported material.

Ok let's take a universe that changes, not in its fundamental laws. Our universe underwent several changes. Radiation dominant, matter dominant, Lambda dominant. Each phase involves one or more phase changes. (All of which follow thermodynamic and particle physics) You wish to introduce biology. Good luck your going to need far greater math skills than shown. Your also going to need a greater knowledge on the correct terminology and attention to detail. Just some friendly advise. ! Moderator Note I highly recommend answering some key questions in this thread. In particular those by resident experts and moderators That is if you wish the thread to remain open. (Hint show how thermodynamic correlated particle physics correspond to your definition of an evolutionary universe). Good luck, I suggest taking your time and studying the material provided. ! Moderator Note science is all about new ideas. However to accurately introduce those ideas you must show your understanding in current theories and models. For example if I wish to show the universe as spinning I would need to show how the FLRW metric is in error of a homogeneous and isotropic universe. It's a strong argument showing (mathematically how a current theory is incorrect by showing mathematically where it is in error.) With the corrections

There is no such thing as gravito-magnetic monopoles. The two are separate forces or to avoid arguments on "is gravity a force" interactions. First off gravity is spin 2. Electromagnetic is spin 1/2. Google spin statistics. So accordingly it's impossible to have a gravito-magnetic boson. Neither multi pole dipole or monopole. (Quite frankly thus far this thread barely belongs in speculation forum) unless you can provide better detail won't even qualify there. ! Moderator Note in point of detail, speculation is precisely where this thread belongs. I'm going to exercise a rarely used resident expert feature. Please follow the speculation forum guidelines. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/#entry839842. If you have an objection to my actions feel free to contact any moderator for fair judgement You may contact a moderator to override my decision

Depends on your flavour. Cyclic, bounce or first universe. Evidence support is neither in any direction. One of the reasons BB doesn't state how the universe began. It only covers 10^-43 seconds forward

It's not part of the calculation as our universe (Observable) is surrounded by the Unobserved portion which is the same as our observable portion. So there isn't a temperature difference. We don't know the true size of the entire universe it could be infinite or finite. That being said Unruh radiation is the heat transfer to the Unobserved portion. However that's due to not being able to measure the particle that's moved beyond our observational portion. Not due to temperature difference.

Ok lets go through this. First I posted pv=nRt. It's a basic (very basic thermodynamic equation). It Doesn't get used much in Cosmology papers on arxiv simply because we use another form. I tend to use pv=nRt as many that post on this forum are weak in thermodynamic laws. Let alone mathematical Cosmology.(lol this post will likely cause difficulty) (The formula shows the relevant relations without too much complexity) The more common form describes an adiabatic expansion. (Via an adiabatic and isentropic fluid) Now if the universe is adiabatic then the first law of thermodynamics apply. Rather than posting a bunch of latex. Here you go...(The more common form first equation on link) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics_of_the_universe First law of thermodynamics means https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics Now I did an example in another thread for another poster. The above clearly demonstrates how kinetic energy is involved in pressure. By the way the universe doesn't have container walls. So ask yourself why it would exert pressure ? The answer I have you but you seemed to deny it "particle to particle interactions" I already linked you a paper covering the Fermi-Dirac statistics and Bose-Einsten statistics. primary relations that are involved from the above [latex]E=(\rho c^2+p)R^3[/latex] Expansion is adiabatic if there is no net flow or outflow of energy. So that [latex]\frac{de}{dt}=\frac{d}{dt}(\rho c^2+p)R^3=0[/latex] (The last formula demonstrates the first law) Let p be proportional to [latex]\rho c^2[/latex] This leads to the relation [latex]p=w\rho c^2[/latex] The acceleration equation is [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] This leads to [latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex] where k is the curvature constant. now the curvature constant can have three main configurations 1,0-1. You've probably know about the stress energy tensor but this set of relation is handy to know. [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] Which correlate the stress energy tensor to energy density/pressure in Minkowskii metric form. some articles more intensive in the Einstein field equations state that when [latex]T_{\mu\nu}=0[/latex] energy is conserved. ( often the conservation statements are in the math, not the written portion) The FLRW metric to distance formula is. [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2[/latex] [latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sin r/R & k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sin r/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex] note the usage of the scale factor. In the last set of equations. These are standard formulas. Not alternative models. now that I showed some energy density to pressure relationships. Let's step back to pv=nRt. As I stated its a simple formula. But n is number of moles so how can we use this ? Well let's say I want to calculate the number density of a particle ie photons or neutrinos. Via pv=nRt (in a far more complex form.). Well I can use these formulas. [latex]q=\frac{N}{V}+\ge+n_q[/latex] for boson particles Bose_Eintein statistics is [latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex] for fermions you use the fermi-dirac statistics [latex]\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon _i-\mu) / k T} 1}[/latex] the De-Broglie wavelength is [latex]\frac{V}{N\Lambda^3} \le 1 \[/latex] Note the mention of the second law of thermodynamics on this link in regards to Bose-Einstein distribution/statistics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics at any given temperature it is possible using Those equations to calculated the number density of any particle at any given temperature including the CMB. The steps in that chapter 3 section I mentioned. (Though a good book on statistical mathematics shows the above better) By the way you can confirm all of the above in "Modern Cosmology" by Scott Dodelson. Muchanov's "Fundamentals of Cosmology". Also steps into this area. Probably the simplest to follow though is Matt Roose "Introductory to Cosmology" Those links I provided earlier I chose as they match the textbooks used to teach Cosmology. There is no alternative theory in them. The link by Liddle is a free full length textbook. He admits some of it is out of date. In particular he's using SO(5) instead of SO(10). However it's still useful in teaching the basics. PS I'd like to know what the author of the paper you posted means by physical boundary. Kind of a too brief a paper for my taste but he states the universe as adiabatic. http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603087v1.pdf Here is an interesting tidbit to blow your mind if it's not already. The equation of state for dark energy aka the cosmological constant is identical to an incompressable liquid. W=-1. Imagine that (Hint positive energy density leading to a negative vacuum. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant ) figure that one out lol (Hint vectors in modelling,but what do I know, PS the clues are provided this thread. Double PS a negative energy/fensity

Carrock the ideal gas laws are fundamental in Cosmology applications. Energy is conserved, pressure in the FLRW metric is the direct result of particle to particle interactions. This is termed an adiabatic gas in thermodynamic terms. The temperature is Inversely proportional to the scale factor. Though you can use either Gibbs law or the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac equations. (Which will also allow one to calculate the particle contribution to the temperature of each particle species. Here is the related equations of state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) you can see from this that particles with higher kinetic energy exert greater pressure. The temperature vs scale factor is [latex]a\propto \frac{1}{T}[/latex] In case your not familiar with the scale factor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) These articles each has decent coverage chapter 3 and 4 of the last link in particular 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/0409426An 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 @David your ignoring the scale of measurement. Until you can wrap your head around this detail you will continue to go astray pointlessly. Single large scale structures are miniscule compared to the size of the universe. So your last post is meaningless. It doesn't matter how inhomogeneous a cluster is. The scale that homogeneous and isotropy occurs at is far larger than a mere cluster.

Imatfaal essentially answered the question. This is confirmed by the uniformity in the CMB temperature. That temperature uniformity means the mass density is as uniform. This is confirmed via the temperature and metalicity maps by Planck and WMAP. The axis of error on the 2012 maps was largely calibration in not filtering out completely out local redshift influences. The 2015 was better filtered and the axis of evil is far less pronounced. Coincidentally Matt Roose "Introductory to Cosmology" has a good section on how Earths movement will cause this effect on redshift datamapping.

From Wikipedia on the temperature variation. 2.72548±0.00057 K. Extremely uniform. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

No your looking at the term homogeneous and isotropic wrong. Those terms apply for an extremely large scale. Roughly 100 Mpc. Yes locally to a cluster filament there is an inhomogeneous and anisotropic condition. However expansion is scaled at 100Mpc for a homogeneous and isotropic condition. The part your missing is the measurement scale to get a homogeneous and isotropic condition Take this for example look at the waves on a lake with no current. At close scales their is no uniformity. However move far enough away from the surface the lake waves will be measurable with uniformity. This is a standard technique in modelling complex systems. At 100Mpc there is no discernable preferred direction. The universe as a whole is far far larger than the LSS filaments. Measure at a large enough scale you will see uniformity in its web like patterns and won't see a preferred direction. I should note a large scale structure is considered a local measurement not a global When you look at a CMB image the temperature variations between hot and cold spots is roughly 1/1000 degree of a Kelvin. That's extremely homogeneous and isotropic. So close to zero variation it's a near perfect blackbody http://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/virgo/millennium/seqB_019a_half.jpg Here is an example at 500Mpc/h. You can easily see 500 Mpc is a small portion of the universe. Large scale structures at this scale are miniscule. The observable Universe is roughly 28 billion parsecs in diameter. You wouldn't be able to discern one filament from another at this scale. A LSS anisotropy would be so miniscule it would be negligible.

Natural consequence of expansion. When you increase a volume with the same number of particles. (Aside from any phase changes) the temperature will lower. This is already well known. pV=nRt. The temperature variations is Inversely proportional to the scale factor

Proof from Whom? A good reference is "Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos" by Eegene N Parker. Though that's certainly not the only textbook that states the universe is overall electrically neutral. I'd have to wait till I get home from the field to check Dodelsons Modern Cosmology. One line that discusses it is on page 11 chapter 1. Of the Eugene Parker book above. "The Lyttleton-Bondi conjecture challenged experimentalists to look for a slight difference between the magnitudes of the electron and proton charges. For instance, one may contemplate what is implied by the decay of a free neutron into an electron and a proton if the difference in charge is nonzero. One part in [latex]2*10^{18}[/latex] is a very small difference (see discussion in appendix A), and it was not until Dylla and King (1973) that the experimental upper limit was pushed down to one part in [latex]10^{19}[/latex], showing that any difference is negligible so far as cosmology is concerned." Sorry I can't post the source for copyright reasons. Though I've provided the legal reference format (I hope lol)

That's where your wrong. We can measure plasma, and look for magnetized influence. We've done this via the CMB. Overall the universe is electromagnetic neutral. The subject of electromagnetic influence in the overall universe isn't a new one. It's been around for quite some time. As such there have been repeated tests to confirm or disprove. The tests show electromagnetic neutrality. I would imagine though there is still papers around suggesting the possibility.

Actually I read the full thread, not sure why you would need a flames dependency on oxygen calculation. If you look through chapters 3 and 4 of the Uwe Jen article I posted earlier it will have the relevant calcs. Unfortunately the flame calculation is more in the realm of chemistry so I can't help you there.

As I also went to University of the Cariboo in Kamloops I can attest that employers in Computer science aren't too concerned with where you attended. Although I later chose a different career path. I had no issue finding jobs outside the norm. No single employee turned me down for someone from a more well known institute. Keep in mind computer science is a good start. Further studies into specialized Computer aspects can lead into higher careers. One direction is PLC programming for industrial control applications. Keep an eye out for further courses into different software. Such as excel, visual C++ etc. Look through the want ads for the common asked for languages. Jobs tend to be more plentiful in business oriented lanquages. Such as data collection and processing.

For cosmology applications the easiest starting point is the FLRW metric. Knowing how the Einstein field equations, thermodynamic laws and particle physics fit into the FLRW metric is a huge plus. The books I found most helpful with lower math was Introduction to Cosmology by Barbera Ryden (excellent book to teach the FLRW metric in toy universe modelling) Introductory to Cosmology by Matt Roose. (Good all around) Quarks and Leptons (can't recall author lol) Introductory to particle physics by Peter Griffith.( all of his books are excellent.) Modern Cosmology by Scott Dodelson is more math intensive but has a good inflation coverage. For Cosmology a basic understanding of particle physics is usually sufficient for the undergrad level For free books on physics. Relativity and QM. There is the Feynman lectures. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ Probably the most enjoyable math book in Cosmology applications regardless of model. Was "Roads to Reality" by Sir Roger Penrose. He broke down differential geometry in Cosmology and field theory applications in a humourous and simplified manner.

I've tried reading what you have posted. In some areas I'm not even sure what direction to point you in. Other than textbooks. Which is probably the best suggestion I can offer. In all honesty I found numerous misconceptions that are a result of a pop media study style. Not too unusual in that regard it's a common event with new forum members. One suggestion I have is to learn the correct terminology associated with your ideas. Understand what a field for example really is. For example what is the difference between a scalar and a vector field? Correctly describing what field would help us show you the mathematical end. For example all scalar fields can be modelled by the equations at the bottom of this page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) That equation can be adapted to any scalar interaction